User talk:Ret.Prof/archive3

We really need more good Admins. My project for the year is to search for them and for the first time nominate a few.

Thanks for the kind words --JimWae (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome! Jesus is a problem to edit because people have such different views and care so deeply. Please keep an eye on me as I edit this article and go into "damage control" if I do anything stupid. A fan! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Ret.Prof, per your comment at Taelus' RfA here, I thought you might be interested in knowing that there actually is an active proposal for a community de-adminship process, located at Wikipedia:Guide to Community de-adminship. You may wish to get involved in the discussion yourself. :) Best, GlassCobra 17:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Problem admins can reek havoc if not dealt with fairly. Don't get me wrong, 99% of you guys are fantastic but that 1%..... Thanks again, - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on my RfA. It was successful, in that the community's wish not to grant me the tools at this time was honored. I'm taking all the comments as constructive feedback and hope to become more valuable to the project as a result; I've also discovered several new areas in which to work. Because debating the merits of a candidate can be taxing on the heart and brain, I offer this kitten as a low-allergen, low-stress token of my appreciation. --otherlleft 14:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Look forward to supporting you next time. All the best. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC) P.S. the kitten won me over.

I want you to be the first person I thank, without your kind words five months ago I very well may have left Wikipedia. J04n(talk page) 02:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ret.Prof/archive3 - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. On Gospel of John, you have twice used the ODCC and EB as citations for the "eyewitness" claim that neither source supports. Obviously you understand what a breach of protocol it is to claim a source supports a statement when it doesn't, so this must have been an oversight. Especially when you are asserting information that contradicts the mainstream view, please be more careful with your sources. Thanks! Leadwind (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hold on my Windy friend. I "don't misuse citations" and I have committed no "breach of protocol". Please read the material more carefully! - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone cited this statement to the ODCC three times: "The style of his account shows the writer to have been an "eyewitness" of the historical events he records." The ODCC doesn't say this. If it wasn't you who cited the ODCC to support this sentence (and EB on two occasions), then I retract my accusation and apologize. Leadwind (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't in good conscience accept your apology. I assumed good faith about your accusation and finally figured what happened. We were using different editions. Go to the ODCC, 1989 ed. p. 743 13th line from the bottom. Sorry for getting snippy. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Presumably there was a similar problem with Encyclopedia Britannica Online, which was also twice cited as supporting that statement. Leadwind (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Sphilbrick, I got your email and I did not take offense. I am a big guy over six feet and over 200lbs. When I walk down the street I have been mistaken for Ernest Hemingway, Kenny Rogers and (this one is a killer) Santa Claus but never a woman (maybe it is the white beard). I used to think kids liked my jocular good humor until I realized it was Christmas presents that drew them to me in the mall . . . sad but true. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

An important Topic - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand the concept of a polite "no"; but is it wrong to invite you again to join others as a co-mentor for me?

Core policies are the tools at hand; and if you agree to help connect the dots, it could benefit more than me. I cite Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences as a plausible context for discussing what I have in mind.

Perhaps your decision-making might be affected by reading WP:A/R/C#Statement by Tenmei, especially

A. Response to Steven Smith

B. Response to Coren

C. Response to Roger Davies

If you continue to shrink from a role as an ArbCom-approved "public mentor," it is still possible that you might be willing to help as a non-public mentor/advisor? Words from a book in your area of expertise may prove persuasive?

-- Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894)

In this context, I wonder if the perspective of an academic might help mitigate some of the inevitable lessons learned the hard way through trial and error? In the following, does something spring to mind which is obvious to you but not to the mentorship group?

Roger Davies seeks more information from the mentors about how mentoring will work.

I hope these words will help "prime" the pump. I believe that what can be done in pre-planning has been accomplished. We will be figuring it out together as the future unfolds. A restatement is straightforward:

• An initial editing strategy based on a theory of wiki-pacifism was suggested by the userpage of Leujohn in Hong Kong.
• Fasten in Germany suggested that I tentatively adopt pacifist tactics as an experiment derived from salutary premises which I posted at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unanticipated Consequences, especially the words of a famous German:

We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. — Albert Einstein

In the absence of any better alternative, I agreed; however, a willingness to experiment with a novel tactic represents only a superficial change. This is useful as an exploratory gambit, but not transformative. I am not persuaded that pacifist action is workable even in this experimental approach, but we'll see.

The Latin axiom qui tacet consentire videtur is mirrored in WP:Silence + WP:Consensus. In our wiki-context, I would like to find a way to construe pacifist non-confrontation ≠ WP:Silence. In resolving these seeming contradictions, the mentors' points-of-view are essential. Together we will discover otherwise unrecognized alternatives.

In the context of this specific issue, Xavexgoem has agreed to be a non-public mentor. "Finding of facts" in the decision at Tang Dynasty encompassed User talk:Xavexgoem/archive5#Seeking help in presenting thoughts clearly. Xavexgoem's experience in mediation will help remedy an arguable deficit in the composition of our small group. Core policies are the tools at hand; and Xavexgoem agreed to help connect the dots in hopes that it could benefit more than me.

Does this help you make better guesses about how mentorship will work?

Does this suggest comments you might want to share? Observations? Questions?

The answer is no. I do wish you all the best and if I can be of help in other area please let me know - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Ret.Prof: I see that you were busily working away on this article yesterday, but may not have had time to read the new notes that I posted to the discussion page, pointing to what I believe to be several different shortcomings in the entry as it now stands. I haven't done a thorough check yet, but I would like to offer my services (such as they are for a newbie), at least for the short term, in the effort to bring the entry up to standards. - Mike Grondin - Mwgrondin (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will get back to it in a couple of days. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ret.Prof,

Would you be so kind as to review the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brief Chronicles and, if you feel so inclined, to express an opinion? Thanks.--BenJonson (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I have been slacking in this area. Ret.Prof (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing your own "good name" (see Hamlet: "report me and my cause aright to the unsatisfied.") I am sorry to have brought this kind if disgraceful innuendo on you by simply requesting your honest and honorable response (whatever it may have been, which I of course could not know in advance), but pleased by your vigorous response to make clear how badly your critics have failed to abide by common sense standards of courtesy and have instead substituted their own paranoid fantasies.--BenJonson (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ret. Prof,

Please see this request. I thought of you, as I do not remotely qualify. The referenced article is Pasquill Cavaliero --SPhilbrickT 22:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I will be glad to help. It looks like a well written article. It may need a few more references. I enjoyed the work. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing the article, I removed tag. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the above is the full extent of my relationship with Ben. I have been impressed with his work. - Ret.Prof (talk) 07:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ret.Prof - I am basically leaving this chart to you, as I'm under the impression that it's your baby, but I did wonder about the ref in the section title. In general, refs in section titles appear to me to be rare (note that it apparently causes the underline to move up, making the header look clunky), but more specifically, I'm unclear what the relevance of the ref'd page is. - Mike - Mwgrondin (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Done! In general, refs in section titles are not a good thing. By the way I have reviewed your edits and the work you are doing is great. Glad you are making time for Wikipedia! - Ret.Prof (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It cannot have been easy going over my edits, since I've sometimes gone back and reworded something I've edited earlier. But I did want to thank you for your encouragement, and for your positive and constructive approach. You're a model for other editors to emulate, and I consider it most fortunate that you've made this article one of your interests. - Mike - Mwgrondin (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Ret.Prof has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Ret.Prof's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Ret.Prof! Peace, Rlevse 00:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It really made my day. All the best. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Edit warring, WP:BRD, Wikipedia:Reverting

Got any hints Eco... Pastor Th..... Ret. Prof...........? Looking to make a few quid or an admin account you see and thought you could help :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.207.105 (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Has someone been drinking? - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Baptism of Jesus, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you.

The sad thing is that I do. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Feel like poking your head in at all? Leadwind (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Love to but I am going to be very busy! Our pastor has been taken down with a blood clot so they are taking an old Ret.Prof out of moth balls (I am also a pastor). Say a prayer, for I am more than a little rusty. Have fun and happy editing - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xeno^talk 16:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a great idea. Pleased to be of service in any way I can. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think your view would be apprediated, here Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I would love to get involved. I actually agree with your position. However I won't be able to get back editing until July 25. (Final Sunday as relief pastor.) Ret.Prof (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think we need a fresh view and also someone who can help move us beyond a conflict. of course I want Wikipedia to have great articles on biblical topics. But when people (scholars, clergy, theologians, historians, whatever) are talking about two different things, it means we need two good articles, not one confused on. I will look at this other article. I am sure your views will be welcome in a couple of weeks, even if this conflict is resolved you may still see ways to improve the article(s). Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I never saw you edit that article, and I do not think anyone duking it out on the talk page canvassed you, so I want you to know I thought your offer was just the kind of good-faith constructive act WP needs more of. So it is distressing to me that one relative newbie actually bit YOU! Frankly, I think this should be reported at WP:WQA. Would you want to try to work it out on his/her talk page? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

In truth I have been called worse things by better people. For me, my greatest concern is those who bite anon or new users. Since many gifted users tend to be sensitive, we alienate those very people that we need to keep the standards high. Maybe instead of blocking problem users we should offer them a mandatory program in basic people skills. Ret.Prof (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello. In April you added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this). I'm removing a lot of similar references; many other editors have also been deceived by these sources. Another publisher that reuses Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences&Windows 22:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Good work. I have checked out what you said and you are absolutely correct. Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Some of your recent RfA comments directed towards oppose !voters have been a little aggressive. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground and try to focus on the issue at hand, not the person raising it. Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I will ponder what you said. Remember, I was not attacking . . . but defending an editor who I felt was being unfairly attacked. We need good people to put themselves forward. We can disagree without being disagreeable. I will go over my comments to see if I was being harsh. Thanks for the polite way you brought your concerns to my attention. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You might want to review your first sentence in the comment where you tell someone else to review their first sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.58.138 (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Butterworth.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I am now able to upload photos properly! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been an interesting exercise. I'm not needed or wanted, but I'll not stress over it. Cheers! Cgoodwin (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, but you need a thick skin! Don't give up. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support and comments in my RfA. It was an eye-opening experience. I will not be trying for it again any time soon, though. Cgoodwin (talk) 07:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support at my RfA, which has been closed as successful. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for making yourself available. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You have double posted to several RFAs, please review for example, Fainites and Jc3s5h. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I've left a question at your support comment - thanks. Connormah 19:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I will respond shortly. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment at Jesus/talk. I really think you should be watching the Historicity of Jesus article if you are not already.

If you look at the talk page the bottom three or four threads are highly active, and it is an attempt to move forward from highly contentious editing at the Jesus page, the historicity of Jesus page, and the Christ Myth theory page. There is clearly a need to consolidate and reorganize pages relating to Jesus. But it needs to be informed by people who have actually read books and not just snippets from Google scholar. I hope you can find time to review the discussions and comment as you see fit. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I must add that I live by a University (and Seminary) that has a world class library. Having access to such material is a great blessing. Right now I am reading three books on Jesus in the Talmud. I look forward to working with you. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I happen not to believe that the Yeshu narratives in the Talmud have anything to do with the historical Jesus. There is a book by Jeffery L. Rubinstein (no connection to me) in that great series, "Classics of Western pirituality" on Rabbinic Stories and he has a section on Yeshu, arguing that they represent a Jewish view of Christianity, not Jesus as such. I am also a huge admirer of Daniel Boyarin, who has written a on the Talmud but also a brilliant book on St. Paul called A Radical Jew (but I have no knowledge of the vast literature on paul) and one or two books on early Jewish-Christian relations, in which he refers to Talmudic narratives. I think he is a superb scholar and I give a lot of credence to his analysis.

The debate at the Historicity talk page is going to go on for quite a while. There really are too many articles about Jesus from a non-Christian view, and there is no good rationale for the number of articles we have or their titles i.e. ho different topics or questions or debates are covered. I think there is a real need for someone with some objectivity and just as important a knowledge of the literature to say "Look: here is what exists in print, and here is the logical way to divide it all up, so these are the articles we need." No one seems to be doing that, and some of the people most vocal haven't even read the scholarship, or a representative sample of it (i.e. books that they disagree with). We really need well-informed voices. I hope you will continue to follow the discussion and if you know other editors who know the literature well (including works by non-Christians) I hope you can get them to participate in the discussion. Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Rubinstein and Boyarin refs. - Ret.Prof (talk)

You made the following statement "I happen not to believe that the Yeshu narratives in the Talmud have anything to do with the historical Jesus". However, at Wikipedia "your POV" or "my POV" will get in the way and do more harm than good. What we happen to believe is not relevant to Wikipedia! We must read the sources carefully, then carefully craft an article from a NPOW. Thanks for the Rubinstein and Boyarin refs. Still a fan of your work. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Ret.Prof, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3.
I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been great that you were willing to give it another try. Wikipedia is lucky to have you! - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The guideline - and there is no policy, only a guideline - is to use either BC/AD or BCE/CE. So the first principle is, either format is acceptable at WP.

The rule not to mix them up means: in one section of the article do not use BC, and then in another section use BCE. In other words, the second principle is to be consistent througout the article.

When there is a dispute the general principle for resolving it is to go by whichever format was used first.

However, some articles are of particular concern to Jews or to Christians. There is no written guideline here, but editors have over he years decided that, if an article is on an explicily Christian topic it should use BC and AD. If it is on an explicitly Jewish topic it should use BCE and CE.

Jesus is an article of concern to both Jews and Christians and as a way to avoid ceaseless edit wars, we all decided to use BC/BCE and AD/CE throughout the article. This is not in our viw a violation of the spirit of the guideline, since the articl eis internally consistent.

That said, this is a compromise agreed on by editors of this one article. It is not a general guideline or a general agreement. It applies only to one article.

Now, if there were a raging edit war at another article and advocates of each of the two systems were equally resolute I guess I would hold up Jesus as an example of a way out of an unresolvable conflict. But I have yet to see such an edit war at any other article. And if there is no conflict, why try to resolve a conflict? We only make an effort to resolve a conflict when there is an actual conflict. I do not see evidence of that at the St. Thomas Christians article.

It seems pretty obvious to me that this is an article on particular concern to Christians. I have no idea why it would be of any particular concern to Jews. Are most of the editors working on it Jewish? Are most of the sources written by Jews? Or, to be more to the point, do many of the sources use the BCE/CE system? If the answers to all these questions are "no," then I see no possible reason why anyone would want to use BE/CE.

IF many of the sources on this topic use the BCE/CE system, I think that gives you grounds to suggest that the article should use it. My advice is to try to make the discussion about why so many sources use BCE and CE. Ask whether those reasons or principles are ones people writing an encyclopedia article should use.

However, if no one has argued that the system should be changed, then WP guidelines say, use the system that people have been using at that particular article.

In short, the Jesus article situation is unique, and in general decisions over usage are made by editors working on an article, there is no one rule for all articles.

The other person writing on my talk page linked to a proposal that I DID forward for ONE policy for ALL Wikipedia articles. But that policy was REJECTED. If you ever wish to propose it again as your own proposal, feel fry, I will support you, but I had my go at it and was defeated and that is that. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time. It was helpful. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Ret.Prof. We have been discussing the lead section of the Ebionites article on the article talk page Talk:Ebionites#Intro. I recall that you contributed to a substantial rewrite of the lead. Therefore, you may want to have input into the discussion and any subsequent changes to the lead section. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, will do - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

For your recent activity on the Ebionites page. We would certainly welcome any input from any informed editor on how to improve the article. Yeah, I am an admin, because I wanted to work on protected templates, basically project banners. That don't mean I'm a good guy. I call myself by the name of a fictional homicidal maniac, John Carter of Mars, for a reason, y'know? ;) Anyway, as I've indicated on the talk page, I've been trying to gather references for the article at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites. The encyclopedic data seems to me to be the most valid, although clearly there are going to be errors, particularly on a subject as confusing as this one. Gathering sources is probably what I am best at anyway, so I will work a bit more thoroughly in that. And, of course, if you would want to be involved at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ebiontes (so spelling ain't my strung soot eithyr), I certainly wouldn't object to seeing something with some knowledge of the topic take part. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

John, I have come across your work and have been really impressed. Good stuff, we are lucky to have you. Feel free to change any of of my edits as I welcome such help. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sir, you might be retired, but your vote mattered a lot in my RfA. I know this thanks comes late; but it's sincerely being posted. And yes, I'm impressed by your main page. Moving comments. Rgds. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 15:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the citation you provided for Suetonii use of the Chrestus spelling. I have just been perusing the Van Voorst book you cited on Google books, and it is very enlightening.

I realize that the Suetonius article is short and very much a work-in-progress, and I appreciate your continued contributions to it, however I am a little worried that it may be headed toward a state where it gives WP:UNDUE weight to the importance of Suetonius in establishing the historical reality of Jesus. I think you will agree that Suetonius is an important source for many other reasons, but that may not be the impression that the average reader takes away from the article as it is now written.

This may not be an urgent concern right now, but it is something to consider.

Regards Revcasy (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You have a point. However much has been written about the link between Suetonius and Jesus. Do you think a separate article "Jesus in the writings of Suetonius" could stand on its own? Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that it certainly could. As always though, with topics that might attract controversy, it would probably be better to develop the article a good bit in your user space before publishing it--that is how I would handle it if I were the one creating the article. Revcasy (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Good advice, as I have unintentionally upset several editors with Jesus in the Talmud. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ret Prof: just a brief note to follow up on the "polemic" aspect of the J in Talmud article: you may want to refer to the article Antisemitism in the New Testament which covers a similar topic (polemic against a rival sect) but sort of in reverse. The structure and content of that article may provide some ideas. Also, I'm sure you are aware of the article Historicity of Jesus and the section in there on the Talmud. Any new material should be consistent with that. Good luck. Let me know if I can help in any way (although I am short on time these days). --Noleander (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Slow and steady over the next month or so, with lots of reading and careful writing is my approach. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I remember reading that at the time of the release of the Cameron film The Lost Tomb of Jesus him saying that the court was at that time considering a legal case about the James Ossuary. If you could find out if the case is still pending decision, or perhaps if a final ruling was made at some point in the interim, that would be extremely valuable. John Carter (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It is still pending. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Still? Ok, thanks for the information, and sorry about the earlier semi-vandalism. I thought I was editing a different page. Too many screens going at the same time, I guess. John Carter (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I guess I'm failing to see the problem. Can you be more explicit in your request? You can post on my talk page if you feel comfortable, if it's private I guess email is OK. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, things seem to be working out. Thanks for getting back to me. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ret Prof: I was looking at Historicity of Jesus and the Talmud section in that article: Historicity of Jesus#The_Talmud. That section has a "main" link to Yeshu article. When the Jesus in the Talmud article that you are working on gets to a good state (whatever name it ends up having) you may want to include a "see also" link, so readers of Historicity of Jesus can get to the new article. I'm sure you are already familiar with two relevant policies, but I'll mention them anyway just to be sure: WP:Summary style and WP:Content fork. Those guidelines describe how WP handles the situation where a section ("The Talmud") in an article (Historicity of Jesus) grows too large: it is "forked" and a new article is created, and a "main" link is inserted in the original article. Today, that main link points to Yeshu, but it is also possible to have two links there. --Noleander (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was not familiar with two relevant policies. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)