User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 4

Talk:Race
I'm sorry if a seem too talkative to you. My comment was in reply to the anonymous comment above, not in criticism of the article. Yes I do know these discussions get repetitive; you could have scolded the author of the anonymous comment, telling him to restrain himself. In defense of what I said (relevance to the present state of the article): The specific point about comparing human variation with interspecies variation seems absent from the article, as are the numbers 98% and 20 (or 5%). The chimpanzees are mentioned in the long-winded "history of the term". an allusion to the quantitative relations is made in Image:Human-nj-tree.png, but the information I supplied is absent (i.e. the 'gapped' branch in the image should be 20 times the length of the inter-human branches to allow an objective quantitative idea of 'race' vs. 'species'. Finally, my comment was not one of the more rambling ones common on WP. dab 18:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FT2
I'm posting this to both of you. The article's unlocked, but this does not mean wholesale revert and edit disputes. Please don't edit for a few minutes. I want to see what BOTH of you have written, and my aim will be to ask you BOTH to stop editing for a bit, stop reverting, and let me take a look 1st. For what its worth in passing my initial impression is the same as that on the article's talk page: SIrubenstein's initial edits were superior to my own wording. I also want to see Cheesedreams wordings if he's added any, and will remove either of both that seem radically POV. I plan to an extent not just to mediate the talk, but to try and guide the two of you as you write the article each contributing valuable information and points to improve it.

When I'm done I'll remove the header and at that point please both COMMENT on the articles talk page on whether you can live with whats there as a starting point. If you cant I may ask for the PROT to go back if you cant both agree something as a basis for going forward.

Please say on my talk page if this is agreeable. FT2

Okay. Please do NOT edit the current version, except for small errors. I have included the most neutral versions of everything that people have done, and tried to do an honest job. I think its good and I think its broadly neutral but yet pays tribute to both secular and christians, and allows both to find what they need. Comments (brief and summary!!) on the talk page for now. hen see where we are at. FT2 03:52, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Jesus stuff
I find this incredibly disheartening. What kind of project is this where a version that pretty much everyone recognizes as clearly superior does not get to be the default version we work from, simply because one user, who clearly is pretty much incapable of dealing with others in any reasonable fashion, objects. This is actually an instance that makes me deeply disillusioned with the wiki as a whole. Privileging process over product in this way seems to me entirely indefensible. The purpose of the article shouldn't be to coddle CheeseDreams. It should be to come up with the best article we can, and it seems to me that the quasi-mediation is accomplishing the former, and very clearly not accomplishing the latter. But I'm not sure what can be done about it. john k 08:32, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gah, the whole thing is a mess. FT2 seems to me to be about as bad as CheeseDreams, in terms of practical results (his insistence that he has some sort of authority over the content of the article as a mediator is especially annoying). And now someone else has come in and says that the clearly horrible "To those who believe in him, Jesus" opening is better than the "According to the Gospels, Jesus" one? Gah...at this point, I don't even know what to say, this seems to be pure process fetishism. john k 20:18, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could you please see anon edits at Jesus? I'm not sure if the additions are accurate, and haven't time to crosscheck. - Amgine
 * No, that was the edit I was referring to. So many of the anon edits have been vandalism, and while I was pretty sure of what they meant I just didn't want to assume it was non-vandalism. Thanks for checking for me! - Amgine 02:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * In the interests of NPOV the commonness of the name should probably be mentioned. Perhaps by pointing to its most common english translation being Joshua? - Amgine 03:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Jesus" section critique
Hi. You asked why I prefer one version to another. I thought it might be better to explain on your talk page, I hope that&#8217;s OK. This is just my opinion, and I hope I don&#8217;t seem harsh. I&#8217;ll quote the text and bullet my comments.

&#8220;According to the Gospels, Jesus lived in the Galilee and Judea (modern day Israel and Palestine) around the first half of the first century CE.&#8221;


 * I would prefer the &#8220;according to&#8221; at the end of the sentence. That way, the article and sentence would start with the subject of both.
 * This sentence in and of itself is fine, but it leads me to expect more information specifically about Jesus (especially biographical information) to follow immediately, in the next sentence. The change to what actually does follow is too abrupt.

&#8220;Some people, especially fundamentalist Christians, take the Gospels to be a literal and accurate account of Jesus' life; other people question whether Jesus ever existed (see Historicity of Jesus for an account of this debate).&#8221;


 * Writing &#8220;Opinion is divided &#8230;&#8221; could make the point more concisely and formally (fitting for an encyclopedia).
 * This part: &#8220;take the Gospels to be a literal and accurate account of Jesus' life&#8221; gives me mild confusion; as a reader, I am unsure what to expect next.
 * To go from (roughly speaking) whether the Gospels are literal to whether Jesus actually existed is a big jump.
 * There are too many ideas in this sentence. It could be improved by ending it after &#8220;existed&#8221; and making the parenthetical part a separate sentence.

&#8220;Some, people, including such critical Bible scholars and historians as Bart Eheman, Paula Fredriksen, John Meier, E.P. Sanders, and Geza Vermes, however, accept that Jesus lived, but reject the Gospels as a literal account of his life.


 * I dislike starting two sentences in a row with the same two words.
 * The predicate is too far from the subject. Requires too much interest or patience from the reader.
 * These two sentences, especially one right after the other, are ping-pongy.

&#8220;Specifically, they reject supernatural elements including miracles; argue that the Gospels were written from the point of view of, and in order to support, an orthodox Christianity that was emerging between the second and fourth centuries CE; and that an account of Jesus' life must make sense in terms of his historical and cultural context, rather than Christian orthodoxy.&#8221;

This sentence, in and of itself, is fine. But:
 * It might be better bulleted.
 * I don&#8217;t know where it&#8217;s taking me. Is the article about the debate between these various views?
 * It is an abrupt end for a section.

I hope this is helpful. Maurreen 08:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Avot
I have a question inspired by your discussion w/FT2 regarding the Avot tractate.

Neusner goes into quite a bit of detail regarding the Talmud of the Land of Israel, and dating it incidentally to between 400 and 450, but leaves the Avot undiscussed except as part of the BCE 200 Mishna. (At least in Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era.) Can you point me toward a reference regarding the history of this tractate? - Amgine 23:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

BCE vs CE You're right, typo... I knew what I meant, but that wasn't what I said... - Amgine

POV and historians
Let me address the last question first: I have not examined your essay as to its specific Christian bias or lack thereof. However, most of the authors you have mentioned have a specific view of history's progress, both method and direction, which is distinctly "Christian" in that it views Christianized cultures as differently valued.

You asked if I knew of any other points of view which might be included. One distinct point of view relevant to the culture and history elements is that of the Jewish historians. In my current readings, these scholars seem to have a distinct POV which is not represented in what I recall of your essay (I haven't perused it since the page was locked, so I may not be recalling precisely.) Other viewpoints I have come across in the past month include Persian, Greek, and Islamic, some of which may be rather divergent from those you have reported on.

It's rather like the systemic bias of the Internet, in general. The literature available to us tends to favor the history of the language in which it is writ. I encourage you to look at translations of historians working in other languages, merely for the comparison.

Finally, historians are not the only sources of valuable information regarding history. An archaeologist associate once argued with me for calling him an historian; his opinion being he works with facts, while historians make up what they will to fit those facts. Much of what I've been reading works with a small collection of facts and on them bases conjectures. Most often this is undoubtedly reasonable and valuable, but a citation for a conjecture is hardly to be considered authoritative to the exclusion of other interpretations of those same facts.

- Amgine 01:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh!
 * No, I did not intend you to assume I felt your authors were inherently wrong because they were white and/or christian. I mean there is an inherent or systemic bias in the vast majority of academic writing due to underlying cultural themas. To some extent this is due to the way knowledge is constructed in any single language. Other elements are due to differing or missing cultural concepts.
 * One example of this which I have experienced is the difference between Neusner and Miehl (translated by Knohl). Although both work with Jewish historical texts, their approaches and preconceptions (for example, Miehl does not assume the Diaspora) are often quite different due to their cultural context (Neusner identifies himself as a part of the Diaspora, while Miehl's heritage is of Jews who never left the middle east.) Thus you have a "Western" POV and a "Near-Eastern" POV, both from Jewish backgrounds, but quite different. As a similar example, a Persian grad student explained to me how very little they know of Rome or the Greeks, since there were two far greater Persian empires from which most world knowledge has developed. Consider Chinese history, which had closer ties to the region historically than many parts of Europe. An historian from these other POVs would probably have a very different set of biases.
 * As for "there is certainly a bias in this approach" my intent was to highlight the inherent bias of academia, which rarely admits of the chaos which makes up everyday life but instead focuses on generalizations and dichotomous variables. It is far easier to describe either/or than to develop continuums. Finally, I have seen far more effort by academicians to prove a point (or dispute one) than is invested in producing good quality research; I would be extremely surprised if History turned out to be any different.
 * One last point (I know, I keep saying that...) If I examine your essay to consider, for example, the exact period being discussed, I am seeing and noting different information than when I am critiquing its christian or western bias. Similarly, when grading papers for MLA compliance I note different elements than when looking for a synthesis of a research methodology.
 * Very long-winded tonight. I hope I have addressed your concerns. - Amgine 04:43, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern, unfortunately too well. I will attempt, when I critique on bias, to be specific and explicit.
 * Just a weird factoid I just found - Neusner has been involved in 249 book manuscripts! that's more than some of the professional editors I've known... Either he doesn't sleep, or he's first author in name only. I'm having a hard time finding english texts which are not based on his earlier works. - Amgine 21:28, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cultural and Historical background of Jesus
SLR, sorry to see that both the Jesus article and the Cultural and Historical Background of Jesus article have become such sources of frustration for you. Just a glance through the Talk page of the latter is enough to tire me out. Cheesedreams and FT2 have to be two of the most persistent creatures anywhere and it's a shame their takes on these topics are so out there. I read Jesus a while back and thought it was excellent, but it must have been a version recently minted by you and a few other reasonable people. I'll take a look at it in the upcoming days... I delay because I know I might get drawn into the debate and I'd rather use my tiny energy reserves for useful editing. All I can say is: keep plugging away. When you're tussling with Cheesedreams and similar POV machines try to keep in mind that many other, quieter people appreciate your work. JDG 23:40, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mediation
Hi Slrubenstein, sorry about your lack of email; that is going to make things more difficult.

As I said at Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus, I am trying to get away from a "I said"-"you said" disagreement, where all that I can understand from what is said is a series of accusations & denials. And this appears to be where the article -- & the dispute -- is currently at.

What you wrote is not lost: I printed off a copy of it, & it exists in the history log for my Talk page. If I end up moving all of the discussion to a general page, it will reappear there.

As I said before, I see good points made on all sides, but I feel it will be a challenge to get everyone to agree that is the case. Please have patience. -- llywrch 02:29, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I saw your note about email. As soon as you get an account, could you contact me? I'd like to contact you privately. -- llywrch 19:14, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I just saw your note. I have no idea why my email link would bounce; I just rechecked the address it links to, & that is the same one I've had for almost 12 years. I've been busy with one person for the last 2 days, so that is why you haven't seen any email from me. I'll be rememdying that omission that shortly. -- llywrch 00:33, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't use the link on my home page at agora -- use the link on my User page here at Wikipedia. Or just reply to the address on the email I sent you last night. (I had forgotten about that contact link on my home page: it was a joke I created back in 1996, the last time I updated my home page.) -- llywrch 17:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration
I have just noted, by chance, that CheeseDreams has brought a case against you, me and others for Arbitration. Given that I only found out by chance rather than notification, I thought I would let you know in case you would like to comment on WP:RFAR. jguk 22:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstood the Request for Arbitration. CheeseDreams cited us (and others) as defendants in a case that CheeseDreams is bringing. I'm not sure that you (or I - and I would rather not be there eiter) can remove our names from CheeseDreams' citations. I have readded your name before CheeseDreams takes further offence. I don't like what he's done either, but I think we both need to trust the Arbitrators to make the right decision on this on. Best wishes jguk 00:00, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think jguk is right. At first I couldn't understand the case, but apparently CheeseDreams case is against all those people, including the three of us. Jayjg 00:07, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree it's confusing. CheeseDreams could certainly have worded it better, I had to read the page three times and check the page history to be sure that it was him bringing the case against us. jguk 00:17, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

your version
Can you point me at a version of [Cultural and Historic background of Jesus] that is close to what you think is a correct version? And what parts of that version you think don't belong? Pedant 00:21, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC) Thanks for the quick response, I've been polling the recent active contributors to that page. Pedant

Great work...
...recently on Culture. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:26, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

background of Jesus
Thank you for your apology, but you have said nothing to me in the past few days for which you might need to apologize.

I do not believe, under the current circumstances, the mediation could possibly lead to a resolution of the conflict as the current mediator has decided to become involved in the dispute. Mediation, as a process, determines what the multiple parties which to accomplish, and then maps a process to achieve that goal. For example, I would have expected the mediator to find out what you would want included or excluded from the article, the same for myself, and then form a process where we could reach compromise the points of conflict. I do not feel the mediator could now do this, as it is unlikely all parties would accept the neutrality of the mediator. This is sometimes known as "poisoning the well", breaking the trust the parties have in the mediator/process.

As an example of how damaged the circumstance has become, you have called on the mediator to support you in the dispute. You, too, feel the mediator is both involved and willing/able to make decisions.

This is just my opinion, but I feel the mediation is not going to accomplish anything. Since I do *not* want to cause conflict on Wikipedia (I find it far more harmful than vandalism) I will avoid a topic region I feel currently over-run by POV and thus avoid either the stress of not supporting Wikipedia NPOV or the conflict of doing so - especially so since I am the person withdrawing from the mediation.

Amgine

Jesus in a cultural and historical background
Hi, Sl. Without expressing any particular opinion either way, might I recommend that you unprotected this page and list it on Requests for page protection? I think it's probably the easiest way to avoid any more ugliness... (and the page won't mind being unprotected for a few minutes :)  &mdash; Kate Turner | Talk 22:28, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Huh...the page rather minded, didn't it? In the time it was unprotected, CheeseDreams managed to move it to Historical reconstruction of the sort of person Jesus would be. So now I've reverted and put my ass on the line by reprotecting it. To be honest, I don't think there's any way out of this except banning CheeseDreams. Since she's rejected Llywrch's mediation, can we move to a request for arbitration? john k 23:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey, Snowspinner seems to have started up a request for arbitration against CD...not sure if it can be seconded or not. john k 16:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Out of curiosity
Why do you call CheeseDreams "bubeleh"? She doesn't seem to like it. I agree this user is engaging in bizarre behaviour, but this knickname might make it more difficult for ArbCom or anyone else to separate goats from the sheep. If a user engages in uncivil conduct, we ought not reduce ourselves to their level. Cool Hand Luke  04:11, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and thank you for restoring my amendment. I have no first-hand experience of of your problems with this user, but premature and unfounded RfCs are quite annoying, I think. Cool Hand Luke  04:14, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do what I can...
Thanks for the note -- I hoped I could provide at least a brief diversion. Despite the seriousness with which objections and allegations are made, I really find that things become remarkably silly most of the time -- you saw the RFC against me, I think. :-) The requests against you and John were frivolous too, of course, but I think we do have to grant them the merit of having described at least some of your actions correctly (you really did protect a page, as I recall).  I've tried six ways from Sunday to figure out how anything I said was ad hominem and had to give up with a chuckle.  I'm still unclear as to whether the request was merely an effort to stir up trouble, or whether there was a sincere belief that I had committed the grave offense of which I was accused.  Either way, it worries me a bit.  We'll see what comes of all this, anyhow.  I will say one thing for the events of the last month or two -- it's been nice working with the likes of you and Wesley and John K again (and I think I've met a few others on that page who are at least reasonably interested in compromise and NPOV, so good for them too).  Best wishes to you this holiday season -- I don't know whether Chanukah is observed by you or not (I try not to assume too much from "Rubenstein" since I'm probably one of the few "Rosenzweig"s in the world celebrating Christmas each year :-) but if it is I hope it's pleasant. I can't recall whether it starts early or late this year -- I suppose I should check our no doubt excellent article. Anyhow, see you soon on one page or another, Jwrosenzweig 22:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Adding a date and time stamp
Sorry to nag, but can you please use 4 tildes ~ to add a date and time stamp to your contributions to the discussions about the No Original Research Rule. I am having difficulty in following the sequence of contributions. Apwoolrich 19:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:No original research (draft rewrite)
Are you aware of: Wikipedia talk:No original research (draft rewrite)? I just asked because I noticed that you just made a change to No original research and you haven't contributed to the draft. By the way I've read the ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:No original research and I would like to say that I applaud your efforts there. Paul August 21:45, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Hope my comments help
Slr, I've left a note on the page -- I hope I don't irritate you much. :-) I don't care for Stirling's version but I still have a few changes to suggest for yours, I think.  Hopefully I can help you avoid another prolonged argument (but who knows).  I don't always have luck in that regard.  And finally, if I can offer any kind of suggestion, I think you need a break from edit-warring for a day, if you can -- I admit, Stirling's comments seem pretty off the wall, but I think you were sharper in reply to him than you would normally be.  I would humbly prescribe an hour or two with an excellent book or a CD or two of your favorite music: I know what it's like to experience Wikiburnout (I'm sure you do too) and I usually find that these things help me get a little peace and perspective.  If my suggestion comes across as patronizing or off-putting in any way, I hope you'll think nothing of it -- merely a thought I had that I felt like sharing.  Have a pleasant and light-filled evening, Jwrosenzweig 23:52, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Postmodernity reverts
I warned User:Stirling Newberry about the 3RR, so should in fairness remind you too. I suspect you're keenly aware of it considering the abrupt halt to your reverts. I wish I had taken a critical theory course, but my interest is primarily in ethics and early modern philosophy. I will say, however, that I trust User:COGDEN's judgement, and that his introduction seemed somewhat more illuminating. The plurality against the shorter introduction is compelling, but I unfortunately have nothing to add to the discussion. Cool Hand Luke  23:56, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Postmodernity debate
Ok, as you requested, I've read through the postmodernity history and discussion. I'm afraid that it's considerably outside my areas of expertise. I will say, for what it's worth, that I substantially agree with Jwrosenzweig's assessment both on talk:postmodernity and above. Paul August 00:29, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)


 * Quoth: I don't consider anything I do on wikipedia to be my own private property, so if your proposal is just about making it available more broadly I can't object!
 * Not objecting is great, but you must explicitly state on your user page (or User:Slrubenstein/Copyrights) what your intentions are (legally speaking) if you'd like to multi-license. Copy and paste into your user page a template such as  "  " (for public domain) or "  " (to restrict to copyleft CC-by-sa).    – Ram-Man (comment) (talk)   19:27, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Calling a spade a bad name
Hi, Slr... I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself. I know it's wrong, but frankly it's really annoying to see people being deliberately and brazenly deceptive, contrary, and moreover insulting. Argh. You already understand everything I want to say, here. Irritating that all of us must continue to treat him/her with the respect and decorum and good faith that s/he won't show to us. Graft 22:04, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hahaha
LOL, I thought that was CheeseDreams again. You shouldn't do that! X) -- 22:23, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Slr, you made me laugh also -- the note about Jesus looking annoyed was most amusing. I hope the article settles down soon -- certainly the misleading edit summaries are the sort of thing that will attract community attention (or so I dearly hope!) Jwrosenzweig 22:31, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration case
Your case against User:CheeseDreams has opened; please go to Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams/Evidence and submit your evidence. Thanks. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 01:39, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Language issues
I'm working my way through the archives, and I've noticed an interesting sub-misunderstanding which, for me at least, seems critical to the discussion regarding "messianic" groups.

On several occasions you make the point that figures were not described as messiahs in the context. You also state you have no problem "using the terms used at the time -- more precise, and avoids anachronisms." This raises an immediate issue, in my mind: you aren't using the Hebraic terms, you're using modern english terms. Thus you are stating no one used the term messiah which is of course true because the term didn't exist. Some of the meanings of the term are included in the term &#1502;&#1513;&#1497;&#1495;, transliterated as Ma&#X161;ía&#7717;, but not all and the contextual use would certainly not be the same as messiah.

Stepping back from that, when writing for a modern audience, in their language, one is required to use terms they are familiar with. So, describing a group as messianic, for a modern audience, describes a group with a charismatic leader with religio-political overtones. I just wasted a lot of time reading through a couple dozen articles (the text search is back on) using messiah and messianic, and I think it's safe to say none of them would qualify under the first century context of ma&#X161;ía&#7717;.

I guess what I'm trying to say is the argument against the use of "messianic groups" seems based on a fairly flawed logic. If the group would qualify by the modern usage of the term, then it should be acceptable in a modern article. But this is just my opinion of course. - Amgine 00:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for commenting on my page, but it seems to me that your research only makes my case stronger. It is true that we are writing an English encyclopedia, not a Hebrew one.  So of course we will translate words.  In most cases we should translate consistently.  For example, if Josephus uses the word for "prophet," we should use the word for "prophet;" if he uses the word for "messiah," we should use the word "Messiah."  In other words, when sources use words consistently, we should translate them consistently.  This is one basic principle of translation. Slrubenstein


 * "Messiah," however, is a special case. It is a Hebrew word that has entered into English, but its meaning has changed.  This complicates the matter of translation.  Normally, when translating from one language to another, it is simple -- for every word given a particular denotation in one language, there is another word in a different language with a similar denotation.  But what happens when two languages share the same word?  This is the question concerning "messiah."  Note: you seem to misunderstand me and seem to think I am saying we need to use the original word "moshiach" and you are saying use the English word "Messiah."  This is a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what I wrote.  This is not a question of "messiah" versus "moshiach," english versus hebrew.  I agree that the article should use English words.  But the problem is, what messiah/moshiach means for Jews today is different from what messiah/moshiah means for Christians, and what messiah/moshiach means for people today is different from what messiah/moshiach meant in the first century.  You yourself say that you have read through several articles that use the word "messiah" but not in a first century way -- which is exactly why we should be very very careful about how we use the word "messiah" in any article about 1st century Judea.  How people use the word today is different from how it was used back then.  So if we use the word at all, that difference needs to be explained.  So another principle of translation is required: take into account the changing meaning of words over time.  Slrubenstein


 * This is compounded by another matter in translation -- when a word has two translations. This is also the case with "moshiach" which can be translated as "annointed" OR as "messiah."  These aren't just two different words, theya re two different types of words: the first is a past participle noun (which usually modifies another noun), the second is a noun that stands alone.  So another principle of translation is required: be attentive to context. Slrubenstein


 * So how does this play out? We find a text from the first century that refers to "moshiah/messiah."  Should we use the word "messiah" in our article?  Or annointed?  It depends.  If the word is being used to modify another noun, like king or priest, I would translate it as the past participle (annointed king, annointed priest).  If the word is being used, in the first century, to stand alone, we have to ask whether it refers to something just like what people mean today by "messiah," or to something very different from what people today mean by "messiah?"   In most cases, it is used to mean something very different from what most people today mean.  Of course, translate it as "messiah," but then you have to explain that it doesn't mean what most people today think the word means.  And I don't think most people think it means, as you say, charismatic leader with religio-political overtones.  I think most people today think the messiah is a divine savior of humanity.  That is not what it meant back then, so we need to explain it. Slrubenstein


 * And what about "charismatic leaders with religio-politico overtones?" Well, As I said, find out what people back then called them.  Then translate that word into English.  The word is "prophet."  If 1st century sources refer to someone like the Egyption using the word that has been translated as "prophet," and if scholars continue to use the word "prophet" to describe the Egyptian, why on earth should we call him a messiah or leader of a messianic group?  I go further and say, look at the scholarship.  Scholars point out that there were two different models for prophets: the Moses kind, and the Elijah kind.  Although Jews used one word, which we translate as prophet, scholars use an adjective to modify this one word to make the distinction clear.  The "Moses" model is called "milenial prophets" and that is what we should call those "prophets" who lead these political movements.  We should definitely not call them messianic groups, because no one back then called them messiahs; they did not hold the beliefs about messiahs that people hold today; and scholars don't call them messiahs.  Three very good reasons for not calling them messiahs. Slrubenstein


 * These are the principles I have been arguing for, consistently. If you look at my version of the article, I follow exactly these principles.  I really do not see the flawed logic.  What is wrong with these principles? Slrubenstein


 * You illustrated my point, actually: if [Josephus] uses the word for "messiah," we should use the word "Messiah." Nobody, so far as I know, used the word "messiah" in surviving 1st century texts.


 * Translation, as you are aware, is not a one-for-one process. The concept of "messiah" did not exist in the languages of the region and time (David Miehl's argument aside), thus it is impossible to "translate" it.


 * Since there was no way a figure could be recognized as messianic at the time, but that a figure could fit the role by its modern definition, is obvious. The term prophet does not describe the role of messiah to a modern audience. Period. The question is only how to describe that role. You object to the word. If you know of another term which means the same that would be the best compromise. If you don't have a clear term it would be very biased against a lay audience to refuse to use language they understand. - Amgine 01:37, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One of us still misunderstands the other. First, Jews even today have a different concept of "messiah" than Christians. There is a Jewish conception of "messiah" today that Jews had in the first century. It is the Christian conception of "messiah" that did not exist in the first century, or at least in the first third of the first century. In other words, there is no "the" concept of "messiah," there are different concepts of messiah and one of these concepts did indeed exist in the first century. There most definitely is a way a person at that time could have been considered messianic.

Second, the reason I think Theudas and the Egyption should be labled as prophets is that this is the word that both the contemporary source, Josephus uses, and scholars today use. You seem to think that these two men correspond to what you call "the role [of messiah] by its modern definition." Let's leave aside the fact that your "modern" definition still excludes the definition Jews have, today as in the past. I think that even by the role of messiah in its non-Jewish "modern" definition, Theudus and the Egyptian were not messiahs.

The only way I see is to explain what Josephus and others meant by "prophet" at the time, and explain what Josephus and others meant by "messiah" at the time. Isn't this what an encyclopedia is supposed to do? Educate people? Explain things to people? Are people -- most of them non-Jews-- really going to be surprised that Jews two thousand years ago had different ideas than people (including even many Jews) have today? Aren't readers of a wikipedia article on history going to read the article because they want to learn about people in the past, in a different culture? Won't they want to know how those people classified different social actors (roles)? Wouldn't they want to learn how they used words? I see this as a "teaching moment," an opportunity to explain to people something they didn't know I think that is what encyclopedias are for. Slrubenstein 02:24, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, there was no Jewish concept of messiah. There was no doctrine of messiah in Mishnah 200CE, no doctrine of messiah in Avot, no doctrine of messiah, in fact, until the Talmud of the Land of Israel 400-450CE. See Neusner, et al. Before this time the term was used taxonomically. I have brought this to your attention before.


 * The point of the article Cultural and historical background of Jesus is not to educate readers about messiah, but to describe, in language they understand, the cultural and historical background of Jesus. - Amgine 03:05, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I will try to be clearer. Prior to Constantine there is no evidence the Jewish people believed there would be a messiah. Period. The only use... let me quote exactly - In Mishna ca A.D. 200 we look in vain for a doctrine of the Messiah. "Messiah" serves as a taxonomic indicator, distinguishing one type of priest or general from another." pg 65. Doctrine is merely a principle or group of principles presented for acceptance or belief, such as "a messiah will arise to restore the nation of Israel".


 * To use any other term - such as prophet - to describe the messianic groups is misleading to a modern audience. Their importance in the cultural/historical background is not their morality, divine inspiration, or soothsaying, but their charismatic leadership. On the other hand, there's absolutely no reason not to use "messianic", which implies messiah-like without the mantle of messiah (some would even suggest it implies falseness, but I don't think it quite goes over that edge of POV.) - Amgine 05:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Revisiting your request
Hi. Would you still like for me to read the various versions of those articles in question? If so, could you link them directly for me, just so I know what I am looking for. As an aside, best of luck in 'managing' user:198. I see he just added Leninist to the op. paragraph of the Karl Marx article: I suppose we should expect him to add Maoist, Stalinist, Trotskyite, Fidelist, et cetera, etc. reall soon! El_C


 * Uh oh. He might actually end up adding these now. I should have said nothing, or better yet, pm'd you. I confess to being mildly amused though. El_C
 * Don't listen to that troll. All he does is Slander my good name.--198 03:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * When one is uncertain of a user's gender, it's best to say s/he. El_C
 * My name is Mark "E_LC," you may call me that if you wish.--198 23:22, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Whereas my personal details are private, user:198. Yet again, I insist you cease from trolling my user talk page. El_C
 * I wish to discuss with you about the Karl Marx page but you removing my comments.--198 05:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't call me boy, –especially– when I indicate to you that I may not be male (!). And stop trolling my user talk page. All your comments will continue to be removed from there automatically. El_C
 * Well than young lady, please don't remove my comments--198 06:34, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Do not call me lady or boy. And most certainly, do not call me young. For someone who claims to be a "Professor" (no less) you have very questionable inter-personal skills. And I have not even touched on your consistent failures to articulate yourself (your grasp and knowledge of the English language strikes me as highly limited, for a Professor). I –will– remove all comments you make on my user talk page, and you will cease trolling me there and elsewhere. And you will address me respectfully in accordance with Wikipedia policies. That is all, user:198. El_C