User talk:Jimhoward72

I finally came arcoss your question on the anti-Semitism talk page. Sounds like an interesting thesis to relate the gnostic idea of the demiurge to anti-Judaism, but I don't know what you could get out of original sources. I doubt there's anything existing on this to put in an encyclopedia. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I may never be able to track it down, since I don't have time/inclination, but I know that the idea has been around for many years (that there is a possible influence of gnosticism on anti-semitism). It's probably discussed somewhere, in some book, but it would take a student/scholar of anti-semitism to find it.Jimhoward72 07:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for bumping this. We are discussing this very thing on the gnosis talkpage.

LoveMonkey (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw that you helped edit this article; I invite you to join my new Wikipedia: WikiProject Kabbalah. Lighthead 22:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw your edits, thank you for your help.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 22:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

you're welcome - still needs more work.

Thank you for your comment in Satanism Discussion page. I just hope it hasn't fallen on deaf eyes.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Messenoire.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I left a note for you on the talk page for The Mass of Saint-Sécaire - don't know if you've seen it or not. Was just wondering if you could point me towards a copy of the French text that you mentioned?

Thanks! TCleghorn (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(Also put this on my Talk page in response to you, just wanted to make sure you saw it) Jim, I'd be nothing but pleased, and I'm looking forward to seeing it. I'll be blogging the St Sécaire literature trawl later today (my web site: entirely safe and fun, and I'd appreciate a link to that, actually. You can also get in tough with me on a shorter feedback loop than wp via my site. Ccreitz (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't me being nasty or anything, I just wondered if you could only mark your edits as minor when they are, and not when they're not? If you nearly always mark them as minor, people can't tell which were and which weren't when looking at the description. Merkin's mum 00:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

ܐ ܒ ܓ ܕ ܗ ܘ ܙ ܚ ܛ ܝ ܟܟ ܠ ܡܡ ܢܢ ܣ ܥ ܦ ܨ ܩ ܪ ܫ ܬ

ܩܫܝܫܐ ܫܡܘܥܐ

ܐܒܐ ܕܪܒܘܬܐ ܬܐܕܘܪܘܣ ܒܪ ܟܘܢܝ

ܐܡܐ ܕܚܝܐ ܐܠܫܐ ܩܕܡܝܐ ܪܘܚܐ ܚܝܐ ܩܪܝܐ ܥܠܝܐ ܡܠܩܐ ܪܒܐ ܕܐܝܩܪܐ ܝܫܥܘ ܙܝܘܐ ܚܡܫ ܫܟܝܢܬܗ ܗܘܢܐ ܡܕܥܐ ܪܥܝܢܐ ܡܚܫܒܬܐ ܬܪܥܝܬܐ ܐܙܓܕܐ ܐܪܟܘܢܬܐ ܨܦܬ ܙܝܘܐ ܐܕܡܘܣ ܢܘܗܪܐ ܡܠܟ ܫܘܒܚܐ ܣܒܠܐ ܒܢ ܖܒܐ ܚܒܝܒ ܢܗܝܖܐ ܚܡܫܐ ܒܢܘܗܝ ܐܣܛܘܢ ܫܘܒܚ ܐ ܒ ܓ ܕ ܗ ܘ ܙ ܚ ܛ ܝ ܟܟ ܠ ܡܡ ܢܢ ܣ ܥ ܦ ܨ ܩ ܪ ܫ ܬ ܬܪܬܥܣܪܐ ܒܬܘܠܬܐ

True, but there should be references in this specific article as well. Zazaban (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That would work. The thing is, is that it looks like original research, which means that if it stays the way it is, people may repeatedly label it as such, making the same mistake I did. It's a long-ish list, you see, and with no immediately apparent references. Zazaban (talk) 06:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:AbbeBoullan.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you commented on the talk page recently. I just did a search on this variant of the name, and found very little in the way of WP:RS. It looks as though the normal spelling is Shem ha-Mephorash, and I think the article's title should be changed. What do you think? Also, Jim Cornwell self-published (footnote 2) and shouldn't be in the article as a reference. Thanks Dougweller (talk) 08:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for being late... I looked a little in my books. I didn't found anything about black masses. Just one author, Abbé Dambielle, a catholic priest who published in 1907 La Sorcellerie en Gascogne, but he says exactly the same as Bladé and nothing more. But I will see if I find something better. In Bladé, there are lots of tales about unusual masses : with ghosts, wolves, and sabbats... Morburre (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Jim, I will post a list of Famous figures and groups for the pre 60's section but I will bounce them off you and provide my sources before adding anything to the article. Once you agree that what I provide can survive the onslaught of the "LaVey invented Satanism" crowd I will ad it to the article. Been busy as hell great work on the articles.158.184.149.13 (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Please use sources that have articles/links to them already in Wikipedia. Someone has been editing these articles and placing a bunch of modern online Internet sources for use as valid refs. I don't think they are valid refs, and it's creating bad articles that look more like tabloid journalism than a valid encyclopedia article. If you use refs, please use well-known scholarly/historical works on witchcraft/satanism (like Robbins' encyclopedia, or some of the historical studies). It will be good to see more valid sources, if you have them. I didn't know if there were too many more to be listed, but I'm sure there are a few others. I had thought of one or two myself, although haven't got to it yet.

Source Eliphas Levi and the French Occult revival,Samuel Weiser Inc ISBN 0-87728-252-8

And wiki has articles on most these guys. Stanislas De Guita (1861-1870) leader of the Cabalistic Order of the Rosy Cross. Josephin Paladan (1858-1919) Writer and leader of his own Rosicrucian movement. Piere Michel Vintras (1807-1875) Visionary and founder of his own cult. Joseph-Antoine Boullan self appointed successor to Vintras. Hoen Wronski (1778-1853) Polish mathematician and occultist. Saint-Yves d'Alveydre (1842-1910)author of many occult works. Eliphas Levi Alphonse-Louis Constant (1810-1875)98.248.38.239 (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, great. Now I see your sources, similar to some that are on the list. Thing is, you have to make sure that they were really explicitly identified with Satanism. For example, Levi indeed provided material that had an influence on Satanism (Baphomet drawing, the Lucifer quote that Albert Pike used, the story of the Medici "black mass"-probably a fake story), but it might be unfair to put him on the list as being explicitly identifed with Satanism - people would start to debate about that, and then the whole list could be in jeopardy. (Also, I didn't see satanism mentioned in the article on Józef Maria Hoene-Wroński , or Saint-Yves d'Alveydre). Maybe we could word it to say that he provided some symbolism which became popular in satanism, or something. But then you open up a can of worms - people could start adding whoever they wanted. Anyway, you are right that there aren't enough details about that period - for example, Vintras seems to have been a key influence, but he doesn't have an article and there is no info on his "Church of Carmel". There is a lot of material about French Satanism that is not mentioned in wikipedia - it could certainly be added. Did you see what I wrote about Russian satanism in the talk section? They seemed to have been greatly inspired by French satanism (as was the Polish Stanisław Przybyszewski). I don't know how long to make the list, though. If we keep adding endlessly, it could get too unwieldy. That's why we should try to kind of show "major trends" (as they say in historical phenomenology), so as to present a picture of historical highlights that led up to the satanism of the 20th century.Jimhoward72 (talk) 06:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just another note, seems to me the best stuff to add would to be more on Boullan, and to create an article on Vintras and his Church. If you could get more info on that stuff, and Guaita's debates with them (he wrote something like "The Serpent of Genesis" and "The Temple of Satan" that talks about them), that might provide a lot of good info. Also, the whole feud and debate that Huysmans' and all of them were involved with - that could be another article maybe. But they should be in separate articles, just linked to off of the Satanism page.Jimhoward72 (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Jim Howard, I dislike Wikipedia Beauracracy, sadly no one cares about Manicheism, however I know you do. I would like to hear your opinion on my Writing most importantly the one here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zaharous/Project_Subpage#Manichean_Theology Furthur more I think that a Wiki Project on Persian Religions would be splendid. How do you suggest we do this? this is quite a good Idea for I knoe one Wikipedia editor part of Wikiproject Zoroastrianism that writes articles on Mandaeism. I think it would be easier to retitle Wikiproject Zoroastrianism, Wikiproject Persian Religions . Also I am curious if the 72 in your user name is some how related to its spiritual significance in religions. --Zaharous (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

How do you suggest we describe God in Manicheism when the Manichean conception of God is an emmanationalistic one, with him existing in animals as well? --Zaharous (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Jim Howard, I have some doubts about this statement in the article Manichaeism, "Although it disappeared earlier in the west, Manichaeism lasted longer in the east, and appears to have finally faded away after the 14th century in southern China” I have some evidences that it spread to India also and remnants of it are still found there. I need more evidences before entering them in this article. If you can provide some concrete evidenes preferably first hand information, that will be helpful. Neduvelilmathew (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Black's book appears to be a self-published book, a category of sources which is discouraged per WP:SPS. If it is used as a source for the body of the article, then those portions that are sourced to it should be footnoted to it at the very least, or flagged or removed until a reliable source can be found. If it's not a source for the body of the article, it should not be identified as a source, as you tried to do. And in any case, sales links like the one to amazon are also discouraged here.

Given your recent insertion and defense of an IHR article, you may wish to review WP:Source for guidelines on sources.

--Nat Gertler (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no particular knowledge of the Lenni Brenner work; if you want to make a case against it, go ahead. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are you inserting Japanese war crime and deleting Japanese Jew related links? Japanese policy was anti holocost, Japanese war crimes were no relavence to holocost.--Bukubku (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I love your last edit and by it I can see the article is in good hands. Take care Jim and thank you for all your work.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's still falling apart at the beginning, again, by random edits that leave paragraphs that don't run well.Jimhoward72 (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Since LoveMonkey has a tendency to filibuster, I thought I'd check with you here. Did you mean insert my intro before the current one, or replace the current one with mine? If the latter, do you think it'd be a god idea to turn the old intro into a "overview" section? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Wayiran (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Manichaeism. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please stop reverting and doing wp:synth. Xashaiar (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Based on the Cologne Mani-Codex, Mani was raised in the Jewish-Christian, Babylonian sect of Elchasaites, whose language was Aramaic (which includes Syriac), the native language of Babylonia. Babylonia, at the time a province of Persia, was at that time also named Asuristan (from the same root as Assyrian, where the name for the Syriac Aramaic dialect comes from).

• Mani wrote almost all of his writings in Syriac (presumably his native tongue), and only wrote one writing, dedicated to the Persian King Shapur I, in Middle Persian (which, incidentally, is not Parthian language): Henning, W.B., The Book of Giants, BSOAS,Vol. XI, Part 1, 1943, pp. 52-74: "It is noteworthy that Mani, who was brought up and spent most of his life in a province of the Persian empire, and whose mother belonged to a famous Parthian family, did not make any use of the Iranian mythological tradition. There can no longer be any doubt that the Iranian names of Sām, Narīmān, etc., that appear in the Persian and Sogdian versions of the Book of the Giants, did not figure in the original edition, written by Mani in the Syriac language."

Note that if Mani was really Parthian (see Parthian Empire = Arsacid Empire), his language would have been Parthian language, not Syriac, or even Middle Persian (the two languages he actually wrote in).

• Mani himself always spoke of himself as being Babylonian, and never Persian (whether Parthian or other): From Al-Briruni's Chronology, quoted in Hans Jonas, "The Gnostic Religion", 1958) "From aeon to aeon the apostles of God did not cease to bring here the Wisdom and the Works. Thus in one age their coming was into the countries of India through the apostle that was the Buddha; in another age, into the land of Persia through Zoroaster; in another, into the land of the West through Jesus. After that, in this last age, this revelation came down and this prophethood arrived through myself, Mani, the apostle of the true God, into the land of Babel (Babylon - then a province of the Persian Empire)."

• Werner Sundermann, the noted Manichaean scholar, summarizes current data we have on Mani thus (Encyclopaedia Iranica, 2009): Sundermann, Werner, "Mani, the founder of the religion of Manicheism in the 3rd century CE", Encyclopaeia Iranica, 2009. Sundermann summarizes the available sources thus: "According to the Fehrest, Mani was of Arsacid stock on both his father’s and his mother’s sides, at least if the readings al-ḥaskāniya (Mani’s father) and al-asʿāniya (Mani’s mother) are corrected to al-aškāniya and al-ašḡāniya (ed. Flügel, 1862, p. 49, ll. 2 and 3) respectively. The forefathers of Mani’s father are said to have been from Hamadan and so perhaps of Iranian origin (ed. Flügel, 1862, p. 49, 5-6). The Chinese Compendium, which makes the father a local king, maintains that his mother was from the house Jinsajian, explained by Henning as the Armenian Arsacid family of Kamsarakan (Henning, 1943, p. 52, n. 4 = 1977, II, p. 115). Is that fact, or fiction, or both? The historicity of this tradition is assumed by most, but the possibility that Mani’s noble Arsacid background is legendary cannot be ruled out (cf. Scheftelowitz, 1933, pp. 403-4). In any case, it is characteristic that Mani took pride in his origin from time-honored Babel, but never claimed affiliation to the Iranian upper class."

Note that on the Talk:Mani (prophet) page, there are four people of the opinion that the conclusions of Sundermann should be those expressed in that article: that Mani's Arsacid background was a legend, and that his native Babylonian (i.e. Aramaic/Syriac) background should be emphasized. This was clearly a consensus that was over-ruled by one single editor, who disruptively continues to assert that Mani was of only Arsacid/Parthian background, and attempts to prevent any editors from stating otherwise.

Note that Mani's mother, according to her name "Maryam", was said to be from the "Armenian Arsacid family of Kamsarakan"; as the German Wikipedia article correctly states, both her name (Maryam), and her origins, indicate she would have been Armenian (not Persian, as Mani (prophet) article currently states).

Note that the particular user in question, deleted from the Mani (prophet) article this statement:

Such medieval accounts as were known, are either legendary or hagiographical, such as the account in Fihrist by Ibn al-Nadim, purportedly by al-Biruni, or anti-Manichaean polemics, such as the 4th century Acta Archelai.

which essential agreed with Sundermann's conclusions (that the Parthian origins were more legend than fact, and that the native Babylonian (i.e. Aramaic, Syrian)), should have more precedence.

For those who can read German (which without a doubt contains more critical research on Mani than any other language), this critical approach to Mani's origins is maintained (the reference, again, being Sundermann's English article): de:Mani_(Religionsstifter)#Herkunft