User talk:Kuratowski's Ghost

From formulasearchengine
Jump to navigation Jump to search

User:Jfdwolff/Welcome JFW | T@lk 21:20, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Caphtor article

Wow, man. You're totally nutters. Obviously cuz the consensus is that Caphtor equals 'Crete'. Sticking your pathetic and imaginary POV into this article makes you a bona fide nutjob when QUALIFIED EXPERTS claim otherwise. Get a life, eh? ROFL. PS, your rant about your education is a load of BS. You're a dumb 14 year old kid with a psychological problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Its pretty clear that the identificatio with Crete was due to the hype around the discovery of the Minoan civilization and that Wainwright and Strong throrougly refuted it. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Jeshu article

Please stop re-creating the Jeshu article; it contains information which is already in 3 other articles, and Yeshu is the more common form anyway. I'm going to re-direct it again, please see the comments on the Yeshu Talk: page. Jayjg 22:26, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From Time Immemorial

You have twice reverted my work, which you call "leftist ranting" and "crank edits". What part of it did you find problematic and why? AaronSw 05:19, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your version of the article presents an extreme leftwing view of the book including views that are of a conspiracy theory nature. It provides a false view of the current status of the book. The reality is that the book is still highly regarded and recommended and in use as a textbook. Kuratowski's Ghost 11:11, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps you should review the policy on NPOV. We don't remove facts no matter how "leftwing" and "conspiracy theory" they are. As for your second claim about the current status of the book, you have presented no evidence for it. Can you cite where it is used as a textbook and who regards it highly? AaronSw 14:55, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For example the external link to the biography of Peters mentions its use in both Israel and America. It receives regular recommendation from leading political commentators on the Arab-Israeli conflict such as Winston, Pasko and Basch Kuratowski's Ghost 15:21, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jewish ethnocentrism article

The Jewish ethnocentrism article is currently up for deletion. You can find the discussion, and vote, at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism. Jayjg (talk) 06:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

AaronSw and Norman Finkelstein

Have you seen AaronSw's contributions to Norman Finkelstein re:Joan Peters? Any thoughts on them? Jayjg (talk) 22:48, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Info about yourself on your User page

Hi, would you care to please let us know a little about yourself and your interests on your user page at User:Kuratowski's Ghost which stands bereft calling out for your input! Be well. IZAK 09:06, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for adding the info, it helps...IZAK 08:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Mah Shlomha haveri. I will see what I can do. It is very hard for me to be objective about a subject so disgraceful, but I will do my best.

Guy Montag 03:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I just stumbled across your work on Rhinocorura and Brook of Egypt. I am very impressed with your erudition! -- llywrch 20:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I just noticed that you reverted my correction of the statement that "Neubau" refers to a style. I won't revert it againTemplate:Spaced ndashi'm tired of edit wars with people who don't adequately back up their POV. But i wonder why you did that. You just have been called erudite, and you certainly don't seem like a rash POV contributor. But neither am i. As you can check in my history, if i change a statement, then i only do so when i know what i'm doing.

The term "Neubau" has been used in the meaning "new building" since the 18th century, according to Duden: Das Herkunfswörterbuch. It is not listed as an style in either Wilfried Koch: Baustilkunde, Orbis Verlag, 1994 or dtv-Atlas zur Baukunst, dtv, 1981. Do you have any serious reference that defines it as a style? — Sebastian (T) 21:54, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

Well its something repeated over and over in articles about the band and can be found in the FAQ for example. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From Einstürzende Neubauten

"The band's name is a marvelously compact poetical phrase and does not translate easily into English. "Imploding new buildings" is the main meaning. However "Einsteurtzende" is "Imploding" as an adjective not a verb - i.e. new buildings that are busy collapsing, falling down. But "Neubauten" is not just new buildings in general, it can also refer to a specific style of architecture, faceless concrete monoliths."


"Neubauten" generally refers to buildings built in a particular style, rather than to any recently constructed buildings. The style in question is the impersonal concrete-box modernist style. Most housing projects (especially the huge towers built in the 60's) are perfect examples of Neubauten."

From Einstürzende Neubauten

Einstürzende Neubauten translates to "collapsing new buildings," which could be misunderstood as a desire to get a wreaking ball and set about town. In fact the name refers to buildings built in Germany after the Second World War that were so poorly constructed, they literally just collapsed

Kuratowski's Ghost 02:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:SebastianHelm/pilcrow Now i see where you're coming from. How about: "The term has been used since the 18th century to mean just "new building". For the band this evokes the image of buildings built during the Wiederaufbau (whatever that translates to in English), which were ..."?

What seems to be important for the band, and what distinguishes the buildings of that era is that they were cheapTemplate:Spaced ndashfollowing the sheer necessity of providing shelter for as many people as possible as quickly as possible with very limited resources. Style is not the issueTemplate:Spaced ndashin fact, stylistic considerations were an unaffordable luxury. But if you want to give it a name, use the correct name: functionalism.

In short, defining "Neubau" as "buildings built during a certain time" makes as little sense as defining "baby" to mean "anyone born between 2004 and 2005". Much as i love musicTemplate:Spaced ndashplease let’s leave the definition of architectural styles to architects. — Sebastian (T) 06:22, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

BC/AD versus BCE/CE

There's a discussion and a vote on this topic going on at Talk:Jesus#Reversions & Consensus on BCE/AD; I thought you might be interested. Jayjg (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


Please comment on Jguk's most recent actions [1], [2]. It seems to me that he is destroying what I thought was a carefully constructec (though not, of course perfect) NPOV article. Previous differences between us notwithstanding, I trust your integrity and your committment to NPOV and would like to know what you think. Frankly, I think we may have reached the point where arbitration or at least mediation is required. I honestly do not believe Jguk understands or cares about NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


Please check out Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Lebesgue covering dimension

Hi, you changed the aricle Lebesgue covering dimension and replaced refinement by subcover. That seems really wrong to me; are you sure? I'll be posting an example to the talk page; please review. linas 03:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


Hello Kuratowski's Ghost: Please contact User:Humus sapiens who wishes to start a Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel See his request below. Thanks IZAK 06:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi IZAK (and everyone else here :), Do you think it's time to create Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel similar to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/India, Wikipedia:Wikiportal/New Zealand and other Category:Wikiportals? I'm writing this here because it was you who made those wonderful templates and we don't have a portal yet where we could communicate. What do you think? Humus sapiensTalk 05:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Hi Humus, it's only me here, but I will pass your message on to "everyone". Yes, your suggestion is excellent, it is certainly time for what you describe, but I have no experience with Wikipedia portals, and if you know how, go ahead and start an Israel portal and I am sure editors of Israel-related articles will support you and join in the effort/s. Behatzlachah. IZAK 05:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


Your edit summary: "Josephus mentions both Nebaioth and Nabatene but does not claim anything about the origin of the latter name." Could you work the Latin phrases and translations into the text, so that we can see what "Nebaioth" looks like in Josephus' Latin context. Or just give me the ref. to the passage and I'll do it. --Wetman 14:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Josephus is in Greek. The point is that Josephus doesn't seem to say anything about Nabatene being named after Nebaioth.

The English in Whiston is:

"Book I, 12:4. When the lad was grown up, he married a wife, by birth an Egyptian, from whence the mother was herself derived originally. Of this wife were born to Ismael twelve sons; Nabaioth, Kedar, Abdeel, Mabsam, Idumas, Masmaos, Masaos, Chodad, Theman, Jetur, Naphesus, Cadmas. These inhabited all the country from Euphrates to the Red Sea, and called it Nabatene. They are an Arabian nation, and name their tribes from these, both because of their own virtue, and because of the dignity of Abraham their father."

Nebaioth is Nabaiôthês in the Greek and Nabatene is Nabatênên

The words obviously look similar, but less so in the original Hebrew and Aramaic forms which also differ in meaning. Nebaioth is n-b-y-t understood to mean words or prophecies or buds (root n-b-y with t=letter tav as plural ending, although Easton says it means "height" - go figure). Nabatean is n-b-T (with hard T = letter tet not typically interchangeable with tav) understood to mean "(well) digger". Kuratowski's Ghost 15:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not also the distinction in Josephus' Greek th = theta in Nabaiôthês vs t = tau in Nabatênên reflecting the difference in the Hebrew/Aramaic as well as the diphthong ai in Nabaiôthês reflecting the presence of the y (yud) in Nebaioth. Kuratowski's Ghost 15:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Recent addition to Yeshua

You might want to take a look at the recent addition to the Yeshua article. Jayjg (talk) 16:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your point about Yeshua being used for Yehoshua bin Nun and Yehoshua ben Yehotsadaq in Ezra/Nehemia. I didn't remember that. But I don't see how they could contract Yehoshua to Yeshua. There are no other such cases of Yeho- going to Ye-. Maybe there were two traditions for what the name was. By the way, I suppose you know that the name "Yehoshua" is written like "Yehoshea" (that is, no vav after the shin) and in a couple places "Hoshea". This is even farther from Yeshua.

What do you think was the pronunciation of the name of "Jesus"?

Feel free to answer me through e-mail via my (still empty) user page.

EricK 20:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd say there is not enough information known to be certain. The Ben Sirach example btw is not good as it is unknown if the Hebrew texts are original or translations into Hebrew from Greek or Syriac something found for example with Josephus' writings so also with ben Sirach we do not know for certain if his name was originally Yeshua or Yehoshua.

Kuratowski's Ghost 23:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But what is your guess? What, in your opinion is the most probable original pronunciation of "Jesus", and what is the second most probable?

I just changed some of what you wrote yesterday. :) I would be glad to support what I say, but it would be easier by e-mail in Hebrew.

Well its been some time since I read up on the Hebrew versions of Sirach but I remember arguments about it not necessarily being the original language of the text, the fact that the Greek has a chi at the end suggests an original name with a chet at the end, while the Hebrew texts have an aleph suggesting derivation from a variant Greek text without a chi. The 1910 Jewish Encyclopedia article is very biased against such a view but the matter has still not been settled a century after that article was written so I think mention still needs to be made in the Yeshua article.
Have you read the Hebrew and compared it to the Greek? It's obvious which one is the original. My copy is edited by Moshe Tsvi Segel, 5713 (which is 1952 or 1953), and he gives a very thorough and erudite discussion of the manuscripts and translations. (By the way, he expresses no doubt that the name was Yeshua. There is some doubt about whether the author was Shim`on ben Yeshua or Yeshua ben Shim`on.) EricK 28 June 2005 18:12 (UTC)
Also correct me if I'm wrong but none of the extant manuscripts are complete and all are missing the crucial intro listing the full name of the author, whose Hebrew form is only known from Saadia Gaon Kuratowski's Ghost 23:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, the name is used in Chapters 50 and 51 as well, where there is a manuscript. (Actually it was you who wrote that it was used in Hebrew texts of Ben Sira!) EricK 28 June 2005 18:12 (UTC)
I have no strong feeling about what the original for Jesus was, only a strong feeling that the case for "Yeshua" has never been conclusively shown. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But what else could it have been? Yehoshua? Yeshu? EricK 28 June 2005 18:12 (UTC)
It could have been Yehoshua, Yeshua or might simply be the Greek Iesous itself that was the original, something people overlook! Kuratowski's Ghost 28 June 2005 22:53 (UTC)

I like what you say about being a post-deconstructionist! I am one too! EricK 16:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See indented commments above.

I'm going to put back what I said about shin and `ayin. You're right that sigma "corresponds" to shin in the sense that shin is transliterated by sigma, but so is samekh. When transliterating from Greek to Hebrew or Aramaic, sigma is rendered by samekh, not shin. And there's no correspondence between `ayin and omicron (except that the character omicron is derived from the character `ayin). `Ayin is not transliterated by omicron, nor omicron by `ayin. The fact that the Syriac Bible uses Yeshua` for the name of...ha'ish hazeh...shows that there was a tradition that that really was his name. And there is no doubt that Christianity always had an Aramaic-speaking contingent, unbroken from the Apostles to the Aramaic-speaking Christians of today. EricK 28 June 2005 18:12 (UTC)

No one is saying that its was an attempt at transliterating precisely, the translator might have had on his mind that Yeshua ben Yotzadak was rendered Iesous and therefore picked Yeshua as the name to use in the translation Kuratowski's Ghost 28 June 2005 22:53 (UTC)

I don't think your suggestion that Y's name was simply the Greek Iesous is realistic. After all, the everyday language of him and his people was Aramaic, not Greek. He is often quoted in the gospels as saying something in Aramaic. His parents would not have called him by a Greek form of a Hebrew/Aramaic name!

I read the external link you put in. I find it strange that they care so much about casting doubt on the idea that Y's name was Yeshua. What is the point? They seem to think that by prohibiting use of the name Yeshua they will make Christianity less acceptable to Jews--as though they will confound the "missionaries" by announcing that we don't even know the correct pronunciation of Y's name! I did learn one thing from it--that there are many references to various Talmudic sages called Yehoshua but none called Yeshua. That is interesting. Why did the Jews stop using the name Yeshua (as they certainly did in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah)? The most likely explanation I can think of is that they "davqa" wanted to avoid the name Yeshua because of Y the Nazarene.

Another thing I learned was that some Jewish sages refer to Y the Nazarene as Yeshua. I thought they only used the word Yeshu.

Of course they are wrong in thinking that the idea that Y's name was Yeshua started in the 20th century. Edersheim's book (which they mention) was from 1883 (he was born in 1825, not 1925 obviously), and he gives the name as Jehoshua or Jeshua (using J for a Y sound). I'm sure there were plenty of other writers who attempted to explain the Hebrew root of his name, and of course they would have given the Hebrew form, either Yehoshua or Yeshua. What about Renan for instance?

They reveal their lack of knowledge when they claim that the LXX is not the Septuagint! Don't they know that LXX is simply the conventional abbreviation for the Septuagint?

But what I find most objectionable in that site is their attitude that it is bad of Christians to want to go back to the roots of their faith. They talk as though they want Christians to stay as goy as possible, just so no Jews will be attracted to Christianity! They're trying to dictate to us that we have to call Yeshua Jesus!

Anyway, I think it's an interesting question why the Septuagint uses Iesous (from yod-shin-vav-`ayin) where the Masoretic text has yod-he-vav-shin-`ayin with vowel pointing to give Yehoshua. There are a couple questions here: why did the Masoretes point it like that instead of the more natural Yehoshea`, and which variant of the consonants is original. (There are many cases where the LXX contains a translation of the original text, and the Masoretic text is corrupt, but most religious Jews of course will never admit that.)

By the way, are you aware that on the Hebrew Wikipedia, it says that his name was Yeshua?

One other thing--the Syriac Bible I was referring to was the Old Syriac version. The Peshitta is from a bit later.

I will try to get around to changing the article a bit, unless you do.

EricK 3 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)

Hi Eric, I'm not trying to prove that his name wasn't Yeshua, I'm trying to keep things neutral, it is simply not the case that it is known with certainty that his name was Yeshua. His parents for all we know could have come from a majority Greek speaking community, such communities existed already under the Ptolemies and Greek eventually became the dominant language, so he might have been named Iesous from the word go. Yehoshua is also a very likely possibility and since we don't have any examples of people named Yeshua already from the Hasmonean period it makes Yeshua the least likely candidate. I added the external link because it has a very good summary of the data. It also ultimately argues that it is unknown what his name was, not that it was definitely not Yeshua. The dogmatic usage of Yeshua is indeed a farely modern thing. Feel free to add links that give alternative views. Also bear in mind that not everyone believes that there was an historical Jesus and they have some pretty good arguments to show that at least such a view is not merely denial but based on scholarly analysis of the evidence, so arguments that he spoke Aramaic are within the perspective of an historical Jesus and should be qualified as such. Regarding the Peshitta, my understanding is that all Syriac translations are called "Peshitta"? As the article on the Peshitta points out it has its beginnings in the 2nd century, but feel free to change the article if this is incorrect usage of the term. Kuratowski's Ghost 3 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)

Hello, Ghost. I made a bunch of changes on the Yeshua article. Please do not revert them. I can support everything I say. The references you have found are interesting, but not scholarly, and very polemical and biased.

In my opinion, this article is getting too long and argumentative. In a few places, instead of deleting what you wrote I added a short rebuttal. (I can give you more explanation on whatever you want.) But the result is that the article is getting unwieldy.

EricK 5 July 2005 07:49 (UTC)

Hi Eric, I recommend using the Talk page for the Yeshua article for discussing the article instead of my user talk page as I am sure that there are many many people who are interested in following the discussion. I copied most of the above to the Yeshua talk page and also invited Mustafaa (the resident Semitic languages expert) to comment and he also drew Garzo' (resident Aramaic expert) to the article. Kuratowski's Ghost 5 July 2005 09:58 (UTC)


You seem to have duplicated all the sections of Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah. I tried for the last 30 minutes to fix it, but my system at home has trouble editing large pages, and I've failed. Could I ask you to please fix this? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk July 4, 2005 18:30 (UTC)

South African Wikipedians

Hi Kuratowski's Ghost

A belated welcome to Wikipedia. There is a list of South African Wikipedians at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/South Africa. --Jcw69 6 July 2005 06:33 (UTC)

Well I haven't really been involved in editing the Apartheid article so I don't know if I should be voting. I've put in a comment that I don't agree with either proposed wording. Kuratowski's Ghost 6 July 2005 16:14 (UTC)

Talk: Palestine

KG - Thank you for your response on Talk: Palestine. Would you have any references for me? (I am not trying to challenge you, rather I'd like to educate myself).

The Encyclopedia Judaica has fairly good articles on the Philistines and Jebusites. (Not to be confused with the 1910 Jewish Encyclopedia which is notoriously outdated.) Kuratowski's Ghost 9 July 2005 11:18 (UTC)

BTW, I had a look at your self description. You are someone I'd be happy to know. I hope to hear from you soon! --Philopedia 7 July 2005 17:20 (UTC)

Ritual Decalogue

I'm currently having a dispute with another editor about this page; your input would be welcome. Jayjg (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Vote for Deletion

Hi, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ritual Decalogue. Thank you. IZAK 09:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


Hi. Just popping by to say I agree with your postdeconstructionist philosophy as you've defined it on the user page. Needs a snappy abbreviation, though, PoDeCo would work. Fits on a bumper sticker. --Christofurio 14:05, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Israeli West Bank barrier

If possible, would you mind taking a look at my current disagreement with AladdinSE there? Thx. Jayjg (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Dhimmi and Ger Toshav

Please see User:Heraclius latest edits pointing the articles to each other. Jayjg (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


You might want to review the latest edits there. Cheers. Jayjg (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Brook of Egypt

I have some comments on the current state of this article of yours at page Talk:Brook of Egypt AnonMoos 13:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


You violated the three-revert rule and may be blocked. mikka (t) 15:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

<Uncivil ASCII art removed> Kuratowski's Ghost 16:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You've been blocked from editing Wikipedia for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule, as well as for your immature and rude response to Scimitar. You're welcome to continue editing when the block expires, but please remember the Wikipedia:Three revert rule and Wikipedia:Civility. Rhobite 16:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Low tolerance levels following the latest murder of my people in their historical homeland by those wishing to ethnically cleanse them. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
That's your opinion, and it's a valid one, but it may not be appropriate for the article. In the future it would be best to refrain from revert warring and allow talk page discussions to proceed. Just to let you know, if you had agreed to stop reverting or explained that you weren't aware of the rule, I wouldn't have blocked you. Part of the reason I blocked you was your rude response to Scimitar. Wikipedia requires civility, even when dealing with those we disagree with. Rhobite 01:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Jewish South African history

Hi, could you please help with more information for Jewish South African history. Thanks. IZAK 10:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions for articles on Jews

As there is a great deal of inconsistency in the naming of articles about Jews, I have proposed that they be made consistent. I'd appreciate it if you could commment on this here: Template_talk:Jew#Name_of_articles_on_Jews. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Location of Jerusalem Temple

Hello: See Location of Jerusalem Temple? It can and should -- after some good editing for removal of "fluff" -- be easily merged into the main article at Temple in Jerusalem. I have indicated that on the former's page. IZAK 11:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Ezekiel 38-39 War

What do you make of this: Ezekiel 38-39 War??? IZAK 15:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


Looking at a new article called Groups Exiled from Judaism, and not quite sure what to make of it, I was shocked to see that the well-used Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar has now been "taken-over" by a pro-Mormon user and a new similar-looking Template:Mormon_jew is now being utilised. This Mormon template plagiarises and makes confusing use of the original Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar. The Mormon template must be radically changed ASAP. Your attention is needed. Perhaps we should follow official channels too. Thank you. IZAK 16:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Couple of items

Hi KG. First, I though you might be interested in the article South African Jews. Second, would you mind having a look at a discussion going on at Talk:Martin_Luther#The_relationship_between_Luther_and_the_Jewish_people_is_the_subject_of_much_controversy. The article currently has a brief summary of a larger article, Martin Luther and Antisemitism, but it appears to me that several editors are trying to either whitewash the contents of the summary, or remove any summary at all, on various grounds which I see as spurious (e.g. we can't quote from works because that might be a copyright violation, or we shouldn't summarize at all because that will increase interest in the sub-article). I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Waterfall model

Hey, I've added some stuff to Waterfall model to try and explain the reasoning behind the model, what it actually is and to clarify its faults for those who haven't heard this stuff before. Can you please review my changes? I'd really appreciate it, thanks.

I also notice that you seem to like Einsturzende Neubauten and dislike post-modernism. Nice. ;D

GeorgeBills 04:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote on my RfA! :-p

Unknown garden flower 8.jpg
Tulip inside.jpeg

Hey Kuratowski's Ghost! Thanks for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was (57/4/3), so I am now an administrator. If you need help, have a question, or just want to chat (or if I get out of line!), please don't hesitate to let me know! Again, thanks! :D


You might be interested in this

Talk:Jesus#VOTE: BC/AD vs BCE/CE Jayjg (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Land of Israel

If you have time, could you comment on my suggestion here ?--Sjsilverman 17:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Duplicates of: Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Hi: The following four articles (lists actually) have duplicate articles that need to be merged into them. See the "merged into" notices on:

  1. Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2000 (has three duplicates);
  2. Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2001 (has one duplicate);
  3. Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2002 (has two duplicates);
  4. Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2003 (has two duplicates).

Thanks for looking into this. IZAK 13:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


I wonder if you took a look at this article: Nakba.

I think it is a big failure (over years) in Wkipedia NPOV policy.

Zeq 09:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

South African English

Hey, you removed most of the additions I made to this article! How come? I read your comments, and that's cool if they're not supposed to be community-specific but some of them were generally South African. Al, Joziboy

Its very confusing for a non-South African to tell the difference between mainstream differences and group specific slang. I have made a separate article for SA slang. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in my (English-speaking) family muti is generally used, but hey, doesn't matter. :-) JackyR 16:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

In both the English and Afrikaans sides of my family, muti was used to mean medicine. Until I was educated, I thought it was spelt mooty, and I also thought it's etymology was European.

Interior algebras

Thanks for clarifying the article on Interior_algebra. BTW, is your PhD thesis available online? --Ott2 17:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to put it online but it is in T3 format (old software from McKichan before Scientific Word) and I have been unable to find a copy of T3 that I would need to render it as PDF or convert to LaTeX. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I now have my copy of T3 temporarily running on an old 486, version 2.3 which introduced the TeX converter. (A later version might have refined the process, but this is the most recent version I have.) The first step is to use DOS Export to get the file out of the .T3V into a .T3 file (specify CONVERT.CNV as the converter). Then one runs T3TOTEX.BAT which seems to be standalone from the main T3 installation to generate a TeX file. IIRC, lots of work is then required to get this to look reasonable but at least it's a start and avoids having to retype the text and formulas. I'd be happy to take a shot at converting your thesis: for my email address think back to your UA class of 1988 and use Google. --Ott2 21:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew name of Jesus

KG, there's a new editor on the Jesus page who insists he knows what Jesus' Hebrew name was, and that it must be inserted in the article. Would you mind taking a look? Talk:Jesus#Hebrew_name_of_Yehoshua_or_Yeshua Jayjg (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Your knowledge and expertise in this area would be greatly appreciated. Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, will get to it as soon as I have the time. Kuratowski's Ghost 08:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


Your opinion would be appreciated here regarding the non-deletion of the article Serbophobia. Thanks, Asterion 20:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Zadil tampers with Rabbi Ovadia Yosef

Hi: Could you please take a look at what User:Zadil has been up to in the Rabbi Ovadia Yosef article. Thanks. IZAK 12:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeshua article

User:Haldrik appears to be putting in some personal POV in the Yeshua article. Would you mind taking a look? Jayjg (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Defense League

Is it true the league was heavily criticised then? If they did indeed defend the Goldstein massacre then it should be in there.

Since statements made about Goldstein are barely significant to the history of the JDL it should not take up a huge dramatic section of the article. Kuratowski's Ghost 12:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Also ... I fear that you are coming forth as a maximilist as you said... I fear you are out to defend Bible stuff simply because 'it is written' in the Gospels. There is very lttle evidence supporting the Bibles portrayal of Jesus. As for Jehoshua Ben-Pandira etc..this maximilist slant of yours seems similar to Creationists hypocritically trying to argue that evolution doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny even tho creationism is ENTIRELY suffering from that very lack of evidence. -- max rspct leave a message 17:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No idea what you are on about since on the subject of the Gospels I have views similar to Earl Doherty based on the what early Christian texts say including all those dismissed as herectical and apocryphal. I am against pseudo-science, syllogistic fallacies and half-truths in Biblical criticism e.g. the stuff discussed in Book of Esther trying to link Esther to pagan mythology. My problem with Massey is that he assumes without foundation that "Yeshu" is short for "Yehoshua" and that all the references to "Yeshu" in the Talmud are one individual and also misses (like many others) that the equation of ben-Pandera with ben-Stada may simply be "rhetorical" etc etc. Kuratowski's Ghost 12:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Renaming article Jew to plural


In looking back over the discussion at Talk:Jews and Judaism sidebar I noticed that you had previously written about using the plural form "Jews" (or "Jewish people") for the article title. Someone recently added a poll on possible name change. Please take a look. I'm in support of the move for the sake of consistency with other "group" names, and have attempted to provide examples from List of ethnic groups; some have come out strongly against it. Perhaps you have a different take that would be appropriate, and might like to comment. Thanks! —LeflymanTalk 19:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

South African English

Hi, I was checking the history and I saw you removed SAE words from the list. We at school (Eastern Cape) always had L.O. (not PT), the student got a stiffie to put data on (not a floppy) and were not allowed to smoke let alone throw their stompies on the floor. We were told to shush and telling nasty jokes made the teachers say: 'sis man!'. Since we wore a uniform we never wore tackies. Howzit and izzit, braai etc. are off course the MOST IMPORTANT words, all these words are used by a majority of the people in SA (people from all ages). I don't see how you could delete such valuable information :O Sεrvιεи | T@lk page 20:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: the 'swearwords' are not very fit for an encyclopedia, I agree.

Hi, I removed the list from the article South African English because they are covered in List of lexical differences in South African English and List of South African slang words. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Amalek article

How was my treatment of the Documentary Hypothesis not neutral? I did not make any POV statements regarding it; I only stated what the hypothesis posits. Keep in mind that it does happen to be the majority view among Bible scholars regarding the composition of the Torah, so disclaimers to the effect of "this is only a theory" are not needed.--Rob117 03:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Passover and Christianity

Hi Kuratowski, I hope you had a great Pesach!: Please see the new discussions, and add your views, at Talk:Passover#Passover in the Christian tradition, again. Thank you. IZAK 04:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The happy uninformed

Hi Mr Ghost. I've just added my 2 cents (again) to The Bible and history, a different flavor this time. I have not always given my sources. Personally I find digging up the (easy to be found) sources I use, half the fun and prefer for the reader to find these for themselves. Knowledge earned always being of a greater value than knowledge given. I find the whole maximalists and minimalsit thing very amusing. From their convictions one would think each side has a time machine, or a magic crystal ball; which they don't. See what you think. 3 May 2006 User:Kazuba Thanks Mr. Ghost 4 May 2006 User:Kazuba

Been very busy at work, will try look quickly. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Avvites in Genesis

Where? I've read Genesis from cover-to-cover; they are not mentioned, nor are they associated with the Philistines in any biblical book. Archaeologist Amihai Mazar, who leans toward the so-called "maximalist" (big misnomer) position, regards their appearance in Genesis as an anachronism.

You seem to have a fairly cursory view of the state of the field in biblical studies. I don't claim to be an expert, but reading about it is a hobby of mine and I plan to major in the field so I read a lot about it. You seem to be interested as well so a subscription to Biblical Archaeology Review would probably interest you. You also might like the PDFs you can link to here.--Rob117 21:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Deuteronomy 2:23 is the place to look, KJV probably says Avvim. The camel stuff is a tired old argument that has been overturned long ago see for example [3] or [4] Kuratowski's Ghost 21:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The articles you linked to are deliberatly apologetic; the evidence is circumstancial, as even halfway acknowledged by the second one. I have no particular view on when the camel was domesticated (the early date, IMO, has its merits), but the fact is that the standard cited date is still the late second millenium BC, and I provided mainstream sources. Using Christian apologetic sites as sources is not really the best thing to do.

"Apologetics" if you look it up means "reasoned arguments" so this sort of dismissal is nonsense. The articles refer to scholarly works so dismissing them as "apologetics" is really lame. I come from a science background where arguments are judged on their own merit not on whether the person making the argument is a clergyman instead of a member of a humanities faculty at a university. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As for the Avvites, the context of the passage reveals that Moses is referring to an event from long ago, not his own time. The Cretans displacing the Avvites is mentioned in connection with the Ammonites displacing the Rephaim and the Edomites displacing the Horites, both of which are meant to have occured long before Moses' time, as the Wilderness story has Edom and Ammon as established kingdoms. The Philistines coming from Crete is historically true; the biblical authors just appear to have gotten the date wrong- there is no reason to believe the Philistines of Abraham's time are meant to be the Avvites, or else the text would have called them Avvites, not Philistines. I've never heard the Avvite argument before either, so where did you get it from?--Rob117 22:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Heard it first when studying the passage in highschool plus it is clear from the contextual evidence - the displacement of the Avvites by the Caphtorites as you say is mentioned together with the Ammonites displacing the Rephaim. No date is given for this but obviously it only occurred once the Ammonites had emerged as a nation which is around the same time as the emergence of the Israelites. Remember the Ammonites are traditionally descended from Lot and weren't around at the time of Abraham - hence the events described would not have occurred yet, placing Abraham prior to these events in particular prior to the displacement of the Avvites, ergo the Philistines of his day were logically still the earlier Avvites not Caphtorites.
BTW identification of Caphtor with Crete is a whole can of worms in its own right. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in the passage says the displacements all happened at the same time. As it stands it's original research, if you came up with it yourself; I'm just citing what I read in peer-reviewed articles and books by archaeologists. --Rob117 04:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The plain reading of a text is hardly original research. Kuratowski's Ghost 08:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Caphtor-Crete connection is solid etymologically; Caphtor is connected to the Egyptian word Keftiu, which was used for Crete, which archaeologically has been identified as the Philistine homeland.--Rob117 01:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Not so solid at all, Keftiu has not been identified with certainty as Crete nor is it clear that if its identical to Caphtor even if it does mean Crete. Traditional understanding is that it is Damietta in Egypt with accompanying suggestions that it is related to the word Coptic. Another suggestion has been Cyprus. The word was also often translated Cappadocia although it is not clear if this was intended to refer to the Cappadocia in eastern Anatolia. Kuratowski's Ghost 08:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Traditions (Midrashic? Talmudic? Targumic? Patristic?) from a millenium after the text was written are not always reliable.--Rob117 04:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

My main problem here is that you're acting as if your interpretation is the only valid one, and asking me to dismiss what I've read in countless peer-reviewed publications because of your interpretation of a certain verse in a completely different book of the Bible.--Rob117 04:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No I'm asking you to have an open mind instead of being dogmatic about the one interpretation that Caphtor is Crete which remains plausible but is far from proven with certainty. Interpretation as Cyprus or suggestion of connection with Copt- are modern conjectures. Reference to it as Cappadocia is found in Josephus and if I'm not mistaken the Vulgate translation. Identificaton with Damietta is mentioned in a mediaeval travel text in a matter of fact manner, don't know what you are on about Talmud and Midrash which have no relevance to the issue. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about the camel and Avvites issues on the "your interpretation" thing, not the Caphtor one. Anyway, Josephus, the earliest text you mentioned, is still writing almost a millenium after the biblical text was written.

My comments about the Targum, Midrash, Talmud, and Church Fathers were stated out of the impression that you were drawing on traditional theology. While these sources are sometimes accurate, by the time they were written the Bible had been going through centuries of progressive reinterpretation. Hebrew was no longer a vernacular language, so the meaning of some words was forgotten. Place-names had changed, and were sometimes confused with similar-sounding but unrelated names- for example, Gomer, which we now know from Assyrian records was the Semitic term for the Cimmerians (Gomer in Hebrew = Gimmeru in Akkadian), was thought by medieval exegetes to refer to Germany. Josephus identifies Ophir with India, but most modern authors think it was somewhere in South Arabia or the Horn of Africa. Togarma, most likely a reference to the Armenians, was identified in the nineteenth century with the Turks.--Rob117 20:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeshu and Jehoshua Ben-Pandira

So, is it time to merge Jehoshua Ben-Pandira into Yeshu? Obviously that little stub of Massey's view belongs in the article. Just let me know when you're ready for it to happen. Jayjg (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

go for it :) Kuratowski's Ghost 08:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Get ready... Jayjg (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Bible and History

Did some work on the historical accuracy and construction of the New Testament. May have got off the track. Like to share my knowledge. Please be kind enough to check me out. User:Kazuba 6 May 2006

Mediation for article Kach_and_Kahane_Chai

Hi, User Black Butterfly has asked for mediation of a discussion about the above article, over the wording of a specific sentence. I have offered to mediate the discussion. If you do not wish me to mediate this for any reason then let me know, otherwise please [post you acceptance either on the articles talk page or on the mediation page (both of wich I posted on). Thanks --Tmorton166 12:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

trying to contact you

I'm not sure how to email you directly, but I thought you'd like my site Balashon and particularly this new article that references one of your Wikipedia entries.

My contact info is on the site if you'd like to discuss it.

Fiction in the Bible

Dear Mr. Ghost, Today we have a pretty good idea that the Bible is a mixture of different kinds of literature and forms. How much of what is here and there remains unsettled and will probably remain so. Our digging into the remote, ancient ill-documented past has limits. The boundaries of epic, legend , myth, fiction and history in sacred traditions are not easily determined with ancient cultures and vanished people. We know from the 19th century discovery of the religious epic of Gesar the Savior of Tibet, here the truth of the story is more important than its construction. The oral story tellers have asked us "Why would anyone want to tell a story that is not true?" For them fiction does not exist as it does in the West. I have a suspicion, with some physical evidence that still exists, that some tellers of the Biblical stories saw things the same way. It is the lesson from the story that is of the most importance, not how the story is formed. This would explain why different versions of the same story, an example being a comparison between the books of Kings and the books of Chronicles, and in other places in the Bible, were all preserved, even though they contradicted one another. In their time and culture it just didn't matter. Critical history, which begins in the middle ages, had yet to be invented and present a value. The Biblical stories are centered on teaching man's relationship to God and one another. This is their truth. This will not be found by digging up old ruins and collecting ancient texts to find out what really happened.User:Kazuba26 May 2006

New "Israeli apartheid" article

Hi Kuratowski: Vigorous editing and debate is taking place at Israeli apartheid (phrase). Please take a look at it and add your comments. Thanks a lot. IZAK 21:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

South African English

Thanks for fixing up that crap last night. Whoever wrote that part of the article has some serious issues they need to deal with ("pidgin"?). Out of curiosity, what was the title/subject of your Mathematics PhD thesis? What would you be using to create dance music (Cubase, Reason, Sonar...)? My weapon of choice is Fl Studio, but I seem to have the same problem as you! Many Wikipedia articles on music production are also quite bad, btw. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 08:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

My thesis was on Interior Algebras taking another look at how concepts in Topology can be formulated in universal algebra, something which was the original motivation behind interior algebras but which was neglected after the initial work in the 1940s.
I use Cakewalk, FL studio and ACID. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Cakewalk? The old MIDI version!? That's torture. DaFroot is great even if Gol is an arrogant idiot and Image-Line seems near sighted (eg their laughable PDC implementation), but that's another issue entirely... Still having problems converting your thesis to PDF? Use PDFCreator [5]. It installs itself as a printer and creates PDF files when you print to it in any Windows program. What languages do you use at work? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 16:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Arabism is a stupid categorization?

Hi Kuratowski's Ghost. I noticed you removed the category Category:Anti-Arabism from the Jewish Defense League article. I was wondering why you considered this to be a stupid characterization? While, as I understand it, JDL was oriented towards protecting Jewish interests is unfortunately morphed into an organization that attacked or planned attacks against Arabs - it is closely related to the Kahanism ideology and if you read that article you'll see that they in particular target Arabs, even though they define it themselves as targeting non-Jews. I'll add the category for now. Best. --Ben Houston 23:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand there is known case where JDL has helped Arabs .... Kuratowski's Ghost 09:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Helped them do what? Leave Israel?Homey 22:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Arabian Nights and Bible stories

Hi Mr. Ghost, Take another look. According to my dictionary analogies can be similarities between things otherwise dissimilar. I clarified it this time. User:Kazuba 3 Jun 2006

ADL on Jewish Defense League

Here is what the ADL says about them [6]. Also see the links on the right hand side. --Ben Houston 01:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

How to contact you

Dear Kuratowski's Ghost, could I contact you in private (email, chat, whatever you prefer) ? I have many questions about ancient Israel and after having read a lot of articles online and offline, I would like to discuss it with someone like you (a "well informed maximalist" is allow me to give this title !).

NB : I am not a historian neither a student.

Thanks a lot for your writings in Wikipedia.

Squallgreg 20:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you can email me via wikipedia (use the "E-mail this user" link). Kuratowski's Ghost 21:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Falsifying quotations

You might not agree with Tutu but you have no right to alter his words and falsify his quotation. Homey 13:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry didn't notice that the entire paragraph was the quote. I only noticed Tutu's glaring half-truths (hey what do you expect from someone who wins the Nobel prize for making excuses for burning people alive). Kuratowski's Ghost 18:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Parroting the line of the former apartheid South African government is not a very smart way of dissuading people that there's nothing in common between Israel and apartheid. Homey 18:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Repeating particularly obvious lies about Israel will not convince people that there is. Kuratowski's Ghost 18:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI David Ben Gurion did not practice Judaism and considered himself a Marxist revolutionary. What, exactly, is your point?Homey 18:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I didn't practice Judaism and called myself a Marxist revolutionary until the ANC's policy of burning people alive completely disillusioned me. My point is that Ozinsky and Kasrils don't consider themselves to be Jews and their views differ radically from those of South African Jews thus Tutu's statements are very misleading as they create the false impression that Kasrils and Ozinsky are Jewish as opposed to being merely of Jewish descent and that their views are in some way representative of South African Jews when they are instead representative of radical South African Marxist revolutionaries. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Would Hitler have considered Kasrils and Ozinsky Jewish? In any case, you are making an assumption about how they see themselves.Homey 00:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No I'm basing it on statements where they prefered to call themselves "South Africans of Jewish origin", not "Jewish". Kuratowski's Ghost 08:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


I edited the first paragraph of Shekel trying to explain the various types when it was used as money before coins gradually became invented as best I could. If you think it is my intention to mislead readers you are wrong. It is my intention to purely inform readers. I am just intrigued by things that have not been touched on that I think have value but are not there. For example: that the use of a shekel may set up a time; I don't care what time, but I try to be accurate, or the escape from Eygpt begins during the night. Why at night? I do not know; I cannot mind read, but I have a hunch you find these things upsetting or meaningless. I believe unfinished puzzles can become clearer by adding more correct pieces even if they do not complete the puzzle. User:Kazuba 14 July 06

Need to re-design the article "List of Biblical figures identified in extra-Biblical sources"

In recognition of your diligent work on this fledgling article from the very beginning, Mr. Kuratowski's Ghost, I would like to at least describe to you the thorough re-design I would like to propose before doing anything about it. Here are a few points that come to mind at _prima vista_:

1. Your separation of Biblical figures who are unambiguously identified in contemporary sources from those who are only tentatively identified shows sensitivity to the gradations of strength or weakness of such identifications and _should_be_preserved_.

2. Provenanced materials excavated under controlled conditions must be treated separately from unprovenanced materials that have appeared on the antiquities market. This is simply to separate materials whose authenticity is generally beyond reproach from materials whose authenticity is unknown, i.e., potential forgeries. Possible forgery of unprovenanced materials has been arguably the hottest issue surrounding the study of inscriptions since about late 2002 or early 2003, with the filing of lawsuits against antiquities dealers in Israel. Of course, this issue also extends to fakery, i.e., modern alteration of ancient materials such as the modern inscribing of ancient-looking letters on a genuinely ancient potsherd to create a faked ostracon. (See the article that accepts the "three shekels" ostracon in _Biblical Archaeology Review_ (ca. 2002?), followed by the article on it in _Israel Exploration Journal_ in early 2005, which includes technical analysis demonstrating it to be faked.)

3. While the article still includes names that have not yet been placed into the appropriate category, such names should be listed (with their accompanying data) in a "yet to be classified" section, rather than left sitting in the list of the "unambiguously identified." It was easy to spot some that certainly do not meet the requirements of this category, e.g., Jezebel, King Ahab's queen, in an unprovenanced, carved stone seal that contains only the name, apparently without the initial _aleph_ in the Biblical spelling (unless it was chipped off). In the first place, it is relatively easy to forge a stone seal, and then, even if it were shown to be authentic, the name alone is insufficient evidence to establish an identification. There is no other identifying information beyond that found in the fact that it is a scaraboid and whatever can be learned from the letter shapes (approximate date and "nationality").

I have spent more than a decade working to evaluate potential identifications of Biblical figures in Hebrew, Aramaic, Ammonite, Moabite, and other inscriptions, using the original languages and the scripts found on the inscriptions themselves, as photographed or sketched, so I hope you will take this suggestion seriously (see under "Mykytiuk" in the "For further reading" section of the article on the "Mesha Stele") If I had not done this homework, I would probably have remained interested but silent. I sense that it might be against the Wiki-rules to mention my homework, but I mention it only to insure a serious hearing, rather than to deny that to anyone else. Lawrencemykytiuk 00:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Article on terrorism

You may find the article Terrorists of Pakistani origin interesting. It may be deleted soon in perhaps a few hours.

If you have any views on having such articles on Wikipedia, please do share them at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Terrorists_of_Pakistani_origin

--Robcotton 01:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Joseph's Tomb

It seems that the text of this article was copied from [7] when you created it. Are you aware of the current copyright status of that material? It would be helpful if you would help shed some light on this issue at Talk:Joseph's Tomb. thanks --Musaabdulrashid 10:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make false accusations

The article you cite is marked copyright 2006 yet the Wikipedia article was created in 2005. The original article was based on public domain text distributed by email but was not identical to the entire text. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


I just reverted your edits to Aram. I did not find any reference in the chapter you mentioned. It may be that Aram and Ashur refer to the ancestors of the Aramaeans and Assyrians respectively, but it is clear that those people lived in the areas referred to Aram and Ashur. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You didn't look hard enough. It calls the subjects of Chushan (i.e. the king of Aram Naharaim according to the account in Judges that Josephus is referring to) as "Assyrians". Kuratowski's Ghost 13:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I find that quite far-fetched. Josephus writes that Chushan is the king of the Assyrians. In Judges, it says that Chushan is king of Aram Naharaim. From this, I would not draw the conclusion that Josephus calls the inhabitants of Aram "Assyrians", especially not if in the chapter I had cited, he calls the children of Aram "Aramites, whom the Greeks call Syrians". For it is a well-known fact that the inhabitants of what the Greeks called Syria, were called Aramaeans before their conversion to Christianity. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Chushan was king of Aram Naharaim, Josephus calls his subjects Assyrians its pretty clear and again you don't seem to understand that Aram Naharaim is not the same as Aram. Kuratowski's Ghost 15:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Religious reactions to same-sex marriage in South Africa

Hi Kuratowski's Ghost, Shavua Tov: Hope all is well. Since you are familiar with South Africa, I was curious if you could look into the discussion surrounding the opposition of organized religious movements to Same-sex marriage in South Africa, see Talk:Same-sex marriage in South Africa#Same-sex marriage in South Africa & The Mediation Cabal. More discussion about this subject is now also at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-17 Religious opposition to same-sex marriage in South Africa. If you have any information about what has been happening in South Africa on this subject, your input would be helpful. Thanks for looking into this. Best wishes, IZAK 07:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about the Kebra Nagast

Hi Kuratowski's Ghost. I've been working on the Kebra Nagast article, & am very puzzled about something that dates back to the version you wrote. According to that version, Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa published a translation of this work in 1528 -- about the same time that the first reliable reports about that country had at last reached into Europe. Further, I've querried not only the online catalogs of the U.S. Library of Congress & the British Library, but also World Cat, a database for InterLibrary Loan searches, & not one returns a hit for this translation. A query on the title -- Historia de las cosas de Etiopía only returns the account of Francisco Alvares, the Portuguese priest who published the first account of Ethiopia in a European language. At this point, I'm wondering if there wasn't a mistake somewhere & would like to know if you can provide a source for this statement. Thanks. -- llywrch 23:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Editing of Yam article

Yam means sea, in Ugarit inscriptions the divinity was called Ya'a and he was god of both the Sea (Yam) and the rivers (Nahar). Jean Bottero in Bottero, Jean (2004) "Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia" (University Of Chicago Press) ISBN 0-226-06718-1, shows how in Ebla Ea became Yah, a divinity precursor to Yahweh. As a result I am reversing your edits here. John D. Croft 16:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The reading of Yah in the Ebla texts has been rejected more recently [8]. Kuratowski's Ghost 18:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Bottero's reading has been recently supported by such scholars as Mark Smith ("The Early History of God: Yahweh and Other Deities of Ancient Israel" and "The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts"), Catherine Keller and others. It represents an important alternative point of view and to delete references to it, with only vague unreferenced statements "rejection more recently" about represents a specific POV error. If it has been rejected by some writers they need to be cited, not just delete the alternative research. John D. Croft 23:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The authors you cite represent a fairly old view which is not accepted by the mainstream. Trying to present them as mainstream is POV bias. The majority view on the origin of the name YHWH is that it is from the root meaning "to be" and that it has no connection to Ea, the form Yah being a late form resulting from shortening. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The argument that Yah is a late form is not anywhere near "mainstream", and there is no evidence to support it. The view that Yahweh comes from the verb "to be", derives from the Proto-Semetic verb *hyy, meaning "Life". It is suggested that E'A, meaning "House of Water" in Sumerian, is also etymologically linked to the same Semitic root in Akkadian. The use of the word "mainstream" in the absence of polling results is a POV view. I have attempted to correct this through the non POV language of "many", "others", "some" etc, and give citations where possible. Given these changes, are we coming any closer to consensus? Regards John D. Croft 03:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The evidence for the name YHWH is that the earliest undisputed form (e.g. on the Moabite stone) has the full letters y-h-w-h and only later do we get progressively shorter forms yahu, yah, yeho, yo. There is no use of "Yaw" for YHWH. The verb is not the same as that for "life" which has the pharyngeal H, the roor is hyh with ordinary glottal h meaning "to be". Kuratowski's Ghost 10:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Lets move discussion to the Yam talk page. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have never added anything to a wikipedia talk page so I have no idea what I am doing...I just couldn't find the email link, and I wanted to ask a question. What are your thoughts about the Documentary Hypothesis in general, and the possibility of some (or all) of the Pentateuch having been written by Moses? I know Hoffmeier and Kitchen defend a rather traditional view here. Jonathan207.101.74.162 19:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a high opinion of the documentary hypothesis. Like much 19th century / early 20th century Biblical criticism it does not meet the standards of scientific rigor. It wasn't derived out of a need for an explanation as a scientific explanation should be, but instead out of a desire to deliberately reject known explanations. The way in which it claims the Torah was composed is not a known manner in which other books have ever been composed. The justifications for its claims are illogical (the example I always use is a Star Trek book in which the same person is called Captain, Jim, James T. etc - nobody would suggest that this means that the book must have been woven together from 3 different books one with a Captain, one with Jim and one with James T, yet this is "logic" used to justify the DH. Just using common sense the Torah covers all Jewish history from legends of the creation to the time when the Israelites had returned to Canaan without anything further and so the sensible conclusion is that it was written at that period. Tradition indeed says it was started by Moses and completed by Joshua which indeed places it in that period. Tradition also recognizes that there was some later redactions in the days of Hezekiah and later Ezra. There is no good reason to reject any of this, all the arguments that it couldn't have been written this way are either deliberately deceptive or simply based on misunderstanding (like ignoring the tradition that Joshua completed the Torah after Moses died), there is no hard argument that has stood up to criticism. I reckon without any convincing arguments against the traditions they should be seriously considered and indeed some highly revised versions of the DH have come full circle and have ended up saying virtually the same thing that tradition says. Kuratowski's Ghost 20:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

But why is it then that nobody really knowledgeable that I have read, except for Evangelical Christians, seems to take the position that you suggest? I am assuming from your profile that you are not personally religious, yet you adopt a view that I have not seen any secular Biblical scholar embrace. Are all the other secularists biased? Is there anyone else who shares your view? Jonathan 22:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I know many people who aren't particularly religious who share my views, typically people with a natural science background who do not have a high opinion of the humanities especially when the latter pretends to be scientific. Kuratowski's Ghost 20:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about the anachronisms, such as the list of Edomite Kings in Genesis, etc?

Its not clear if it is indeed an anachronism assuming Mosaic authorship of the verse. The word for king "melech" could mean any sort of ruler of a people and it is possible that Moses could have considered himself to be the first "melech" of the Israelites. Either way there is nothing that contradicts the traditional origin of the Torah which recognizes a redaction as late as Ezra; there is no reason to find fault with the view that such comments are part of Ezra's redaction.

Also, doesn't acceptance of Mosaic authorship entail acceptance of at least the basic elements of the account as historical? Meaning that, despite the lack of archaeological evidence, you recognize the essential historicity of the Exodus, Wilderness and Conquest-by-Joshua traditions? Jonathan 16:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The reality is that it is the only historical tradition regarding the early Israelites and that there is no reason to reject it any more than any other early historical writings. Arguing that there is no archaeological evidence is irrational, archaeology only finds a few things that have been preserved by chance. How much archaeological evidence do you have of say Attila the Hun? What archaeological evidence do you expect to find from that era capable of micro-identifying incidents reported in the Bible? Kuratowski's Ghost 17:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


You deleted my addition in the first paragraph: "(and hence the Christian Old Testament)" Why? Robinson weijman 12:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That can go back, I wanted the POV interpretation and speculation about Nephilim out (that they were giants is only one POV) and the stuff about the sword that wasn't reliably sourced. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the info - I've put it back. Robinson weijman 07:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the fixing up at Hasmonean. I have been trying for some time to figure out how they referred to themselves, and never got around to reading the full account in 1/2 Maccabees. Thanks for your contribs; stick around and help me improve it, I'd like to make it a WP:FA! Kaisershatner 18:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There an RfC you might want to comment on

[9] considering your opposition to the sources used. Tiamut 04:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


Pursuant to your general position regarding the authorship/accuracy of Biblical literature, I am curious as to your view of Ecclesiastes, which is traditionally attributed to Solomon but nowadays considered post-Exilic? RJ

The view that is post-Exilic is the usual modernist bullsh*t along the lines of "its philosphical, everyone knows that only Greek culture was capable of philosophy, therefore its from the Hellenistic period".

The tradition regarding the book is that it was composed by scribe in the court of Hezekiah and there is nothing to discount such a view. Comparison with Phoenician texts suggests that the language of the book is indeed pre-exilic and that the writer spoke a northern dialect. Tradition (and simple common sense from reading it) also says that the main voice in the book represents Solomon as an old man. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Biblical Maximalism

What do you think about the numbers recorded in the Torah, especially the implausibly huge figures like 2 million people leaving Egypt? There is no evidence to substantiate an Exodus of that magnitude, and even the Evangelicals who are scholars like Kitchen try to "reinterpret" the numbers to get them down to something reasonable. But if you really believe Moses wrote the Torah then it seems like you'd have to accept those numbers even though they defy credibility. Jonathan
It has been claimed by some that the numbers are implausible based on extreme low end estimates of the population at the time (estimates made by people with an axe to grind with the Bible). There isn't enough evidence to come up with anything more than wild guess for the population, other estimates put the Egyptian population at several million making the figures seem plausible. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Names of Jerusalem

You censored my addition regarding the possible Canaanite origin of the word Shalem. This seems extreme to me, considering that the idea already existed in the article (as well as in the Hebrew Wiki) and I was merely adding other Biblical examples (all from other Wikipedia articles). Why is the theory okay for Beit Shemesh (see Wiki for Bet Shemesh) but forbidden for Jerusalem? Even if you have somehow disproved this theory (which I doubt), I think it should at least be mentioned, and you may freely add your rebuttal or criticisms. What happened to freedom of thought? Wouldn't you say blanket censorship of this sort is paternalistic? Why not let the reader judge for himself Yabti, from Jerusalem

Its a old crank idea that was criticized and rejected long ago. Shalim together with Shachar were Ugaritic minor gods representing dusk and dawn and were always invoked together. No mention of these minor gods is found outside Ugarit and moreover the root sh-l-m did not carry the same meaning outside Ugarit. As a rejected idea from modernist pseudo-scholarship it doesn't deserve mention. Moreover the name of the city is not Beth Shalim which is what one would get if it was derived this way. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The name would not necessarily be "Beth Shalim" - see for example the village of "Anathoth" which is surely nameed after the (major) goddess Anat and does not include the term "Bet". In addition, as I understand it Canaanite mythology is generally poorly attested outside Ugarit so part of your answer relies on the famed "Argument From Silence", with all that entails. In any event, I thank you for your speedy response Yabti.

Its not simply an argument from silence as the root sh-l-m is well attested in the region and means "peace" or "whole" and not "dusk" as in the language of Ugarit. The idea that Anathoth is named after Anat is also modernist presumption since the name can be understood to mean simply "answers". Kuratowski's Ghost 00:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I found this discussion interesting, and therefore copied it to the "Talk:Names of Jerusalem" page.Yabti.

Non-Theistic Jew

What is a non-Theistic Jew? A Deist? Does this mean that the basis of your belief in God is scientific or philosophical rather than religious?

It means I don't believe in a God, well at least not as the term is typically understood. Kuratowski's Ghost 16:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI Zeq 17:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history

I have responded to your comment on the AfD. Can you please take a look(also at the details I have provided under my keep vote). Thanks --Aminz 07:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Book of Daniel

Any thoughts about the major historical problems with the Book of Daniel, and/or its connection to Babylonian mythological characters and stories? Thanks, Jon

Can you be more specific? I'm only aware of deliberate misinterpretations and outright lies that are claimed to be historical problems, like the lies that Belshazzar or Darius the Mede are unhistorical despite hard evidence. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have heard that the book was composed during the era of the Maccabees and that Daniel might even be a fictional character, borrowed from a mythological figure named Dan-el or something to that effect.

It might indeed be from the Maccabee era but Daniel has always been regarded as an historical figure according to standard tradition. Trying to link him to Dan-el a figure in the local folk legends of the city of Ugarit from the late 3rd millenium BCE which already lay buried and forgotten for thousands of years by the time Daniel was written is a prime example of the preposterous claims that modernist pseudo-scholars come up with. Not to mention that there is zero resemblance between the two. The name Daniel and variants have been found in Akkadian inscriptions showing that it was genuine name used in Babylonia. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You continue to amaze me. I have never encountered anyone with such a staunchly conservative attitude toward Biblical tradition who was not an Orthodox Jew or Evangelical Christian. Be that as it may, you talk sense. I would be fascinated to hear more about your non-theistic beliefs - in what way do you believe in God or a higher power of some sort?

Criticism of Jesus

You might want to take a look at the Criticism of Jesus article, which includes some POV stuff about the Yeshu/Ben Stada passages in the Talmud. Jayjg (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Documentary hypothesis of Star Trek

Thanks for a good laugh- I just came across your comments at Talk:Amalek#Amalekites in the days of Abraham from last year. I'll have to remember that argument for the future. --Eliyak T·C 01:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


Hey Kuratowski, I am conducting an informal mediation with regards to this article. Please drop by here to contribute your opinion. Hopefully we can reach a compromise that will please(or displease as the case may be :) ) everyone. Cheers--Cronholm144 04:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

List of South African slang words


You might like to check out the last two sections I just added to Talk:List of South African slang words. I'm surmising that, in responding to the addition of the JAP reference, you reversed the edits to the whole section. If that is the case, this is a polite request for you to edit with a finer brush. Thanks. Nat 11:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


Please respond to Bikinibomb's comments about figs and Judaism here, thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 00:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Documentary Hypothesis

I hear your objection to dividing the Torah up into documents based upon the use of different names, but what about the other evidence marshalled by Biblical scholars - anachronisms, linguistic features of the texts, etc., that indicate either post-Mosaic origin or multiple sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How are these inconsistent with the traditional account of the origins of the Torah involving redactions as late as Ezra? Why do we need bizarre hypotheses about documents being interwoven that are contrary to all known examples of how books are written? Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
So you accept Mosaic authorship of the Torah as historically defensible? Does this include a 600,000 man Exodus, something even a maximalist like Kenneth Kitchen refuses to accept literally? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I reckon it evolved from a work written by Moses via normal updating and redaction. Considering that a woman could easily have had 10 or more children and that the total number includes non-Israelites who joined with the Israelites, I have yet to see a convincing argument that a 600 000 man Exodus is impossible. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
In view of your trust of tradition in these matters, what do you think of the Talmud's confusions regarding the history of the Persian period, etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Talmud has hardly anything to say about the Persian period, are you talking about the various Rabbinical chronologies? In my opinion they compensate for lack of information by using artificial Midrashic year lengths which causes confusion. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Nonetheless, their artificial chronologies betray lack of real historical knowledge, which makes me suspicious of other historical traditions they offer as "fact". Regarding the Exodus, my understanding is that population estimates of Canaan and Egypt during the periods in question make such a large Exodus impossible, not to mention the failure of such an enormous crowd to leave a trace! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Except those are low end estimates from people predisposed to ridiculing the Bible, other estimates do not contradict such a large exodus. The ancient view (Josephus + Church fathers) was that the exodus was part of the expulsion of the Hyksos which certainly has evidence.Take a look at Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Yet both Hoffmeier and Kitchen, religious and scholarly conservatives to say the least, agree that the Exodus described in the Bible is too large to be realistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a wide spectrum of opinion, I'm irreligious and not convinced by any argument that I have seen that it was too large to be realistic. People studying humanities shouldn't dabble in population modeling if they don't understand the math and can't differentiate between wild estimates and hard fact. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
In what sense then are you a "Bible Critic"? After all, if you are so willing to take the reports of tradition so seriously, what prevents you from being religious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
In the sense that I don't buy into supernatural explanations and supersition like Moses' staff really turning into a snake etc when what is described seems to indicate a well known conjurers trick. I don't see reason to reject tradition simply for the sake of rejecting tradition or reason to come up with biased or deliberately deceptive arguments to make tradition look stupid. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Jews vs Israelites

Ghost, about my edit and your revert in the Land of Israel article. You claim that most current Jews are descendants of Israelites. Genetic genealogy proves you wrong. Please read about this fascinating subject, starting with the article on Haplogroup J (Y-DNA). In it, you will learn that true Israelites carry the J2 haplotype of the Y chromosome, which is carried by about 80% of Cohanim (hence, the concept of the Y-chromosomal Aaron), but only 15-30% of other Jewish males. Since the Thorah defines descent as patrilineal and since the Y chromosome is inherited from father to son, genetic proves that most current Jews are not Israelites. Please reconsider your edit of my sentence. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Judaism uses matrilineal descent to determine who is Jewish or not and a convert to Judaism acquires equal status to other Jews - there is no tradition saying that the Land of Israel was only given to patrilineal descendants of Jacob, you made that up. The arguments about chromosomal evidence amount to an interesting conjecture and nothing more besides being irrelevant. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Ghost, here are a few of my sources to support my assertion that this land was given to the patrilineal descendants Jacob, not to anyone who later converted to Judaism :
  • Genesis 15:18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates ...
  • Numbers 34:1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Command the Israelites and say to them: 'When you enter Canaan, the land that will be allotted to you as an inheritance ...
  • Ezekiel 47:13 This is what the Sovereign LORD says: "These are the boundaries by which you are to divide the land for an inheritance among the twelve tribes of Israel,...
Now, please quote your sources. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't specify patrilineal descendents. It doesn't say anything about anyone adopted into the nation (i.e. converts) being denied inheritance. Consult standard works on Judaism (e.g. Encyclopedia Judaica) to see that Judaism uses matrilineal descent to dtermine who is automatically part of the nation and accepts converts as an equal part of the nation sharing in its inheritence. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I find laughable the presumption that a modern encyclopedia would be closer to the Lord's intent than the scriptures. The Torah has a gazillion references to the patrilineal line of descent, including many brothers of different mothers, but can you find in it two brothers of the same mother but different fathers?
I am not going to pay $2,000 to look up your reference. How does it define "the house of Jacob" and "the seed of Abraham". Don't look it up for me; add a paragraph in the Israelite article. This concept also deserves more space in the Who is a Jew? article.
And when all this is done, go back to the beginning of this argument: to whom did the Lord give the Land of Israel? To all future Jews as defined by future rabbis, or only to his people, the descendants of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham? Emmanuelm (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The point is, your interpretation of the text is a minority view, the view of Rabbis is the majority view. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Linguistic Evidence

How do you deal with the linguistic evidence that is brought to prove that many books of the Bible - such as Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, etc. - were written much later than tradition claims? Apparently they contain loan words from later periods of history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that they are written later than tradition claims, perhaps you are confusing the fact that they present King Solomon as the main voice as meaning that tradition claims they were written by Solomon which is not what the tradition around their authorship actually says, tradition places their authorship in the days of Hezekiah with final redaction by the Great Assembly (2nd temple period). Modern scholarship hasn't come up with anything further regarding their authorship. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 09:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Mosaic Authorship

I am baffled by the way that you dismiss the consensus of nearly all Biblical scholars and accept the tradition of Mosaic authorship. You are admittedly not an expert or an academic in the field, doesn't it bother you that pretty much nobody in the field agrees with your view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't accept Mosaic authorship, I accept as a working hypothesis what tradition actually says (initiation by Moses with addition and redaction by Joshua, court of Hezekiah, Ezra and the scribes) as opposed to modernist blanket rejection of the tradition based on hokey, inconclusive and deliberately deceptive arguments. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Historicity of Esther

With Purim around the corner, could you comment on the issues related to the historicity of the Book of Esther? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I find that I largely agree with the views of Hoschander (The Book of Esther in the Light of History) around the placement of the events in the reign of Artaxerxes II although I feel he dabbles too much in wild conjecture around the politics and motives at the time. As for the criticims of the book of Esther I find these to be typcially even more stupid than pseudo-intellectual Biblical criticisms usually are. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Map in Land of Israel

There's an ongoing discussion in that article about whether a map of David's kingdom is too fringily extensive or not that I think could benefit from knowledgeable input, so I thought you might want to look in. Cheers,John Z (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Anguipede.jpg

Nuvola apps important blue.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:Anguipede.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly hi! 07:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Immanuel. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. I need to note to you that I warned you anonymously, and you undid that warning as found in your Talk History "Revision as of 01:49, 31 May 2008 (edit) .

The warning was:
Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Immanuel, you will be blocked from editing. (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Its pretty clear that concensus has been gained and that you cannot provide any citations to back up your made up claims. Threats aren't going to stop ppl deleting made up nonsense that you add. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Asterix Conquers Rome.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Asterix Conquers Rome.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Steptoe and Son

Don't blank text without explanation. What possible reason could you have for not wanting mention of the South African version of Steptoe and Son? Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:V are good enough reasons. Any chance you could take a look at WP:CIVIL as well? --Rodhullandemu 07:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
No those aren't good reasons for blanking, those are reasons for requesting citation, not blanking. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish Internet Defense Force

Hi Kuratowski's Ghost
Nice rounded definition, well done--Puttyschool (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Your accusation of anti-semitism

[10] Pray explain how discussing the history of Jericho and of Jerusalem, besides the statement that there are conflicting positions on Jerusalem, qualifies as "anti-semitic". If you think that United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 and others are "anti-semitic", or that indeed the UN itself is an anti-semitic organization at its core, do present your sources at the relevant article, not at a completely unrelated article on prehistoric cities. --dab (𒁳) 11:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The legitimacy of Lebanon and Jordan say are also disputed by various parties so why single out Jerusalem and Israel. Yes the UN is anti-semitic duh. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The article lists the modern states in which the prehistoric cities are found. Jerusalem is found in territory fully under rule of the modern state of Israel. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
you want to edit New_antisemitism#United_Nations, where your remarks will at least be on topic. Pray stay away from articles on ancient history unless you want to discuss issues related to ancient history. Your apparent position that any criticism of Israel automatically qualifies as antisemitic would seem to fall under WP:TIGERS. We can report on it, but I will thank you for refraining from giving actual demonstrations of this or any sort of political extremism in action on Wikipedia talkpages. Thanks. --dab (𒁳) 12:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
By not listing Jerusalem as being in Israel (a simple geographical reality) it is you who are trying to use an article on ancient history as a tool for political positioning. If you feel that Israel's rule over Jerusalem should be questioned then you should edit political articles on the subject and leave one on ancient cities alone. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. I have no opinion on the matter myself, and I am frankly not interested. I will agree to listing East Jerusalem as part of Israel as soon as there is a UN resolution to the effect, just like in every other territorial dispute on Wikipedia. I have no stakes in this, and I see no reason to treat the Middle East conflict as a "special case" of any kind. The Jerusalem dispute is exactly the same to me as the Kashmir, Kosovo, Abkhazia, Western Sahara, or bleeding Isla Perejil disputes. I know the UN is far from perfect, duh, but it happens to be the closest thing we have to an international consensus on international affairs. The opinions of involved parties in international affairs are irrelevant. Wikipedia will not list territory claimed by the Israeli state as "de jure" part of Israel any more than it will list territory claimed by Serbia as "de jure" part of the Serbian state, etc. You want to see how these things are handled on Wikipedia? Read Talk:Kosovo. dab (𒁳) 04:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


Hi there. I know you're involved in editing this article, so I thought I might point you to User_talk:Justinfr#Your_revert_of_Aram_Nahraim. I don't intend to get into an edit war about this, because I'm just going by this discussion, but you appear to have more knowledge of the topic itself. So, I thought I'd re-direct your attention to the Aram-Naharaim article if you have thoughts about the differing revisions. justinfr (talk/contribs) 19:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I did some work on the article when I was interested in the subject of the location of Ur Kasdim. I notice that there is an editor who insists on inserting made up nonsense that deliberately confounds the distinction between Aram and Aram Naharaim in the Bible due to some bizarre Aramaean identity nationalist aspirations unique to himself. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent AfD on Christianity and Judaism

Hi! I see that you were one of the participants in the recent AfD on the article Christianity and Judaism. That AfD recommended (in a snowball result) that the article be merged into Judeo-Christian. However, since the AfD concerns have been raised, most notably

  • Per WP:ADJECTIVE and WP:MOSNAME, we use nouns and noun-phrases for article titles, not adjectives. So a general survey on the relationships between Christianity and Judaism (a topic this encyclopedia should certainly cover) should be called Christianity and Judaism, as per the articles Christianity and Islam, Islam and Judaism.
  • The reason the article Judeo-Christian exists, as its own hatnote declares, is specifically to survey the history and use of that word-phrase -- which has its own controversy, and its own tale to tell. (See here where I've set things out in a bit more detail.) That story is a good fit for its own article, and will get completely lost if the contents of Christianity and Judaism get inappropriately dumped on top of it.

Having contacted the closing admin, his advice was to open a new discussion at Talk:Christianity and Judaism, advertise the discussion widely, and if a new consensus can be reached in that discussion [his emphasis], then per WP:CCC the new consensus should be followed, rather than the AfD decision, without the need for a DRV or a new AfD.

Concerns about the proposed merge have also been expressed by Template:User-multi, Template:User-multi and Template:User-multi.

This post is therefore to let you know that that discussion is underway, at Talk:Christianity and Judaism#Overly speedy deletion, with a view to perhaps setting aside the AfD decision.

Of course, some significant issues were raised in the AfD about the article in its present form, so the best way forward is a question that needs some thought. Please feel welcome to come and participate! Jheald (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Dan to Beersheva and El Arish

I see a problem withthe article as it is structured. There is, of course, no way to reconcile the various boundaries listed in the Bible. All are conceptual, like saying "Maine to California" and none would allow a surveyor or boundary commission to resolve, tenth century BCE border dispute. That said, Dan to Beersheva is far and away the most common, and the article when I came upon it buried it in favor of boundary markers no more precise but used only once. On El Arish, do you have a source?Historicist (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Regarding Nachal Mizraim, I can find more precise references for Rashi and Halevy and list the various Targums that translate it as Nilus if you like. That Jewish tradition follows these interpretations and is not concerned with Easton's etc is something that goes without saying. As for Dan to Beersheba, yes this does describe the land actually settled and this point should be and is made in the artcile. But it does not correspond to the borders of the Land of Israel given in Genesis and Deuteronomy which is a vast area stretching to the Euphrates and corresponds to all the lands from which David and Solomon later received tribute, nor even to the borders in Exodus allocated to 9 1/2 tribes which stretched much further north than Dan and further south west than Beersheba, so its simply wrong to portray it as the majority view of where the borders were, majority view follows the actual descriptions. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


These are not in any way "racist comments". Please stop removing sourced and verifiable content from the article. You also might want to review WP:Soapbox, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it is sourced does not make it notable or relevant to the article. Why is a supposed sysop insisting on the inclusion of racist nonsense in a food article? Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The content is neither racist nor nonsense. Please also review WP:Disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
"The adoption of hummus as an Israeli Jewish dish is described by Joseph Massad as "cultural theft" and "appropriation" of what was traditionally a "Palestinian and Levantine Arab" dish". Joseph Massad is a known for anti-Israel speeches and writing (see [11] and [12]) and not a food expert and so his opinion is not relevant to the article. "Cultural theft" and "appropriation" are typical weasel terms used in anti-Israel propaganda. Even though the article puts them in inverted commas it is giving legitimacy to the claim by quoting it.
The comment from the cookbook about hummus not being Israeli is deliberately misleading, its purpose in the book is to point out that hummus is not an Israeli invention but it makes this point precisely because hummus is indeed part of Israeli cuisine and thought of as such. It is quoted in a manner which can mislead one unfamiliar with the subject into thinking that hummus is not thought of as Israeli. Moreover it was only included in the article to attempt to lend legitimacy to the previous racist comments of Massad. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The content is reliably sourced. It is not racist. It is not nonsense. If you would like to add balancing, reliably sourced content to the article to echo your outlook on this, please do. Meanwhile, please do not remove sourced content from the article, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Its reliably sourced that Massad made such a statement, the statement itself is anti-Israel propaganda and disinformation - Jews are part of Levantine culture his statement attempts to exclude them. Hummus was eaten by Palestinian Jews and Samaritans long before the invention of the modern Palestinian Arab identity. The very terms he uses are racist, imagine if one wrote that Africans "culturally stole" shirts and trousers from Europeans and "appropriated" European shoes. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Please provide a reliable source which supports your assertion, "Hummus was eaten by Palestinian Jews and Samaritans long before the invention of the modern Palestinian Arab identity." Please provide a reliable source which supports your assertion, "the statement itself is anti-Israel propaganda and disinformation - Jews are part of Levantine culture his statement attempts to exclude them." If you can find such citations, they can go into the article. Meanwhile, please don't remove reliably sourced content. The content you removed was neither racist nor nonsense. Nor was the content about Africans, skirts or trousers. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Simply googling on Samaritan cuisine etc I could probably find such references but my point is that none of it, neither Massad's comments nor sourced counter arguments belong in the article as they turn an article on food into a petty Israeli-Palestinian conflict article. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I responded to your last comment on the talk page of Hummus. I know myself and other editors, such as User:Gilabrand, have stopped contributing to the article because it seems that some of the other dediated editors do not give our input as much weight as they do to the disruptive edits ( WP:FORK etc) made by random IPs and other Single Purpose Accounts. The IPs and SPAs seem bent on challenging all information pertaining to Israel. Since many of the challenges of legitimately sourced information have failed, it now appears that the most recent edits have been directed at demonizing Israeli and Jewish contributions to middle eastern cuisine. While the article cannot be written in bias form, some IP and SPAs have managed to use extensive quotes to accomplish the same end result. Its a very sad situation. -- Nsaum75 (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Asterix and the Black Gold

Ah, about your comments about Asterix and the Black Gold... have you listened to the album Mesopotamia? JIP | Talk 16:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Massey in Yeshu

You are correct that a POV tag instead of a reliable source tag should be used in that situation. On the other hand, adding an accurate biographical preface (e.g. Poet and self-taught Egyptologist...), before a quote is not "weaseling". "Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources." Compare: Massey was the best poet ever. --to-- Some say, Massey was the best poet ever (The weasel words are in bold.) Please see the weasel word article for more information. If anything, you should have used a WP:RS tag if you disputed the accuracy of the content I presented. To avoid any potential disputes, I added sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madridrealy (talkcontribs) 11:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Cecil Rhodes

Re this edit, nicely stated! (Exactly what I would have said myself, had I thought of it ... ) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Stateira (wife of Artaxerxes II)

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Stateira (wife of Artaxerxes II) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. DougsTech (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Toledot Yeshu

Sorry for the confusion over the tags, I missed your reply to the May 2008 thread, and I just make it a habit to kill tags on sight if they are just tags-for-tags-sake. In any case, I have replied to your critique. In regards to your merge proposal, I wasn't even mentally aware of the existence of the marginally sourced -- bloggish even -- Yeshua article when I wrote the article about the Sepher Toldos Jeschu manuscripts; it was just a subtopic that came up while I was working on the Pfefferkorn controversy. Comparative religion of Medieval Europe is kinda my thing, and as a Catholic who has been handed one too many Jack Chick tracts in his day by members of the local Protestant majority, finding out that there was a roughly equivalent propaganda back in the day was/is fascinating. But a comic book is just a comic book, even if they lacked pictures back when, and it's nothing to get too stressed about. I stand by my sources. -- Kendrick7talk 10:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I take it back -- Yeshu is much better ref'd now that it was when I last looked at it early last year, particularly the Toledoth section.[13] -- Kendrick7talk 20:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Theres been a lot of (slow) work to improve the article while doing justice to the whole complex spectrum of opinion - very difficult as sources are not available online although some are beginning to appear on Google books. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


Could you please comment here (and then look at the main article and check the translation please)? Please? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


"Dahdi" was spammed to Nine Men's Morris, and a google search took me to Morabaraba. Are you sure it's a Morabaraba variant? It looks more like a commercial Nine Men's Morris edition to me. [14] --Hans Adler (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The example of Dahdi that I have seen is played on the Twelve Men's Morris (Morabaraba) board but uses nine men as in Nine Men's Morris. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
That would be consistent with "Dahdi" meaning generically "x men's morris", but also with the publisher of the only version that I can find on the web (Kreeda) getting it wrong (or with other possibilities). Do you have a source that we can cite? Since both games seem likely to have been introduced by Europeans, it would seem more appropriate to me to discuss the connection in 9mm, unless Dahdi is really more similar to Morabaraba or 12mm than to 9mm. It was there, but in an inappropriate, spammy way, so I removed it until I find the precise Dahdi rules somewhere. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
After looking at pics on the internet of Dahdi it does indeed seem to be ordinary Nine Men's Morris, I have removed it from the Morabarab article. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Zindler on Yeshu

According to WP policy, one should only add citations from reliable sources. Zindler's book from American Atheist Press is not a reliable source, so citing it is a violation of WP policy. See WP:RS. Leadwind (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Zindler is an atheist and you don't agree with him doesn't make him an unreliable source. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course not, my friend. Why, I'm an atheist. I don't have any trouble with atheists. If Zindler's work was legit, however, it could get published in a neutral source, such as an academic journal or independent publishing house. There are plenty of notable, reliable atheists. Zindler's just not one of them. Leadwind (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Transactional interpretation

Hi, thank you very much for your notice and the opportunity to discuss the issue with mathematician. Please tell me, how should be done correctly the mathematics in the beamsplitter experiment. For me, it is plain obvious that there should be possible to construct a wavefunction, where you have probability contribution from purely imaginary part, as in the beamsplitter vertical branch. There the amplitude is with phase delay of , and according to standard QM, there is no problem. The mathematics is done right simply by taking the squared value and you have non-negative probability. What I am saying, is that the Cramer's TI cannot lead to standing wave that is purely imaginary, or if it can, please explain why the imaginary parts don't cancel out after interfereing with its own complex conjugate. Please write on my talk page. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

IPBE granted

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit

This edit seemed based more on your opinion, factual information. [15]. The edit summary also did not seem connected as a good reason to revert. The information is well known and sourced that you reverted. Please take caution when changing stable sourced information. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The description "Bedouin-like" makes the mistake of applying modern era concepts to a period thousands of years ago. This is a common mistake in portraying the ancient Middle East whose culture was nothing like modern Arab culture. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean but a suggestion would be to read Donald Redfords book Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient times. It is considered a reliable source... Princeton Press, and Redford thrashes that idea around a lot and makes statements that connect the term. Also the ancient middle east as to culture being like modern Arab culture is not an issue. No one said it was or is contested to any things related to that. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


Regarding the anon user on the Caphtor page, I noticed he is back and notified an admin. Cheers! Outback the koala (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Christ myth theory

Hey, slow down with the edits to the Christ myth theory page. You're cutting lots of information and rewritting sections which have been stable for a long time. In some instances your rationales are factually incorrect. Read the article's FAQ on the talk page and discuss possible changes there before cutting something you think is POV. Eugene (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The section I cut is an undigested quotation - an article shouldn't be a pastiche of quotations, and it was already summed up earlier in the article, why repeat the same thing? The main problem with the article as it stands is that it tries to portray liberal Christian scholars as the only real scholars while dismissing the views of skeptical writers whose background is in the sciences as opposed to liberal theology as pseudo-scholars or marginal writers. Yes, some liberal Christians consider the Jesus references in Josephus to be genuine, but traditional Jewish scholars and skeptical scientists simply do not and at most allow for the possibility that there may have been some sort of reference that has been replaced but a Christian redaction. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that Wright's quotation is the only substantial one in the whole article; that hardly makes the page a "pastiche of quotations". As for the claim that the article "tries to portray liberal Christian scholars as the only real scholars while dismissing the views of skeptical writers", that's simply not true. The FAQ already deals with this: Ehrman is an agnostic, Segal is Jewish, Grant is an atheist, Durant is a agnostic/pantheist, and they all agree that the Christ myth theory is wrong to the point of being a bit silly. I'm not even aware of serious scientists who deny that Jesus existed--even a man as hostile to religion as Richard Dawkins has said he thinks Jesus probably was a real person--though demanding that the scholarly consensus include non-specialists can become unhelpful very quickly (see Arthur Butz). If you know of any serious historian, biblical scholar... or really anyone marginally relevant at all who denies that Jesus existed, make the person known on the talk page. And your concerns about Josephus are quite unfounded, the broad mainstream of scholarship, includng Jews and skeptics, think that the Testimonium is legit, at least in some pared-down form, and that's all that's neccesary for this page: bare historicity. (See Louis Feldman's comment on the matter.)
This is an article that gets a lot of new viewers riled up. They've read a blog article somewhere or just assumed that it is an open question and are shocked to the point of disbelief that mainstream scholarship regards the theory as crack-pot nonsense. But that is how the theory is regarded, by the overwhelming majority of Christians, Jews, agnostics, and atheists who are active in the relevant disicplines. Eugene (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a lot of crackpot nonsense in Biblical criticism, but there are several "christ myth writers" who can't easily be dismissed as cranks, Joseph Campbell, Doherty and Zindler for example who are highly regarded in the skeptical inquiry community which is largely made up of academics in the sciences who instead have contempt for humanities "scholarship" with its basis in opining and elitism as opposed to the scientific method. What the article currently lacks is a discussion of the fact that skepticism already existed in the 2nd century as we know from Justin Martyr its not just a modern popular writer thing. Within early Christianity itself one had views such as Jesus only having appeared as an apparition. In Islamic writing there is certainly belief in a historical Jesus but definite disagreement with standard Christian writings on when he had lived which is something relevant to the topic. The article should distinguish between three types of christ myth theories: traditional skepticism around the historicity of Jesus or certain aspects of the Gospel account already present in late antiquity, modern skeptical science writers who argue cogently and the real cranks like Allegro for example who use nonsense linguistics etc. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
You seem to not understand the topic of the page in question. The Christ myth theory article focuses on the belief that "Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical person". More modest claims, like that Jesus was just some rabbi who got himself killed and was heavily mythologized posthumously by his followers, don't belong in the article (See Walsh's definition in FAQ #1). There are other articles where such views of appropriate: historical Jesus and Jesus in comparative mythology come to mind.
I think the topic is too narrow then because even the extremists like Doherty consider some aspects of the Gospel account to derive from an historical preacher and by saying that Jesus was "not historical" he means that the bulk of what is believed about Jesus is mythological baggage deriving from a "Jesus" who was some sort of supernatural entity in Paul's writings that became confounded with this historical preacher whose real history he sees as contributing very little the figure of Jesus as understood in Christianity. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
You've mischaracterized Doherty's position. He's clearly said that he believs no historical Jesus stands behind even the most primitive purely conjectural sources (e.g. Q1) which may possibly lie behind other, more mainstream, hypothetical sources of the gospels (e.g. plain ol' regular Q): "Perhaps the Q sect at its beginnings adopted a Greek source, with some recasting, one they saw as a suitable ethic for the kingdom they were preaching. In any case, there is no need to impute such sayings to a Jesus; they seem more the product of a school or lifestyle, formulated over time and hardly the sudden invention of a single mind." This is all in the article already, both the in-line stuff and the footnote. Again, before offering knee-jerk criticism of the article like so many drive-by editors in the past, if you really think you have something to add to the article, please actually read it first. Eugene (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
You are misunderstanding Doherty's position. Doherty recognizes what he calls a "founder/preaching figure of the Galilean-Syrian Kingdom of God community" and recognizes that the human aspects of Jesus in the Gospels derive from this figure. His position is that this person was an unremarkable random individual and that the bulk of the Christian concept of Jesus is not derived from this historical individual but from a mythical Jesus in Pauls writings who is akin to the purely mythical figure of "the Messiah to be" found in Jewish midrashic literature, but who was assimilated to this random preacher. This is similar to "Christ mythers" who build on Abaraham Ibn Daud's view that Jesus was derivative of Yeshu the student of ben-Perachiah in the Talmud - they also tend to speak of Jesus being a myth but nevertheless still recognize an historical individual as playing a role in the idea of Jesus being an earthly individual. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
At this point you're just being dishonest. The fuller version of the Doherty quotation that you provided is this: "The human character of Jesus of Nazareth is based primarily not on the Pauline-type mythical Christ, but upon the presumed (I regard as invented) founder/preaching figure of the Galilean-Syrian Kingdom of God community, as found in the later stages of the Q document." I've no further interest in pursuing this discussion. Eugene (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
No dishonesty, I couldn't remember the term Doherty had used so I just quickly browsed through his site until I saw it but didn't read too carefully. When I read some of his stuff some years back the impression I got was that he acknowledged an historical preacher, but I see from the quote you give he considers this preacher to have been invented as well. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Using that narrow definition then, Joseph Cambell is not an advocate of the theory. As he said in The Power of Myth: "I think we may know approximately what Jesus said. I think the sayings of Jesus are probably pretty close to the originals." As for Doherty, I think that he can be easily dismissed as a crank: no doctorate, no teaching position, only one work not self-published (an article published in the already pretty fringy--and now defunct--Journal of Higher Criticism), essentially laughed off by even one of the few actual academics who is open to being convinced of the truthfulness of the Christ myth theory (R. Joseph Hoffmann: Doherty's work is "qualitatively and academically far inferior to anything so far written on the subject."), etc. But even so, the article mentions Doherty briefly since he's achieved a marginal degree of notability. Zindler, a bitterly anti-religious non-specialist historical Jesus skeptic, is essentially the Christ myth theory's version of Arthur Butz--a bitterly anti-semetic non-specialist holocaust skeptic. Thankfully, neither of these men overthrow the consensus regarding the historical reality of what they deny.
Docetism is not the same thing as the Christ myth theory (Jesus was a hologram who strutted around Palestine in the 1st century vs. Jesus was a myth who didn't strut around anywhere ever) so Justin Martyr's antogonists aren't relevant here. Neither is Islam relevant since the Koran states that Jesus was a real person in time (not to mention his various miraculous powers and virgin birth).
Again, though, if you're aware of a modern skeptical science writter whose advocated the Christ myth and achieved some degree of notability in so doing or has brought the idea into the popular imagination (like Dawkin's passing mention of it in The God Delusion, a mention that already appears in the article), let us know on the talk page. Eugene (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Your last edit in the invention of the Jewish people article

Your lasr edit was reverted by User:RolandR. I reported on him here [16]--Gilisa (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI for User:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Outback the Koala (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, sir. In regards to your edits on the Testimonium Flavianum

I read your comments there in the discussion section and was intrigued. I'm just a layman, and I was hoping you could point me to some links where I can read more in depth about the arguments against the authenticity of the TF which you mentioned over there. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

can you review this:

[17] a new editor greatly expanded a section in this article and I cannot jusge its accuracy or neutrality but I think you can. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


Happy New Year. Your help is sorely needed here in this discussion on Jesus as Yeshu. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


There have been a host of changes to the article recently. I kniw you know the sources well, and hope you are monitoring all the changes. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


Finkelstein and Silberman are not fringe authors and material should not be removed simply because they are the source. But as they were not the source of the material you deleted (I don't know who added them on to the original edit), I've obviously not restored it. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

They are very fringe when in comes to their popular writings on Israelite history as opposed to raw archaeology papers in journals. Their book has been heavily criticized by mainstream historians. There is a similar problem with using works by other big name Israelu archaeologists of the same school, even someone like the the renowned Yigal Yadin - highly respected for ordinary archaeological work but completely cranky when it came to history. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Who calls them fringe? The book is clearly a reliable source. Is Eilat Mazar fringe? Finkelstein says he isn't a minimalist but "the voice of the center". Dougweller (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
History lecturers consider them fringe, "The Bible Unearthed" made zero impact on Israelite history syllabuses. The book is a decade old already and subsequent works have criticized many of their conclusions. The problem with them, as was the case with Yadin, is in their popular writings as opposed to published finds and their revisionist history ideas that rely on biased interpretation of the evidence and old logical fallacies such as assuming "absence of evidence" to be "evidence of absence". I haven't read anything by Mazar but she strikes me as swinging to much back to Albright's mentality. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom of Israel

Hi there, regarding some old edits you made on a number of related pages (e.g. Herod the Great, Hasmoneans and Kingdom of Israel), please could you provide some sources which show the Herodian or Hasmonean reigns as being primarily known as the "Kingdom of Israel"? All the sources I am aware of refer to the area as Judea. Oncenawhile (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The books of Maccabees and the Gospels refer to the land (and nation) as "Israel" throughout this period and the term is still used in Acts. The Hasmonean kingdom was certainly not called "Judaea" as this ia a Latinized name and the Hasmoneans are prior to the Roman period. Similarly as explained in the article it was only after Herod the Great that the Roman expanded the usage of their term "Judaea" to include more or less the entire region that Herod had ruled. Maccabees and the NT are the primary sources referring to the land and nation as Israel, for a modern academic publication secondary source, see for example "King Herod: a persecuted persecutor : a case study in psychohistory and psychobiography", by Aryeh Kasher & Eliezer Witztum, Walter de Gruyter, 2007 where Herod is clearly referred to as King of Israel and e.g. "A survey of Israel's history" by Leon James Wood & David O'Brien, Zondervan, 1986, which refers to the Hasmonean ruling over "Israel" or say "The Holocaust: roots, history, and aftermath", David Crowe, Westview Press, 2008 which similarly speaks of Hasmonean "Israel". Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Using google books I find other sources as well, in particular "Studies on the Hasmonean period", Joshua Efrón, BRILL, 1987, which extensively uses the term "Eretz Israel", i.e "land of Israel" for the land as a whole in the Hasmonean period and "Judaea" only for the region of Judah within the land of Israel (although as mentioned above using the Latin form for pre-Roman times is anachronistic). Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually usage of "Judaea" in the English text here seems to be as a translation of Joshua Efron's original Hebrew Yehudah which is better translated simply "Judah" in English. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Responses below:

  • 1) Maccabees and Josephus: These are the two major primary sources for the Hasmonean period - can you show me any references to the term Israel used geographically or politically in either of these? You mention Maccabees above, but i have run a search and cannot find the word mentioned there.
Josephus wrote after the Romans expanded the usage of the term Judaea and thus uses a Greek equivalent "Ioudaia" to describe the region throughout history so that his audience at the time would understand what region he is referring to. As for Macabbees please search again the term "Israel" appears numerous times as the name of the land and nation. For example "1Ma 9:23 Now after the death of Judas the wicked began to put forth their heads in all the coasts of Israel, and there arose up all such as wrought iniquity." - that is just one occurrence there are many. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • 2) The word Israel was used as we today use the term "Holy Land": The mentions of Israel you refer to are exclusively referring to a religiously-defined region, not a politically-defined region. Other writers during the same period refer to the region as Palestine in exactly the same way, as do other contemporary historians (see Timeline of the name Palestine). So these references are not relevant and not correct - they give no indication of the name of the state or the formal title of the rulers. The Kasher / Witztum reference to the King is used euphemistically and has no primary source basis.
We don't have any inscription or source giving a formal name for the state as "kingdom of Israel" at that period but those sources do confirm that the name "Israel" was used for the land and and nation and thus "kingdom of Israel" is a correct English description. There are no primary sources calling it "kingdom of Judaea" or "Hasmonean kingdom" or "Herodian kingdom" etc, all these are modern English descriptions in secondary sources. We do however have coins from the states set up during the rebellions against Rome calling the state "Israel" which show that "Israel" was viewed as a state name during the general period. The description "kingdom of Israel" for the time of the Hasmoneans can be found explicitly as a modern description in "Basic Dictionary of Bible People" by Julien Chilcott-Monk, Hymns Ancient & Modern Ltd, 2004, so it is not a wikipedia neoligism as you seem to be implying. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • 3) Jews / Judeans The Hasmonean and Herodian rulers are not viewed by scholars as "religious Jews" (since many of them fought the Rabbis and did not follow the religious laws), but rather as "ethnic Jews". That is different from today's definition of ethnic Jews - a historical ethnic Jew is simply a person from Judea (see Jew (word)).
  • 4) Kings of the Jews Maccabees and Josephus, the two key (albeit disputed) sources on the politics of this period, refer exclusively to Judea and Judeans. The names of Josephus' two key works could be translated as "Antiquities of the Judeans" and "The Wars of the Judeans".
So based on all this info, the state and kingdoms can only be known as the Judean Kingdom. Agree? Oncenawhile (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Completely disagree, see my comment about Josephu's usage of the term. I do agree that the usage of the term "kingdom of Judaea" for Herod the Great's kingdome in (older) modern sources results from writers looking at the use of "Judaea" in (English translations of) Josephus (Josephus actually uses "Ioudaia") but it is an anachronistic description. Herod did not only rule the region known as "Judaea" in his day, he ruled a larger region including "Idumaea", "Batanaea" etc and the name of the overall region he ruled was certainly "Israel" at the time so "kingdom of Israel" is more accurate although I would leave the word "kingdom" uncapitalized as its usage is descriptive not a formal name of the state. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have done more research, and feel even more certain that you are incorrect (although I agree with you re the references in Maccabees). Let's work this out together - my responses below.

  • 1) Suggestion that Josephus' use of the term is anachronistic has no basis You state that the Romans expanded the usage of the term Judaea. Please provide a source for this - I believe you are incorrect and that your judgement here is WP:OR. It was the Hasmoneans whose conquests expanded the term.
  • 2) Maccabees text is the anachronistic one interestingly, it is anachronistic the other way round. The books of Maccabees cover the period 175 to 134 BC, but is was not until 25 years later in 110 BC that the Hasmoneans (John Hyrcanus) expanded out of Judea into wider Eretz Israel. So the text of Maccebees has little weight in a discussion of what the Hasmoneans called the land. That leaves us with Josephus, who, as we both agree above, is unequivocal in calling the land Judea (although he also calls it Palestine).
  • 3) Maccabees text uses Judea/Juda to refer to the land more commonly than Israel Search here in 1M and here in 2M for the terms "in Israel" / "of Israel" versus "in Jud" / "of Jud". The vast majority of the references to Israel refer to the people, and those that refer to something geographic are vastly outnumbered by geographic references using Judea/Juda.
So it is simply not possible to conclude that Israel was used the primary geopolitical term during the period - Judea is the common term in both key primary sources (and the vast majority of secondary sources). The Maccabees and Hasmoneans ruled Judea, to which they added some surrounding areas between 110-80 BC. Then the Romans broke it up again in 55 BC. There's nothing more to it than that - to suggest that this became a Kingdom of Israel is WP:OR. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
What you say shows that you do not really understand the sources or the history of the period. "Judaea" is not the name in any primary source for either the Hasmonean kingdom or the kingdom of Herod the Great. "Judaea" being a Roman name did not even exist in the time of the Hasmoneans. In some English translations of Maccabees you will find "Judaea" used anachronistically as a translation of the originally Hebrew name "Yehuda" which is more typically translated "Judah" in English. "Yehuda" was not synonmous with "Israel", it denoted one particular region within the land called "Israel", other regions being "Samaria", "Galilee", "Edom" for example. The Hasmoneans initially gained independence in the region of Judah but rapidly expanded to include the rest of what was is typically referred to as "Israel". It is also clear from the book of Maccabbees that the nation of people is referred to as "Israel". Since "Israel" is both the name for the land and the nation of people at the time, it is perfectly correct to refer to the kingdom as the "Hasmonean kingdom of Israel". I agree that there is no evidence of an official name "Kingdom of Israel" which is why I said that "kingdom" should be left uncapitalized (unless of course its at the beginning of a sentence). You do find some secondary sources that refer to the Hashmonean kingdom of Judaea but as I said before this is an ananchronistic usage of "Judaea" to include more than just the original region of Judah, a usage which more correctly belongs to the 1st century CE period during which Josephus lived and not the Hasmonean period, "Israel" is the actual name used in Maccabbees for the land as a whole and the nation at the time in question. The Gospels and Acts all show that "Israel" was still the name of the land as a whole and of the nation during Herod's rule which is why Herod the Great is also referred to as "king of Israel" by scholars. Herod can also be described as a king of Judaea but such a description is a half-truth because during his rule "Judaea" was the Roman name for only the region of "Yehuda/Judah" and Herod ruled over all the land typically still called "Israel" not just the region the Romans at that time called "Judaea". It is only after Herod the Great that the Romans expand the usage of "Judaea" when they established "Judaea Provincia" as a Roman province including a much larger region than what had been called "Judaea" under Herod. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
You also don't seem to realise that there was no separate concept of "geopolitical" entity seperate to the concept of the land and nation. Thus in the primary sources from the Hasmonean and Herodian periods you find "Israel" as a name of the land and "Israel" as the name of the nation and no name for a "political state" that is somehow separate to land and nation. Its not a matter of not knowing what the primary "geopolitical" name for the state was, its a matter of knowing that there was no other name or concept other than the "land of Israel" and "people of Israel" who were ruled by the king. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
For the history of how the name "Judaea" was expanded by the Romans after Herod see for example "H.H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People, Harvard University Press, 1976". You don't seem to be aware that the tendency amongst recent scholars is to in fact avoid the use of the Latin form "Judaea" in cases where it is simply the Latin translation of the original Hebrew name "Yehuda" and to instead standardize on using the Bible English form "Judah" in these cases. Similarly "Edom" is preferred to "Idumaea", "Bashan" to "Batanaea". The Latin form "Judaea" is typically used these days only for "Judaea Provincia" referring to the larger region so named by the Romans which no longer matches the area called "Yehuda" in Hebrew. Usage of the Latin form "Judaea" to translate "Yehuda" is seen as somewhat archaic, the form "Judah" is seen as the modern standard translation of Hebrew "Yehuda". Usage of "Judaea" to designate the region called "Yisrael" in Hebrew before the time of "Judaea Provincia" is also seen as archaic, the direct translation "Israel" is preferred, in other words the usage of "Judaea" for the Hasmonean kingdom is seen as archaic (in addition to being anachronistic). Kuratowski's Ghost (talk)
Hi KG, I think I understand what you are saying a bit better now - we are simply debating the translation of a single word. I don't mind if we call it any of Yehuda/Judah/Juda/Judea/Judaea/Iudaea or any other combination. It really doesn't matter as it is just a translation. By your logic, even the word "Israel" is anacronistic too because it is also a latinisation - the maccabees would have called it "Yiśraˀel". Your complaints of anachronism are therefore overly sensitive - scholars just use the current English name for the region "Judea" as shorthand, much in the same way as we do with Israel when referring to yisra'el or Palestine when referring to palaestina. Agree? If so, what is your preferred translation?
Irrespective of the translation debate, the fact is that the Hasmoneans and Herodians are seen by scholars as people of the smaller region with a name deriving from the ancient region of Judah. The biblical references to Israel are just that - biblical (i.e. spiritual, and used in the sense of "holy land"). Your argument that is is "perfectly correct to refer to the kingdom as the Hasmonean kingdom of Israel" could just as well be used for the title the "Hasmonean kingdom of Palestine", since there are more sources from the time that use the name Palestine for the region (at least 3-4 sources, see Timeline of the name Palestine) than use the name Israel (only Maccabees as far as I am aware). So your attempts to create a "Kingdom of Israel" and/or replace references to Judah/Juda/Judea/Judaea/Iudaea with Israel is WP:OR.
Oncenawhile (talk)
Its not OR, the land and nation is called Israel/Yisrael in the primary sources calling it "Judaea" is both anachronistic and archaic usage. The Hasmoneans and Herodians ruled as kings so "kingdom of Israel" is a valid description. I don't understand why you feel the need to suppress the usage of the accurate name from the primary sources in favour of an old fashioned and anachronistic name. I hope that you have not been deceived by modern propaganda that "Israel" was only invented by Zionists in the 20th century. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Please do not delete or revert sourced material. You will be reported if you do it again. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Your argument above is a perfect example of WP:SYNTH. You have RS for two pieces of information, so you conclude that putting them together is a "valid description" despite having no credible RS for your conclusion. And your "anachronistic" point has been thoroughly discredited above from every angle.
Two other points for you - (1) please do not attempt to bring politics in to this discussion; and (2) please do not threaten me - I engaged in a full discussion with you over 2 days and only edited after waiting a further 3 days to see if you had any more rebuttals. You cannot win an argument with bullying. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Claiming that what I am saying is OR or SYNTH does not make any sense at all. 1 Maccabees is a primary source and calls the land and nation Israel, this is straightforward fact. The Talmud, another primary source includes the Hasmonean kings under the designation Kings of Israel so "Israel". Thus "Israel" is the only sensible name to call the "state". As has been clearly explained to you, "Judaea" is a Latin form and Latin wasn't around yet during the Hasmonean period. Despite the fact that this has been clearly explained you insist on deleting the sourced information I have added. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Please also keep the discussion to article's page so that other people can contribute, this isn't something between just you and me. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Ishmaelites

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Ishmaelites, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. ~ AdvertAdam talk 10:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ethiopic War

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Ethiopic War requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Adamdaley (talk) 04:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)