Misplaced Pages

The quotation in question is a compromise between what I wrote and what Silence wished to write. My main intent was to stress that there is a theological tradition concerning Jesus’s appearance that depends on the assumption that his birth was miraculous, and so that normal arguments about what someone from that part of the world would look like do not apply. It was Silence who seemed to wish to – in my view – confuse this issue with the notion of “racial suprematism”. Racial suprematist positions can use either the theological mode of argument or the naturalist one. They are not dependant on one or other of these views. Ass for the central claim that theologians have argued that Jesus must have been a physically ideal person, that’s well established. There are a number of descriptions of Jesus from spurious ancient sources that were accepted as legitimate during the middle ages. One 'Publius Lentullus' is supposed to have described him as of “singular beauty, surpassing the children of men". There are several other such idealised descriptions. You can find them on this website . The website itself is a bit idiosyncratic, but the summary of theological positions is confirmed by other sources. I have an old book called Christ in Art by F.W. Farrar, dated 1901 which contains the same information. There was a theological debate about whether Jesus would have looked ordinary or ideal. St Jerome and St Augustine both argued that he would have been ideally beautiful, As Augustine said, he was "beautiful as an infant, beautiful on earth, beautiful in heaven" (Christ in Art, p. 73). Such arguments were familiar to Renaissance artists. Paul B 20:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify – here is my original edit that led to the dispute. The first part is the previous version. My additions are in italics: "Jesus was most likely a bronze-skinned man of Middle Eastern descent, based on the area in which he lived; see Race of Jesus. However there is scarce information from the time on what Jesus' racial background was, and many choose to envisage Jesus as white, black, and dozens of other, less common possibilities. Of course, according to orthodox Christian theology his birth was wholly miraculous, bypassing conventional genetic laws of inheritence, so ordinary arguments about race have no relevance to anyone who accepts the doctrine that Jesus was literally the Son of God. This belief was generally taken as given by the most artists who portrayed him, and whose portrayal reflected the views at the time about the ideal male physiognomy." Note that there are no comments about "racial suprematism" or references to specific races. The main purpose was to add the important point that orthodox Christian theology has produced a wholly different type of argument about Jesus's appearance than the naturalistic one previously discussed in the article. I thought it important to add this fact. I also thought that the last sentence I added was useful as a lead-in to the next section discussing artistic portrayals of Jesus. I still do not understand why Silence declared this addition to be "POV". Paul B 23:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

addendum: note that all comments about an "ideal race" and "racial suprematism" were added by Silence in this unexplained edit . And yet, bizarrely, his recent comments on the Talk page imply that these statements are mine, not his, since he devotes some effort to arguing against them! Paul B 09:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Valley2

Don't you think blocking User:Valley2 was a bit harsh? He didn't seem particulary persistent.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Cheese

I've updated Cheese in response to your (accurate) comments at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Cheese. Thanks. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Answers.com database dump

Supposedly, they've had hard times keeping the dumps working with their system, so they usually only manually update current event pages. They're also saying it might be fixed by the time we add the link. Ral315 (talk) 07:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Jesus

Hello TBSDY. I'm here to say I'm not a fan of you unprotecting a page two days after I had protected it here.

1. (cur) (last) 02:03, 25 October 2005 Ta bu shi da yu (→Early life)
2. (cur) (last) 01:58, 25 October 2005 Ta bu shi da yu (→Notes)
3. (cur) (last) 01:57, 25 October 2005 Ta bu shi da yu (→Notes)
4. (cur) (last) 01:57, 25 October 2005 Ta bu shi da yu (→Historicity)
5. (cur) (last) 01:56, 25 October 2005 Ta bu shi da yu (→Notes)
6. (cur) (last) 01:53, 25 October 2005 Ta bu shi da yu
7. (cur) (last) 00:49, 25 October 2005 Ta bu shi da yu (oops, typo)
8. (cur) (last) 00:48, 25 October 2005 Ta bu shi da yu (Jesus is seen as more than a Rabbi)
9. (cur) (last) 23:52, 24 October 2005 Ta bu shi da yu (→Background - no source is given here either, and the Race of Jesus article isn't THAT great either)
10. (cur) (last) 23:50, 24 October 2005 Ta bu shi da yu (→Background - to "many envisiage")
11. (cur) (last) 23:49, 24 October 2005 Ta bu shi da yu (→Background - to "some Christians")
12. (cur) (last) 23:38, 24 October 2005 Ta bu shi da yu (unprotect)
13. (cur) (last) 16:56, 24 October 2005 Slrubenstein (reverting my well-intentioned but ill-timed edit)
14. (cur) (last) 16:51, 24 October 2005 Slrubenstein (removing an anachronistic term)
15. (cur) (last) 16:52, 22 October 2005 Redwolf24 (Protecting. Quit yer edit warring)

I would prefer the page be unprotected by someone uninvolved. Not someone who unprotects it just so they can edit without being reverted. The article hadn't been discussed, so why protect at all? Plus you didn't remove it from WP:PP. Please next time you wanna edit a protected article, check the reason, and how long ago it was, and if it was recent and the reason is still in effect, go edit a different article. Thanks. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

My above tone sounds ruder than was meant, but point is I'd like it if you discussed it with me after such a short protection period. Cheers. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Jesus

Concerning your addition, I sympathize with Silence for this reason: the introduction should be as NPOV as possible. Assuming that Jesus existed, is there anything Christians and non-Christians can agree about? This is a "lowest common denomenator" approach but regarding a controversial topic like Jesus I think it is appropriate. After the first paragraph, there are paragraphs on Jesus' importance to Christians. Also, later in the article, there is space for the Christian (or Gospel) account of Jesus. I ask you, humbly and in good faith, to put the content you care about in those sections and not in the first paragraph. Your content is not being excluded, it is just being put in sections that are specifically identified with Christian points of view. Moreover, your addition is not directly making a claim about Jesus, it is making a claim about a claim that the Gospels make about Jesus. fair enough -- as I said, I DO think there is a place for this in the article. But my point now (point #2) is that you really are making a statement about the Gospels and I think well, we have a link to the article on the Gospels, you should invest your time improving that article rather than fighting over the first paragraph to the Jesus article. remember, the Gospels say LOTS of things, and even you do not think all of them should go in the first paragraph of the Jesus article. I am going one step further and saying those things of special importance to Christians -- or Jews, or Muslims, or any one group -- should not go into the first paragraph either. Let the first paragraph say the minimum, and leave it to other sections to say more. Remember Luke 22:70. There are some things that are best left for others to say, sometimes in other places, somtimes at other times. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I originall wrote "preacher" and someone changed that to Rabbi. I myself wasn't sure but I checked the Gospels and disciples do address Jesus as Rabbi. Personally, I would have no objection to changing that to "Preacher and teacher," but I did read an English version of the NT that has people calling him rabbi. Now, the NT may not call Jesus a healer, but he does heal people, it is something he does a lot. By the way, I adamantly oppose "spiritual healer" it uses "spiritual" in an anachronistic way. There are two things the Gospels describe Jesus as doing a lot: preaching, and healing. Non-christians don't contest that. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You certainly don't need to apologize, in fact, I am flattered that you turned to me, and value your willingness to share with me your views — after all, we come to Misplaced Pages to learn and to teach, right? You wrote, "OK, I see what you were saying on the Talk:Jesus page. I just want make it clear that the Gospels detail that Jesus is more than just a healer and teacher (though he was most definitely both of these)." I am glad that you see my point (what I mean is, I know I do not always express myself clearly. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I do want people to understand me! And sometimes it takes me time to figure out how best to explain myself, and sometimes I need the help of others). I genuinely believe that no one will contest your claim that the Gospels view Jesus as much more than a healer and a preacher; I genuinely believe that there is an appropriate place in the Jesus article, as well as other articles, to make that point. I just think that since people who did not necessarily become Christians after Jesus's crucifixion nevertheless saw him heal people and preach before he was killed, and since the Gospels describe these as Jesus's main activities while he was alive (and for me this is crucial, because as I see it — my own opinion — the main difference between Christians and non-Christians is that Christians believe Jesus was resurrected after he was killed (and yes, I understand that this event is connected with other important claims in the Gospels, e.g. the virgin birth and that Jesus is God's son, but it still seems to me that as far as events go, it is the crucifixion + resurrection that are absolutely central for Christians). Non-Christians, for example, Jews and atheists, do not believe Jesus was resurrected. However, even Jews and atheists can believe that he lived.) And while he was alive, he preached and healed. Rereading your comments I think part of the problem is that I (or whoever else wrote that sentence) used nouns -- "Jesus was a preacher and healer, or rabbi and healer." Maybe it wouldn't have bothered you as much if we used verbs instead: "According to the account in the Gospels, Jesus spent much of his time preaching and healing;" putting it this way doesn't make any claims about what he "was." I guess my idea was, even people who cannot agree on what Jesus was can agree at least on some of the things he did. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

First, Misplaced Pages, at least on my computer, is especially slow. Second, it takes time to write. third, even if I didn;t write anything, I don't see how you could be dissatsisfied with my my change. In fact, the change I made was laready explained by what I wrote in the paragraphs above. I already explained to you what I see the difference between the first and second paragraphs. You should have predicted my response, since I had already explained it to you. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy editing. Alphax  00:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

USA PATRIOT Act

I wholly agree with you, and support your position — but I'm far too ignorant of the subject to help to do anything about it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I also agree with you in that the USA PATRIOT Act article is highly lacking in worthwhile information. However, you have to take in the history of the article. It began as "Bush is evil and the USA PATRIOT Act is out to get YOU!!!" After many months, some factual information has been added. However, every fact is quickly accompanied by a warning that the act is evil. I have tried to temper down the inflamatory edits with referenced facts, but it is usually just me against everyone else. Then, I run into Zephram the Troll. Dealing with a troll like that just takes all the enjoyment out of Misplaced Pages and I lose complete interest in all of it. Oh - and you are correct. I am not a big monkey house. Kainaw 14:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I sympathise with you over Zephram Stark — he's an incorrigible PoV-pusher, and what in Greek would be called "exypnovlakas" (I'd better not translate). As for Ta bu shi da yu's reply on my Talk page, you're quite right of course; give me six weeks or so, and I'll be able to help... There are five more weeks of term with an unusually heavy teaching load, then a week or so of Admissions interviews. Then I'll be back up to my normal editing capacity; at the moment I'm a couple of days behind checking my Watchlist, and falling behind on my essay-marking too. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:MEA Template

I removed your addition to the template for three reasons. First it's not a complete list and should not be prominantly featured until it is. Second, there are many subprojects within WP:MEA that are not listed on the template because they are not active and I fear that the list you generated will be no different. Third, there is a very similar and public domain project already listed (Easton's Dictionary). Reflex Reaction 14:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I also think it was highly inappropriate to link to your user page in a template. --Reflex Reaction 14:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Please see my comments at my RFA, I hope they alleviate some of your concerns, and thank you for your thoughts because no man is above criticism. --Reflex Reaction 16:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

French user Treanna

• fr:Discussion Utilisateur:Treanna/Livre d'or

To explain a little, Treanna was the more active french wikipedian. He is historian in fact, working on old scrool (paper), and spend lot of time on wikipédia. He had something bad this summer, a little aneuryms and Phlebitis, the french community was worry to learn he went to hospital for several chirurgical operations, but he return safe to wikipedia, around the first week september. The 19, Anthere -one other mythique wikipedian on fr- received an email annoncing the death of Treanna.
The french wikipedia is growing to a big website like en, but we still have something from the begginning, and we still have some point of an happy family working together, and more for the old wikipedians. Now we miss him, as the main french wikipedian he was and stay "mythic" and our "mythic friend" ^-^.

That's all, if you want say or annonce this to other english wikipedians, say them than all french user have to thanks Treanna and them too :]

881 Yug (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: WP:SIGN

I've replied at Misplaced Pages talk:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2005-10-24/ArbCom election. Thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 23:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFA/SV

I deeply appreciate your support at my RFA. Sincerely, St|eve 04:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi insurgency

Hi Ta bu. There's been a lot of action over at Iraqi insurgency. If you check the history, it looks like one guy keeps reverting to his favorite version (with 3 or 4 people reverting him), and whenever he gets blocked for violating the 3RR he just creates a new account and reverts again. I was blocking him for 3RR violations, but at this point I've become too involved, so it would inappropriate for me to use my admin priveleges. Wanna take a look, and maybe keep an eye on this one? Thanks, – Quadell 11:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi There

Hello Ta Bu shi da yu, I haven't been using Misplaced Pages that much, I have however made some changes to some of the entries for Berowra Heights, Berowra Creek and Berowra.

Jpmanalo 01:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Page move

G'day Ta bu shi da yu, could you please use your magical admin powers to please move "Weird Al" Yankovic's third album to Dare to Be Stupid as per the naming convention set out at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions#Album titles and band names. I'm requesting this of you rather than going through WP:RM as the process takes to long and that this move doesn't require a vote. Thank you very much. Ianblair23 (talk) 05:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes mate, please change "Dare To Be Stupid" to "Dare to Be Stupid" as the word "to" is a preposition, and according to the naming convention all prepositions in album titles are to be in lowercase. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that mate, very much appreciated. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

RFD

Hello, Ta bu shi da yu, not sure on the right protocol for this but I think an admin should look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Multimedia_literacy and maybe remove the RFD.AdelaideRandel 06:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

--many thanks you are a gentleman(or women if the case may be) and a scholar.AdelaideRandel 07:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice tidy edit

good compromise Cheers! Pedant 07:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)