User talk:CheeseDreams - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Slrubenstein (talk | contribs) at 06:08, 7 November 2004 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:08, 7 November 2004 by Slrubenstein (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Misplaced Pages:Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam 14:28, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

James I

I have removed the section in question but kept some important information on rumours elsewhere in the article. (The article mentions the rumours of Jame's relationship and the effect on the Treasury.) Irrelevant and completely unsubstantiated rumours (such as the one that James called Buckingham his "wife") have been completely removed. I hope that this satisfies your objections... -- Emsworth 14:37, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am once again attempting to work towards a compromise, and have put the information in the "Queen James" section into a more NPOV style. The section was not deleted; neither were the allegations. It is just that the discussion was changed to one that is from a more unbiased and impartial standpoint. -- Emsworth 17:39, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

deleting

To speedy delete a page, it must meet one of the the speedy deletion criteria. Pages that do not meet any of these criteria are passed through WP:VFD. I took the liberty of adding the appropriate tag.Dunc|☺ 20:12, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

thanksCheeseDreams 20:20, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

Thanks for your work on this article. I think we've achieved something neutral and informative in the Mystery Religions section. Mpolo 09:04, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Jesus

Please don't accuse me of "POV vandalism" without evidence. Holy Blood, Holy Grail is meant to be a factual book, whereas The Last Temptation of Christ is meant to be a novel. Therefore it's clearly more appropriate to cite the former. Many scholars (including, for example, J. M. Robinson and I. Wilson) do believe that the Gospel of Philip is late - with the implication being that some disagree. I've left the discussion on mediaeval homosexuality in for the time being, but, as was discussed on the talk page, you're going to need to give a reference to this assertion to stop it being deleted again. --G Rutter 09:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Very few people know the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail. The last temptation of christ is meant to be an extrapolation from a collection of gnostic text, and although it is not percieved of as a non-fiction work, I must point out that Plato primarily used the method of binding an idea into a story as well, and Plato's works are usually considered as Science/Philosophy/Politics rather than fiction.

I agree many scholars think the Gospel of Phillip is late, however, it is also true to say many scholars believe the Gospel of Phillip is early.

I am still, when I have time, searching for a quotable reference for the mediaeval sexuality, however, the belief survived well into modern times - for example, Oscar Wilde used it at his famed Libel trial (there is probably a quote for this too somewhere, though I do not know where)

Cutting this from the article is POV because they are evidence of how commonly held the belief was, and removing them is suggesting it was a belief on the fringes/ modern speculation, which is not true.

I may put Oscar Wilde into the article as well, to read something like "this belief persisted even into modern times, for example, Oscar Wilde used similar defence at his trial" and then try to find a quote. CheeseDreams 19:29, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. What book/website did you get the information on mediaeval homosexuality from? The article doesn't necessarily need a quote, it just needs a reference to someone who's said this and presented evidence (I assume there are trial documents or whatever). I think mentioning fictional works and Oscar Wilde will muddy the waters somewhat (though the Oscar Wilde thing is interesting - could you put it on his page?). Also, you say "the belief survived well into modern times" - I'd have thought it more likely to have reoccured independently in modern times, rather than surviving. Anyway, I'd be very interested in reading whatever source you got this info from. --G Rutter 15:10, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was not referring to fictional works but rather the ACTUAL libel trial that Oscar Wilde took part in. It was his. He lost and was imprisoned. It was a libel trial set up by his boyfriend's father as a trap (his boyfriend was Bosey (Lord Alfred Douglas)) CheeseDreams 19:17, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By fictional works I was referring to The Last Temptation - I was just dealing with both issues at the same time. Perhaps "fictional works and also Oscar Wilde" would have been clearer. --G Rutter 20:21, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here is a quote from King James I of England Jesus had his John, and I have my George - a reference to George Villiers, whom most historians consider to have been King James I's boyfriend. Clearly the belief survived well into James I's time. CheeseDreams 19:30, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but you still haven't provided references for mediaeval homosexuals. I'm happy if you want that part changing to a more general comment that a small minority of people through history have believed that Jesus was homosexual, but the specific assertion currently in the article still needs backing up. --G Rutter 20:21, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From my memory of the article when I last looked at it it says Middle Ages. King James I is from the Middle Ages.

No, he is not. Also, is this a myth, or a fact? What is the historical source (I mean, the original text)? I know it is supposed to be a comment he made to his ministers, but where is the documentary proof? Slrubenstein

I am still looking for the exact reference, the word combinations aren't exactly guarenteed to find it immediately. I take it you mean "provide references from mediaeval homosexuals", or are you contesting that there are any? Nethertheless, you can see that no less than the King of England in the middle of the middle ages had the POV. I am thinking of inserting the King James quote into the article, so that readers can see that it isn't just a spurious claim. CheeseDreams 20:25, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I meant references for mediaeval homosexuals claiming that Jesus was homosexual as a defence in a trial which is the specific claim currently in the article- where did you get this information from? --G Rutter 13:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh right, I think thats about the Primate of All Ireland who was hung for homosexuality (with a bishop). That stands a better chance of being easy to find. CheeseDreams 18:57, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have found these, whilst searching:

Mervyn Touchet, Earl of Castlehaven used it in his defence at trial for sodomy.

The bishop I was on about was in fact John Atherton, Lord Bishop of Waterford.

CheeseDreams 19:33, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. Both these individuals (and James I) were from the 17th century, which is the Early Modern period. They were both executed for homosexuality, but for John Atherton this website states that the trial records were destroyed shortly afterwards and does not mention that he used this defence (it does say he denied the charge at his trial). For Mervyn Touchet, the same website states:

"Castlehaven began by quoting Scripture in defence of his love of Skipwith (his exact reference is not cited, but it was probably an allusion to the love of David and Jonathan, perhaps even the "heresy" about Christ and St John being lovers)."

which is hardly conclusive. Other websites seem to concur. So, I'll use the quote from James and reword the sentence in the Jesus article. --G Rutter 21:07, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Its odd that the website should mention Jesus having St. John as a boyfriend, unless, of course, that the heresy existed at the time? CheeseDreams 21:41, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not really - it depends on when the speculation about what the Biblical quotation was started. I'm glad you think the changes to this section are now OK. --G Rutter 09:59, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Historical and Cultural background to Jesus (dispute)

Hi CheeseDreams, I got your message on my talk page so I took a look at the Jesus stuff. I think that Slrubenstein's version is mostly NPOV and I'm not sure why you're reverting him. Judea is a more accurate historical term, in my view, than Palestine - but maybe "Judea (also called Palestine, present-day Israel)" would be a better phrasing. The messianic sects and such don't really seem to be related to Jesus directly, so why must they be present? Anyway, that's my opinion, but Jesus isn't one of the pages I really care a lot about so I'm not going to get too involved. Feel free to ask me any questions or anything. Andre (talk) 21:24, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Judea is not ALL of Palestine, it is only part of it. That is the (minor) issue I have with the term.

The whole point about backgrounds to things is that they do not relate to the things directly, as then they would be foreground, surely? CheeseDreams 21:39, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

P.s. The roman province of Palestine is much larger than modern day Israel. CheeseDreams 18:57, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cultural and Historical Background of Jesus

copied from Pedant's discuss page: Please take a look at the section of the talk page on "edits as of Nov. 1." I am in an editing dispute with CheeseDream and someone has protected the article until the matter is resolved. I would appreciate it if you would look at the last version of eh article by me, before it was protected, and compare that to the last version by Cheese Dream, and then go over my discussion with him on the talk page, and comment. Thanks, Slrubenstein

Ok, I made extensive comments, not sure why you think I'm the one to ask, but thanks for the implications that seems to make. I'm going to consider it a complimentPedant 03:07, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)

I notice Slrubenstein is trying to bring people who he sees as supporters of his POV into the discussion (see his contributions list). I do not think this is a very NPOV thing to do. CheeseDreams 00:13, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The point is not to get one's POV into the article, the point is to make a good article, that's factual. I hope you read my comments, and that you see that my point of view is that the article's subject is defined in its title, and that it's an article that presupposes an actual man named jesus from 1st century Judea, and that all information in the article shoould relate to that, as its subject.

You should note that I didn't agree with either of you entirely, and that in one case I disagreed with you both. So what, right? My agreement doesn't make either of you right or wrong, and I suspect you both know more about some aspects of the topic than I do. Good information that doesn't belong one place can always find a home where it fits perfectly. This situation won't go forever, let it play itself out. The wiki always works, it just sometimes takes a while. we all have tha same goals here, writing a good encyclopedia... people that don't share that goal just slip away unnoticed, the articles they worked on get polished to near perfection and nobody get's hurt. It really works.

I actually think that if you two are both really good wikipedians that you can find a way to make a good team. Opposing viewpoints work great together, if they are trying to make good articles, and not just debate. You both have added value to the article and to its discussion. Feel free to link to this thread, on my page or yours, or copy it somewhere... and let me know if I can be useful in any way. Thanks for dropping by.Pedant 00:34, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

copied from my talk pagePedant 00:36, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of POV bias. I left the note to merely point out to Slrubenstein that I have discovered what he is up to. By the way, he has started threatening to delete a whole section which disagrees with his POV from the Historicity of Jesus article now. As well as slandering my name on the Talk page for Cultural and historical background of Jesus against thencivility policy. CheeseDreams 00:41, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Posting this to both your pages: Would you and he like me to mediate this? I think we could wrap it up pretty quickly, and I am interested in the topic, and you both are, and seems like a lot of others don't want to get involved. I'd think some sort of informal friendly discussion on a neutral page would be good ... we are all active so we can probably work this out fast. I'd be happy to do it.Pedant 02:19, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

I would like this mediated. However, I would like it mediated by someone neither of us has requested to enter the debate. I think this would appear more neutral. CheeseDreams 08:15, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

CD, I just wanted to note that, while I can understand your concerns, I didn't feel as though Slr was "recruiting" me to assist him. I agree with him in some ways, but not in all ways, and as his note didn't ask me to do anything more than look at a discussion, I didn't feel I was being asked to take his side. I recognize it does look that way on the face of it, and of course it is true that Slr and I agree on more things than you and I seem to. But I just wanted to let you know that I don't feel any personal obligation to agree with Slr, and on at least one occasion on that page I've disagreed with him already, I think. I hope my actions will prove to you I'm acting on my own behalf (and Misplaced Pages's best interests, if my intentions match my deeds). Jwrosenzweig 14:47, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cheexe is upset by my contributing to two or three pages. The passage I threaten to delete in the Historicity of the Bible article is one that literally makes no sense (the writing is obscure) and that seems to be based on no research, and does not reflect scholarly views. I explained this on the talk page and provided time for discussion. Slrubenstein

In what way makes no sense? If the writing is only obscure, then clarify it yourself. I am sure you are able to work out what it is getting at. That seems clear enough from the comments on the talk page. CheeseDreams 19:20, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No one (as of last night) was able to explain the non-sequitors, provide evidence, or scholarly citations. I think it is completely within the Misplaced Pages policies for an editor to point out a problem in an article, suggest deletion, provide reasons, and allow for debate on the discussion page before making any changes. That is all I did and I don't see how anyone could criticize me for it. CheeseDream's acts would have the effect only of censoring my views. Slrubenstein

Note the phrase suggest deletion. You threatened it. That is not the same thing at all. CheeseDreams 19:20, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Similarly, I have serious problems with the cultural and historical background of Jesus article, but I have taken great pains to explain my views on the talk pages. CheezeDream seldom replies to specific questions or criticisms, or replies with tangents and defensively (or offensively).

Exactly how have I not replied to specific question? If you look at the comments section I have replied there. In your section, I have replied there. I even went to the effort of seperating your response into different points and addressing each one specifically. CheeseDreams 19:20, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If CheeseDreams is asking for mediation, and Pedant is offering, I have no problem with that.

I do not think Pedant is NPOV. This is because you asked him to comment before he was brought into the debate, along with others whose comments on their pages and previous articles suggest that they share your POV to an extent.

I would much rather someone independant of either of us took that place. For example, a Shinto-Buddhist. CheeseDreams 19:20, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

However, I must clarify my own (or original) position: CheeseDream says my action is "not a very BPOV thing to do" which to me is just one more prrof that he does not understand NPOV or the Misplaced Pages process, which is collaborative. There was a little revert war brewing on a page, and I thought that rather than engage in an endless discussion with CheeseDream, who seems either not to understand or agree with anything I say, the best sollution (in my opinion, better than mediation) is to braoden the discussion -- to get more Wikipedians involved. I thus asked Pedant if he would comment. Note: I did not ask him for support, and I did not ask him to take any action against CheeseDream. I asked only for comment. Pedant himself wonders why I asked him. It certainly isn't because of some conspiracy against NPOV, as CheeseDream suggests. The fact is, I know little about Pedant and have no idea whether he agrees with me or not. What I do know is this: he commended on an earlier version of the article, or he made some edit, or somehow expressed some interest in the topic earlier. That is the only reason I asked him to comment. I looked at the history of the article and talk pages and left messages for a few people who had been involved earlier. That's it. I do not see how inviting a broader discussion is in any way bad; on the contrary it is what we should strive for at Misplaced Pages. CheeseDream is now slandering me by accusing me of orchestrating a conspiracy; he is exploiting the concept of NPOV to justify his exclusion of points of view other than his own; he is discouraging a more general discussion which is essential to the collaborative process of Misplaced Pages. These are procedural issues and on these alone I think CheeseDream has been acting in a malicious and damaging way. Slrubenstein

I note

That you did not explicitely ask him for support. With the emphasis on explicitely.
That you only attempted to bring in people whose POV seems similar to yours rather than everyone on the article, e.g. you didn't ask the Rev of Bru.
That you didn't approach a neutral method first, such as Requests for Comment, as I have done.

Points 2 and 3 are why I did (and still do) regard your action with respect to these various people as not NPOV. CheeseDreams 19:13, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that RFC is normally supposed to be after ordinary methods, like the Talk page and calling in other opinions, have been exhausted. (In this case, we had an edit war, and there was nothing wrong with going to RFC directly, IMO.) I have never knowingly worked closely with Slrubenstein on any articles, yet I was one of the people he contacted. Many of the others seem to have been surprised by being contacted. I think that he was simply trying to call in several of the people who had edited that article, and so might be interested. Since you and Bru are both very active in those articles, you both saw the argument without being invited, so no harm, no foul. (Actually, I saw the page before I noticed the "new messages" flag as well.) I think that we should just assume good faith and go on with solving the problems with the article. Mpolo 20:12, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

I think he looked at article edit histories and chose people that way. When I noticed, via his contributions list, that he was doing it, I looked at the contributions of the people he chose to see whether they were neutral or shared his POV. It seems to me that they are the latter, even if for some of them they in general appear to act in as NPOV as they are aware.

CheeseDreams 20:37, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I looked at the talk page and chose the two people who had earlier made comments, but were not as yet involved in this particular discussion. Those were my only criteria. In the first two topics on the talk page, there are only three people involved: Pedant, Mpolo, and CheeseDreams. CheeseDream was already making comments, so I asked Mpolo and Pedant to as well. Slrubenstein