User talk:Jayjg/Archive 8 - Misplaced Pages

< User talk:Jayjg

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sam Spade (talk | contribs) at 21:17, 22 July 2004 (re:). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:17, 22 July 2004 by Sam Spade (talk | contribs) (re:)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages

Here are some links I find useful

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Cheers, Sam 16:38, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

By the way, Sam, I didn't thank you for doing this when I joined Misplaced Pages because I didn't know how, or know who you were. Let me rectify that; thanks for welcoming me and posting this. Jayjg 02:52, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You've got me wrong

If only you knew me you would see how silly it was for you to accuse me of intejecting my own personal bias. I am merely trying to state the case for the reasonable anti-zionist and set that apart from the anti-semitic anti-zionist. But, please, stop the name calling and inuendo and the false conclusions. MShonle 04:53, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Really, Mshonle, you're one to talk. Read over your comments to me; see how full they are of accusations and innuendo that I have an "agenda" to equate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, that I am somehow threatened by your insertions, etc. Then look over my comments for even one case of "name calling"; you won't find any. Jayjg 17:01, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Recent edits

Jayjg, I trust you might actually want to make some additions to the project than just kicking up dust on talk pages. I'm convinced your intentions are noble, but some double-checking (the type that would have prevented your comment on Talk:Ultra-Orthodox Judaism) might help. Also be reminded that refraining from personal attacks is important Misplaced Pages policy. JFW | T@lk 08:04, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jfdwolff, I was highly insulted by your post to me in talk:ultra-Orthodox Judaism, in which you insinuated that I had not even read the article about which I was commenting. I'm also insulted by your implication that I have made any personal attacks here on Misplaced Pages, and would like you to point out any. I'm having a hard time getting beyond these issues with you. Jayjg 17:19, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

O.K., you apologized for the talk:ultra-Orthodox Judaism thing, thank you. Jayjg 15:15, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm having difficulty recollecting what prompted my above message. Having been around here a little while I've developed a (perhaps unhealthy) weariness of a particular type of discussion, and sometimes jump the gun in responding. Please accept my apologies again; may we work on many articles together in a constructive fashion. JFW | T@lk 21:08, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Demographics & Russian Poland

Hi Jayjg, Please see Jewish diaspora for the latest numbers I picked up from Jpost. In regards to Ru. Poland, I am familiar with the area, but this is the 1st time I meet this term. AFAIK, it is called either Ukraine, Byelorussia or Lithuania. Post-1795 and post-Napoleon those parts of Poland belonged to Russian Empire. Next division was in 1939 which is beyond the scope. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 18:12, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi Humus. Russian Poland is not the Ukraine, ByeloRussia, or Lithuania, but the Polish speaking territories controlled by Russia, which Russia lost after World War I. Jayjg 19:14, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I suspect you're talking about Congress Poland. I suggest we either use this familiar term (at least to my ears) or create a new entry or a redir for R.P. What do you think? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 19:56, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Congress Poland seems reasonable to me, though I don't think it's a commonly known term. It should probably have parentheses after it such as:

Congress Poland (the Russian controlled Polish territories).

To be honest, the phrase "Russian controlled Polish territories" is probably better that Russian Poland or Congress Poland. Jayjg 20:06, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I created a redir. IMHO these details should be reflected elsewhere. There is enough controversies with Z. already. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 20:27, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I see someone has fixed this awkward phrase. Since the territory in question was formally under Imperial Russia's control at the time and the pogroms of 1881-84, 1903-05, 1915-21 are also associated with Russia, IMO it's cleaner this way. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 22:47, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Al-Kirkisani

Hi Jayjg,

On the Karaite Judaism portion of the Jew page, you added the word 'later' and specified "Al-Kirkisani lived after Anan" - what's the point? IMO, the addition of the word 'later' is redundant, but that's just me.

Be Well--Josiah 00:14, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Yoshiah. There are different views of the origins of the Karaites. The vast majority of scholars consider them to be descendants wholly, or in part, of the Ananites. Some Karaites, however, present a very different view, preferring to see themselves as descendants of the Sadducees, and often repudiating any relationship with the Ananites. I say "some" Karaites, of course, because other Karaites do not repudiate this connection at all. The scholarly view (which sees al-Kirkisani and Anan ben David as part of a continuum), and the views of some Karaites, cannot be entirely ignored in favour of your view, which would like to excise Anan from Karaite history. The fact that al-Kirkisani criticised Anan is neither here nor there; Rabbinic Judaism is filled with later Rabbis criticising the views of earlier Rabbis, yet they are all part of Rabbinic Judaism. In fact, you've inspired me to add the views of other Karaites to the articles referring to them. Jayjg 00:55, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. If you wouldn't mind, would you post links to the articles you plan to ammend in my User_Talk:Yoshiah_ap? --Josiah 04:55, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re; Hebrew language vs. "Canaanite languages"

Hi , please see:

Request for assistance in a conflict between users regarding Canaanite and Hebrew linguistics articles

Your interest and input would be appreciated. Thank you. IZAK 10:24, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Update: The above discussion was moved to Talk:Hebrew languages. Your input would be appreciated. IZAK 06:54, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Revert wars and Ultra-Orthodox

Revert wars can only really be stopped if some common grounds can be found between the reverting parties on the talk page. Otherwise, the normal rules for conflict resolution apply (e.g. first mediation, then arbitration). Someone who reverts the same article for 3 times without engaging in meaningful debate can be banned, see Misplaced Pages:Three strikes you're out policy (still tentative). It seems you've already initiated some steps against Simonides; if he does not respond to mediation attempts, then arbitration may be required.

As for Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, I'll have a look at the talk page, and make the move on the basis of that discussion. JFW | T@lk 22:14, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be covered under the Judaism Wikiproject, also?--Josiah 04:35, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Saw your note, thanks. I was away, will take a look. Pls do smth with your home page, it's a joke to leave it like this. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:03, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Humus. I don't know much about home pages, though I see you helped fix mine up at one point. What would you suggest? Jayjg 14:51, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

humus_sapiens-{AT}-yahoo-{DOT}-com ←Humus sapiens←Talk 18:33, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

About Simonides and straw-man arguments against Jews

I am becoming very concerned about the behaviour of Simonides; he has already declared himself an enemy of "Zionist" contributions to Misplaced Pages, (although he has little idea of what this word really means; he uses this word as slur word.) Simonides's distortion of the content of the anti-Zionism article (and others), and his distortion of the views of Jewish groups, are straw-man attacks. As you know, no mainstream Jewish denomination, organization or group has ever claimed that a criticism of an Israeli policy or government is anti-Semitism; no on here on Misplaced Pages here is saying that either. Simonides' repeated claims to the contrary are Jew-baiting strawman attacks. They are not only factually false (and thus have no place in an encyclopedia), but will only serve to encourage open anti-Semitism. This isn't about a disagreement on how to phrase facts; this is about his manufactoring of false "facts" in order to hurt others whom he disagrees with. This behaviour is out of line, and if he continues, we may need to bring this up on the Wiki-En list. RK 13:37, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Hi RK. I don't know much about Misplaced Pages arbitrarion procedures (yet), nor am I familiar with Simonides aside from our interactions on the anti-Semitism page. I'm a little dismayed by his persistent personal attacks in the Talk: page, but I still intend to work through the changes to the anti-Semitism page, and hope he can come on board in terms of making some positive contributions, rather than just censoring views that he disagrees with. Once anti-Semitism is cleaned up, I may be able to look at other pages for POV and non-neutrality. Jayjg 14:55, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Retards

I'm not sure what you mean about this word being offensive. What isn't offensive? Gypsy can be offensive in some contexts, refering to itenerant people of any ethnicity. Where I used to live people said "gyp" to refer to an unfair deal, as in "Three dollars??? Thats a gyp". Where I live now the word "Jew" is used in the same way "I was gonna charge you for that refill, but I decided not to jew ya". Retard is a clinical term. I suppose I could have said "mental retards" or maybe "those suffering from mental retardation" but I'm not P.C. Maybe you'd prefer I'd have said "differently abled", something so impossibly vague as to refer to anyone or anything? No way, no newspeak for me ;) Sam 21:19, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Sam. I didn't see "retard" used as a clinical term on that page.

re·tard (rtärd)

n. Offensive Slang

1. Used as a disparaging term for a mentally retarded person.

2. A person considered to be foolish or socially inept.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Jayjg 21:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It was short for retarded. :) Sam 21:59, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello. Simonides has requested mediation concerning, amongst others, the following articles, some of which you may have been involved with: Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Modern anti-Semitism, PLO, Hamas, and Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Would you agree to discuss these issues with Simonides with the help of a mediator? If so, please respond at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation or on my talk page. If there are any mediators you would rather not handle this case, please say so. There is a list of them at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee.

Angela, member of the Mediation Committee, 05:53, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Seperation Barrier

I'm impressed with your geniality on the seperation barrier page. Got any ideas on where to find more photographs? A brief Google search leads to to pictures that are probably more represenative of the majority of the wall. The only thing I could easily find that might be open license, or permission easily obtainable, was this image at

Stargoat 18:40, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your compliment, Stargoat. So far using Google and Yahoo I found these pictures:

Most of them seem too small to show anything clearly; the last two are larger, and might work, but I don't know how you can tell if something is open license etc.

Jayjg 20:13, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Write and ask if you can use it? Stargoat 00:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jesus article

Um, it's not that I'm criticizing you or anything, but what was your rationale for removing my edits on the Jesus page? I think I understand your POV, but I still think some of those things belong on an article about Jesus... for example, the bit about Saul was to clarify why Jesus is regarded as the "central figure" of Christianity and not its founder. And I thought the piece on the life and teachings of Jesus could use a LOT of material, considering how much is in the Scriptures, and I thought the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount were good places to start. Sorry about the delay -- I didn't notice the change until today! Brutannica 01:35, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The article on Jesus is already twice the recommended maximum Misplaced Pages length; what it needs is less material, not more. Most of what you included was personal opinion, and the rest might be better in a separate article (e.g. an article on the Golden Rule, listing its use in various cultures). And while I agree that Paul was the founder of Christianity, that is a highly controversial opinion that I suspect few devout Christians would agree with. Jayjg 02:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... Well:

1. I believe the primary focus of the article should be a biography of Jesus and how his ideas influenced Christianity and subsequently, much of the world. I found this rather lacking. Around half of it focused on historical debate on Jesus; which is fine, and very interesting in my opinion, but I think that would be a better candidate for moving to a separate article (or at least part of it). And even if you don't agree, then I'm not sure a separate article on Jesus's teachings exists, unless you count the mini-articles on separate teachings.

2. I wasn't saying Saul was the founder of Christianity, I was expressing why I assumed Jesus was referred to as "the central figure" and not the founder. I think I implied that the religion had two founders. Even so, would explaining the differences between Jesus and Saul briefly in the opening section still be a bad idea?

Apology for the opinions... I didn't expect them to be controversial, and I thought they shed some light on things (ex., why Jesus gained a following). Brutannica 00:32, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

One of the goals of Misplaced Pages is to avoid POV declarations, at least not if they're unbalanced. But if you feel these changes are warranted you're free to go to the Talk:Jesus page and get other opinions on them. Jayjg 14:25, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

what next

I hope that you understand that my concern is with policy and precedent. When looking down the road from the standpoint of the changes you propose, I see a great deal of trouble on the horizon which I think is avoidable. But I caused you to be offended, I think, so that now I can't seem to put distance between the cause of my concern, and you personally. Not much hope of progress, if that kind of detachment can't be acheived; but I'm looking for a way out of the impasse. Mkmcconn — 20:35, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your writing me. Maybe you can explain what kind of trouble is on the horizon, so I'll better understand your position. Jayjg 20:57, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

re:

Thanks, I always relish being appreciated, it helps make up for a great deal of complaint (of which I have plenty ;). Keep up your good work here on the wiki, it is likewise appreciated :) Sam 21:17, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)