Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:03, 30 March 2006

Thanks for visiting my Talk: page.

If you are considering posting something to me, please:

*Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
*Use headlines when starting new talk topics.
*Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here.
*Do not make personal attacks.

Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted.

Thanks again for visiting.

Old talk archived at Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10, Archive 11, Archive 12, Archive 13, Archive 14

Piła

Maybe it is time to unprotect it. It's been locked for about 3 weeks. Balcer 01:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for an almost instantaneous response. Balcer 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears that Wik is back. The page might need to be locked up again (though the changes being introduced are relatively harmless). Balcer 20:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian Jews

Hey jay, after you reverted the article another anon- user-203.199.106.24 (who I assume it a sock puppet because this is his first edit and he is already reverting and quoting wikipedia policy) has reverted the article once again knowing that I cannot rv his edits because I have already rv the previous editor 3 times.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

SmackBot

Thanks. Will sort. Rich Farmbrough 10:10 28 March 2006 (UTC).

Can you block the vandal

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Tylercar

Thanks, Zeq 19:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:PP

Hey! Please try not to overlook adding a page you protect to the list of currently protected pages at WP:PP. Thanks a bunch. · Katefan0/poll 21:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No biggie. I don't usually go through and compare against each other (Woohookitty liked to do that), but since he's quit RFP patrol I figured I'd go through it. Looks like Alireza Jafarzadeh, Henry Kissinger, Ethnic cleansing and Massoud Rajavi. I've added them all though, so no worries. · Katefan0/poll 21:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

DaGizza's RfA

Hi Jayjg/Archive 15, thank you for supporting me in my RfA which passed with a tally of (93/1/2). If you need any help or wish discuss something with me, you are always welcome to talk to me. Gizza 12:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hi Jay: I have received the following request concerning Rabbi Yaakov Meidan:

Rav Meidan, now a Rosh Yeshiva in Yeshivat Har Etzion, recently requested that his name be spelled in English publications as "Yaaqov Medan." As you can imagine, this spelling garners much fewer Google hits than when spelled with a k. Should his article, and all mentions of him, be changed to "Yaaqov" in deference to him as a self-identifying entity, or not? I'm not familiar enough with WP:NC to know the answer. Thanks, DLand 18:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Input is welcome. IZAK 20:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Romanians

The Romanians in Canada are around 400,000, that's the estimation, and at the 2001 Canada Census there were officially 131,000 of single or double ancestry. Please stop messing around that article and if you have a good memory, you will remember that that was put there before, so let it like that, right? NorbertArthur 29 March 2006

Look, I understand that we have to put the official figures, but we gonna put there too the estimations, right? And at Canada, please stop putting the stupids single and mixed origins numbers, because no article on wikipedia has an estimation of their population in acountry of that manner. We can just put 131,000 Romanians and after the estimationof 400,000. But please just don'tut anymore the thnig of single-multiple origins, becaue for example somebody that needs the infomation of all Romanians, that means 131,000. NorbertArthur 29 March 2006

Jayjg, I've responded to your query at my talk page. And Norbert, you've been around long enough to know that citations are required, and to discuss and explain your proposed changes first on the talk page. You also know that the Romanians article properly covers "ethnic Romanians" only, and not all and sundry groups who have even a tangential association or background with the country of Romania itself. --cjllw | TALK 02:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Names and Titles of Jesus

Dear Jay, the New Testament does, in fact, call Jesus God, and implies that he is God in many places. Naturally, Judaism and Islam objects to this fiercely, and is one reason, as you know, that Judaism has a hard time with the New Testament and why Islam has a hard time believing the New Testament to be a true record of Jesus.

So I think we need to keep the title "God" in the article. Now, the passages quoted do not all directly claim deity for Jesus, and I'll argue for their removal for that reason. There also are some NPOV issues, calling Jesus "Christ" without qualification, for instance, that I would support you editing.

But push comes to shove, I have to side with the anonymous user on the title itself. --CTSWyneken 22:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the verse list needs some editing, which I will get to. But there is no question that John 1:1 "and the Word was God" and others I will provide say so. If you wish, I can provide you the scholarly references that back this up. I'm even willing to point to groups I have as hard a time calling Christian as you have considering Jews for Jesus Jewish, have a different view. It does not change, however, that scholars believe the NT teaches the divinity of Jesus. --CTSWyneken 22:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

--CTSWyneken 22:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the verse list needs some editing, which I will get to. But there is no question that John 1:1 "and the Word was God" and others I will provide say so. If you wish, I can provide you the scholarly references that back this up. I'm even willing to point to groups I have as hard a time calling Christian as you have considering Jews for Jesus Jewish, have a different view. It does not change, however, that scholars believe the NT teaches the divinity of Jesus. --CTSWyneken 22:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take up what the New Testament says on this subject with you, but it doesn't make much of a difference in what should be in or out of the article. At the very least, a large number of scholars of the New Testament maintain that this passage is a point blank statement of the divinity of Jesus and that He is God. Whether this or the opposing viewpoint represents a majority on the subject is hard to say without research. We may have to resort to "some...others" language. A part from scholarship, however, the traditions that represent orthodox Christianity east and west see it that way. So it belongs in. If you wish, I'll collect references.

Let me check a few assumptions with you first. From your background, can we assume Hellenistic Judaism to be the background of the Gospel of John? If so, I'm really puzzled. I've always been told that Judaism was radically monotheistic. There is no room in it for any divinity other than the God. Am I wrong? If I'm right, how can John say καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, "and God was the Word," (1:1) and μονογενὴς θεὸς, "the only born God," (1:18) and not be calling Jesus the God of Israel? --CTSWyneken 02:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Serious problem involving the Agapetos Arbitration

I'm sorry to spam your talk page, but this seemed serious enough to directly put on your talk page. I have evidence that AiG has actively had employees push their POV on the AiG page and possibly on related pages. I have added a new evidence section in the Agapetos arbitration to that effect, explaining the evidence. Due to the very serious nature of this accusation and its possible implications for Misplaced Pages, I decided to directly alert all of the ArbCom members. JoshuaZ 01:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Khomeini

I've added some stuff about Khomeini's views on non-Muslims, but people might try to take them out. Could you keep an eye on that article as well? Aucaman 14:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)