Talk:Yeshu/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Dubious

In the digitized version of Herford 1903 to which I linked on the article's page, Google does not return any references to "Celsus" (cf with searching for "Jeshu"). Perhaps it is there and not indexed properly, but otherwise, we will need another source to support Celsus's understanding the Tosefta in specific as Jesus, since I.28 of Celsus itself makes reference to neither Talmud nor Tosefta, so our making that link, even if obvious, is a original synthesis violation. -- Avi (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not have Herford, so I cannot speak to this particular issue. But – and Avi, I really apprciate your efforts to make sure everything in sourced – Celsus is an important Church Father and his views are well known and important. Perhaps, from what I have recently learned, In ictu oculi will know of a proper source. By the way, when it is easy to represent a primary course directly, there is no prohibition against using primary sources if you think Census is a primary source; moreover insofar as he is commenting on the Talmud he is arguably a secondary source. If In ictu oculi knows of a standard scholarly collection/edition of Celsus' works translated into English perhaps he can provide the proper citation, that is what a serious scholarly article would do. Apparently this is where In icto oculi has expertise. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Slrubinstein, for the kind words! We have an on-line convenience version of the Contra Celsum which I have no reason to believe is not accurate, here. Please read I.28 where the discussion about Jesus is. While it may track the Pandera braysa, Celsus himself (or Origem quoting Celsus) makes no mention of Talmud or Tosefta, and Herford makes no mention of Celsus. I'm certain someone says "Celsus's dialogue is based on the Tosefta" - we just need to find that person. -- Avi (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, I titled this section "dubious" solely to allow someone clicking on the dubious tag in line to come right to this section. It is not meant pejoratively. -- Avi (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

we will need another source to support Celsus's understanding the Tosefta in specific as Jesus

Census (=Celsus) is a primary source; moreover insofar as he is commenting on the Talmud he is arguably a secondary source

Just a point of clarification. It would be WP:OR to suggest or assume that Celsus is engaged in understanding the Tosefta as we have it, Avi, and or commenting on the Talmud as we have it, Slr. The general date assigned to the composition of his work is ca.180 C.E, though we only have it as conserved in Origen's Κατά Κέλσου (Contra Celsum), dated 248 CE. As you both know, there is some considerable confusion in rabbinic tradition about the dating and authorship of the Mishnah and Tosefta, (the wiki pages are very poor on both of these, and unreliable) and the assumption you are both making appears to credit the view associated with Yochanan bar Nafcha that the Mishnah was wholly composed by students of Akiva ben Joseph, or other traditions that conventionally assign the compilation to Judah ha-Nasi, a contemporary of Celsus. As we have them, however, these works are generally dated after Celsus, though conserving material, oral traditions, predating him. All the more reason, therefore, to hew closely to modern secondary scholarship, which is extensive, on Celsus and these questions. Citing material directly from primary sources is an open invitation to confusion of the type we have in the two statements above, and all this obscure material, and the rabbinic commentary on it, has been thoroughly analysed by modern scholars like Maier.

Celsus, bref, is not 'commenting' on the Talmud, neither does he have, it would be an anachronism, the Tosefta in mind. 'he introduces a Jew, who enters into a personal discussion with Jesus,' (εἰσάγει Ἰουδαῖον πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν λέγοντά). No mention of books, texts etc. The secondary scholarship links this to passages in the Talmud and Tosephta because Celsus seems to provide early and independent confirmation of the material in the former two, which however is variously dated, often to periods long postdating Celsus. Nishidani (talk) 08:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

ps. I really must get off this page. I am very busy at the moment. I hope in ictu oculi does return, to save me from possible suspicions I am meatpuppeting! Nishidani (talk) 08:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

One more thing to add to these "meaty" comments (kidding). A helpful reference on Celsus is: Hoffmann, Joseph (1987). Celsus On the True Doctrine: A Discourse Against the Christians. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504151-8.. I don't recall anything being mentioned about the Mishnah or other Jewish works, but this book is a good place to check. Ovadyah (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If I understand the sources and you, Nishidani, correctly, we do not have anything saying that Celsus understands the name "Yeshu" to mean Jesus. What we do have is a passage in Celsus that is about Jesus that is similar in form to one of the passages in the Tosefta. If I am not mistaken, the Tosefta passage in question does not even mention the name "Yeshu", although I may be misremembering. Regardless, whilst we can, and should, use this in the article that discusses Jesus references in the Talmud, it seems to be inappropriate for the article discussing the name "Yeshu". Am I misunderstanding something? Is there a secondary source which makes a statement along the lines "Celsus is a proof that Yeshu = Christian Jesus" ? -- Avi (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

An aside, Nishidani, I don't think anyone thinks you are meatpuppeting, any more than people think I am meatpuppeting Slrubinstein. Editors are allowed to have similar interests, and it is not out-of-the-ordinary to have people with similar backgrounds sharing not only similar interests but similar outlooks. Meatpuppetry, IMO, would be if there is some kind of insidious relationship off-wiki calculated to circumvent the consensus process. I, for one, would welcome your and in ictu's input, so long as the input remains NPOV, etc. (I am not worried about you, but I am still somewhat concerned about what in ictu was quoted as saying above, although your explanation about different pedagogic traditions was helpful in understanding in ictu's perspective). -- Avi (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think all of Nishidani's points make sense and are important. I still think that we can report what primary sources say, in a way that does not violate NOR. There is a debate as to the dating of certain texts, and i think the important thing is that we provide a clear and comprehensive coverage of these debates. As I remarked in another section, this means not only reporting Maier's hypothesis, for example, but providing an account of his evidence and arguments. The more context and detail we provide regarding all the views we include in the article, the less likely we would be violating NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My particular concern about Celsus is that he makes no reference to the name "Yeshu", and so without some verifiable source linking Celsus to Yeshu, not Jesus, it is out-of-scope for this article. -- Avi (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I should be removed, per WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

Then to be consistent all the overweight and duplicate info in this article which is a POVfork from Jesus in the Talmud should also be removed, on the grounds, according to the school of Maier, Neusner, Meier, Powell etc. that "he is not mentioned by name". And then the article could spend time on the 98% of texts where Yeshu is mentioned. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not possible for this to be a POV fork from Jesus in the Talmud, since that article was written after this one and that article is the POV fork. If anyone really thinks Yeshu refers to Jesus, those views certain should be included in this article, as I have always said. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

See Slrubenstein's comment above. Also, you appear to be placing some special and unique meaning on the words "he is not mentioned by name" that is clearly not in accord with the author of the source you are citing, since that same source explicitly quotes passages from the Talmud using the name "Yeshu", and states "Yeshu [=Jesus?]"? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"Maier, Neusner, Meier, Powell" do not constitute a "school." Do not misrepresent them. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, the special and unique meaning I am placing on the words "he is not mentioned by name" is "he is not mentioned by name" = "he is not mentioned by name"; i.e. Powell per the school of Maier, Neusner, Meier, is taking the view that Yeshu "he is not mentioned by name" in the Talmud, but per Voorst, Horbury only in "later interpolations" "added in the Middle ages". To give an example "God is not mentioned by name in the book of Esther..... but in Greek Esther it says..." In ictu oculi (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What does Powell mean by "Yeshu [=Jesus?]" in that context? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It depends how widely read Powell is, but given that Powell says "he is not mentioned in the text" that implies he is familiar more with the minimalist school of Maier - and therefore that that "Yeshu [=Jesus?]" is dubious because the original text had, as Setzer/Maier/Theissen say an anonymous sorcerer to which the name of Yeshu=Jesus? has been added. But the real issue here is scraping around desperately to find any modern source which supports the Dalman/Jeremias view, while modern studies follow either Maier or Klausner or between.

If you want to be sincere about this quote, please restore "he is not mentioned in the text". Please let the Wikipedia reader see those 7 words. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Addition of renaissance and modern texts to lede

I have added in Ibn Shaprut, Hasdai Crescas, Leon Modena, and 3 1890-1930 authors. here the purpose was spreading the weight a little, not just always about the 2 disputed variants b.Sot47a and b.Sanh.107b in the B.Talmud.In ictu oculi (talk) 08:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I have three problems with this sentence, and the one following it. First, are any of them expressing a view not expressed in the fifth sentence of the lead? Sentence five expresses two diferent views 9and maybe should be divided into two sentences) - what is the third (or fourth etc) view being expressed by these guys?

My second problem: who are these people? I just se a string of names, an strings of names are both poor style and poor academic writing. We should provide some background material about them. Did they live in different centuries or the same time? Jewish or Christian? Religious or secular? Or perhaps there are different fault lines that are salient - fine! - I just think that in most of these cases pople are talking to one another. Well, we made clear that in specific contexts in the Middle Ages Jews and Christians talked to one another. But today, usually Orthodox rabbis talk to orthodox rabbis and critical scholars talk to critical scholars. So I think we should divide these people up based on which circle they are part of, and provide readers with some really basic information about the circl.

Finally, can you tell us more about the sources - in what context were they published, and hat was their principal points?

Some of these names are familiar to m, others are not: Isaac ibn Shaprut, Hasdai Crescas Profiat Duran, and Leone da Modena, Elias Soloweyczyk, Aharon Avraham Kabak, and Joseph Klausner. I am just asking for very basic contextual informaion:

• When and where did they live and work?
• What was their training?
• For the source being used, who was their primary audience?
• For the source being used, what is its primary point (argument)?

Knowing this will enable us to present this information more clarly and in a moe informative way.

Moreover, it might turn out that our article shojuld include even more of their views!

In ictu, you have the sources for these people, can you provide this basic information please? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 11:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Slrubenstein,

These people are representative users of the name Yeshu from the 98% of uses that aren't related to b.Sot47a and b.Sanh.107b, as per above "the purpose was spreading the weight a little, not just always about the 2 disputed variants b.Sot47a and b.Sanh.107b in the B.Talmud"

If you click on the links it will take you to the person in each case. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

dating "Yeshu"`

The lead says that some people claim the references to Yeshu are later than the Talmud. But the note is vague. It reads, in part: "Mostly found in the Babylonian Talmud, but also in the late Venice edition of the Jerusalem Talmud. Neusner treats them as late glosses and excludes them from his translations. According to Schaefer pp 131-144. English translations from Schaefer ..." Is Schaefer claiming they are late glosses? Also, when do Neusner and Schaefer date them? It is not enough to say they are late, what exactly do Neusner and Schaefer say about their dating? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Natzrat?

Main page: Talk:Nazareth

I see the pronounciaton of Nazareth is given as Notzrat. My understanding here in Israel (I have a Muslim co-worker who lives there) is that the city is Natzeret. The reason people use Notzrat is because they confuse it with Notzrat Ilit, the Jewish city of Upper Nazareth, which is pronounced differently because it is attached (davuk) to the following word. (By coincedence, the word appeared in the kinot for today as Nitzrat, but my edition is not scholarly.

Are there any sources for this pronounciation?Mzk1 (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Mzk1, well that would under the Nazareth and Nazarene articles. Those articles have academic footnotes showing the earliest uses of both terms. Modern usage and the change between ts and z isn't greatly discussed in academic sources since these kind of ts and z changes over the centuries are so common. But there may be one source in the footnotes I think. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No, no. Ts, Tz, and z are equivalent, as there is no Tzade in English. I am referring to the vowels. The Nezereth article has both Natzeret and Notzrat. I do not see academic references for the Hebrew.Mzk1 (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mzk1

That may because the Nazareth article has, it appears, had several editors do some OR backtracking from modern languages without academic sourcing re. phonetics. It's generally recognised in the study of Classical Greek that the representation of consonants which Greek doesn't distinguish is not (a) accurate or (b) consistent. Egbert J. Bakker A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language 2010 gives a good introduction and Jože Krašovec The transformation of biblical proper names also 2010 a detailed survery of Semitic/Aramaic/Hebrew place/personal names into Greek. Happy to discuss on that article's Talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm missing the point here. Why are we speaking of Greek? I'm concerned here about Hebrew and Aramaic. Greek does not seem to be a good source for Hebrew pronounciation, as the Greeks (or Romans?) appeared to rather mangle other languages. Capernaum for K'far Nahum, for example, or John for Yohanan. I see the Hebrew Nazareth article has Natzrat, but I don't see sources there either. If there are no good sources for early pronounciation, I think we should just take the Ibn Shoshan (Don't have one here, though), or give both variants. (I really don't want to get into other articles.)Mzk1 (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Mzk1 >(I really don't want to get into other articles)< - Well unfortunately it's Wikipedia policy that discussion about articles should happen on the relevant talk page, so if you don't want to discuss Nazareth on the Talk:Nazareth Talk page, then there's not much point here. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I'm simply referring to the Hebrew spelling (vowels) in this article. I'll be happy to copy what Nazaereth uses; I have no real problem with that. Is that OK from your end?Mzk1 (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Mzk1, you can try it and see if it's deleted/reverted. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

the second sentence

This setnence provide information backwards, and incompletely. It says that the views of the rabbis named were responses to the views of Christians. So shouldn't we state what the Christians stated first, and then provide the response? This would require us to be clearer about which Christians were proposing this interpretation of the stories, and some basic information about them (theologians? Clergy? Representing the Church or the civil authorities?) Slrubenstein | Talk 20:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not necessarily the case that the medieval Talmudic scholars were directly responding to Christian allegations. Nahmanidies and Yechiel of Paris were principal parties to these debates and documented their experiences. The glosses of the Tosafot HaRosh were written in the course of his commentary of tens tractates of the Talmud. I don't know off-hand of a better way to form the sentence, and my RL work is going berserk and so I will have less time for the next few weeks -- Avi (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think what we need is a section in the body of the article that distinguishes between these different contexts (Ramban and Yehiel of Paris, versus Tosafot haRosh) so that they are not conflcated. Ramban lived 1194–c. 1270 and the disputation of Paris was 1240; HaRosh lived from about 1250 – 1327. So the chronology is still: Christian interpretation of the passages; Ramban and Yehiel respond; HaRosh writes his commentary. This is an encyclopedia, we need to be scholarly in our approach to historical events. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have just tried to add some chronological consistency to the lead. Avi, if you know of other medeival Jewish authorities who should be included, by all means please include them but please include the dates (as best possible) of their commentaries. Thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 17:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

There's the quote from Berger where he says Profiat Duran evidently didn't accept Yehiel's two Jesuses theory, and Berger on Leon Modena. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of 19th/20th Century author uses of Yeshu from lede

Slrubenstein, can you explain why you deleted "This was the spelling used by Elias Soloweyczyk, Aharon Avraham Kabak, and Joseph Klausner." here In ictu oculi (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this article is on Yeshu stories in Rabinic Literature. It is not a dictionary. Unless these authors are specifically discussing the texts that this article is about, adding them is a violation of WP:NOR. We cannot violate that policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Restored. The article title is not Yeshu in rabbinical literature, the article title is Yeshu. The next time you delete these sources I will take this to administrators list and bring into question whether you should have admistrator rights on Wikipedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I see the dictionaries refs have been deleted too. ..........

Or actually maybe not -- maybe that's the solution, you can have your article here Yeshu in rabbinical literature, Yeshu in medieval polemic, or whatever article it is you are trying to build here (please decide) and then Wikipedia users who aren't that concerned about Yeshu in rabbinical literature, Yeshu in medieval polemic can have the content which has been deleted here related to Yeshu (name) just like Isa (name) and Yeshua (name), is that what you want? Or do you want to control all of Wikipedia totally so that material from non-rabbinical sources, dictionaries, modern scholars is not available to the Wikipedia user? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I just want to make sure the article does not violate WP:NOR. 11:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein

Dictionaries, encyclopedias, modern non-rabbinical authors are not "OR".

Anyway back to the issue at hand.

You've said that the article concerns Yeshu in rabbinical literature,

Where on Wikipedia can the reference to deleted material which concerns Yeshu in non-rabbinical literature, 1870s, 1930s, modern academic dictionaries go?

In ictu oculi (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

WP is not a dictionary. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And you're quite correct that adding examples of usage is WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, can you explain to me how b.Sot.47a b.Sanh.107b and Toledoth Yeshu are not WP:NOR, but renaissance works, early-modern works, 19th-20th C works, dictionaries, modern Israeli usage are WP:NOR? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources refer to b.Sot.47a b.Sanh.107b and Toledoth Yeshu, and their references to Yeshu. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, and how is that different from renaissance works, early-modern works, 19th-20th C works, modern Israeli usage? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The difference would be in drawing conclusions from using the dictionaries as primary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg. The conclusion being that the standard modern Hebrew dictionaries are correct about standard modern Hebrew usage? Where else exactly would anyone get information on use of a modern word other than a standard dictionary? If you're banning dictionaries for being dictionaries, what exactly do you propose instead that gives modern word usage but isn't a dictionary? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand phrases like "you're banning dictionaries for being dictionaries", as they aren't really about article content, and don't conform with any reality with which I am familiar. If you want to have a meaningful dialog here, please use words that a) explain what sources you'd like to use, b) explicitly state what they say, and c) explain how you would like to modify the article's text to accommodate those sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The sources I would like to use for 20th modern Hebrew usage are the 3 dictionaries which were deleted. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

And you are adding these sources only so you can insert into the article your own original research. Look: you added a citation of an article by modern author Berger, which I did not delete because that article was about the Yeshu stories in Rabbinical literature, which is what this article is about. Whoever put together the Bantam-Meggidoh Hebrew-English dictionary has not done any notable research on the Yeshu stories in Rabbinic literature, and is not commenting on them. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Same thing again, you say this is about Yeshu in rabbinical literature but the article title is a name Yeshu. It isn't "original research" to put in sources relative to the title of an article, even if the article is owned by editors who want the article to be about something else. As if someone asserted that Moses is about Moses in the New Testament and all Hebrew Bible content must be deleted. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Should Yechiel's full 1240 view be allowed?

One of the modern academic sources which was deleted by Slrubenstein and Jayjg was that of Berger analyzing the original argument of Yechiel in 1240 that, per Berger, shows Yechiel defended Yeshu in his copy of B.Tal as 3x different Yeshus, one of the 3 being the Christian Yeshua. If those deleting/shortening academic sources are interested in presenting Yechiel's view, why not let the full view be stated? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand; who here is "interested in presenting Yechiel's view"? You? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg,

Yes, me. When I say "those deleting/shortening academic sources" I refer to yourself and Slrubenstein. So far you have consistently deleted/shortened/supressed modern academic sources which disagree with Yechiel's thesis that the name Yeshu can apply to multiple Yeshus. (Yes I remember that you said before that you didn't realise that this view originated with Yechiel and I think Avi or Slrubenstein said it was the view of the Ramban, which is later). Yes, what I'm asking is that Berger's analysis of Yechiel's view be undeleted. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty serious misrepresentation of what has been happening. You have been introducing these sources while simultaneously completely re-writing the lede. I don't think anyone has objected to the sources per se, just that their introduction has always been combined with a re-write that went against the consensus of the RFC you yourself initiated above. Also, please keep in mind that what you call "deleted modern academic sources" weren't proper citations at all; rather, they were just lists of names (typically without even years of publication), which is hardly acceptable: for example, "Maier, Schafer, Voorst, Horbury, Setzer, references as deleted previously" or "see article refs for Johann Maier (talmudic scholar), Jacob Neusner, John P. Meier". In addition, regarding your statement that I "didn't realise that this view originated with Yechiel" - it's probably best not to refer to what you think other editors do or don't know or "realise". Now, is there a specific source you wish to properly cite and add? Keeping in mind, of course, that "Berger, 1998, reference as deleted previously" is not a proper citation, particularly in an article that no-where else mentions Berger. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

That is evidently incorrect, see article history. When one time I write "Maier, Schafer, Voorst, Horbury, Setzer, references as deleted previously" that just illustrates the problem is so bad, that it is hardly worth retyping them every time just to have you or Slrubenstein delete them. I have tried to add some of these mainstream refs so often now that I can even remember the page numbers and years. And every time, you will delete them.

And in the same breath as this excuse above, you delete the bits of Powell's text you don't like below. I note you didn't have any problem allowing Jeremias 1935 when you finally found something that agreed with your own view? So this clearly been driven by POV, you have decided to represent Yechiel's 1240 "individual or individuals" view as a fact in the first line of the article, and you will not let modern academic sources into the lede that counter that. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, I've provided explicit links to the edits you made, were you added those "references". If you think this is "evidently incorrect", and there is something different in the "article history", then please provide your own links showing you adding actual and proper citations - ideally showing you adding them without completely and simultaneously re-writing the lede. In addition, as has been explained before, you must move away from that clearly non-factual "Yehiel 1240" rhetoric, since I have not cited Yehiel at all, but solely 20th and 21st century academics. Finally, please respond substantively to my previous comment: is there a specific source you wish to properly cite and add? Keeping in mind, of course, that "Berger, 1998, reference as deleted previously" is not a proper citation, particularly in an article that no-where else mentions Berger. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

>Finally, please respond substantively to my previous comment: is there a specific source you wish to properly cite and add? <

Yes, the article needs to add:

(A) Voorst, Horbury, Schafer, Berger, Maier, Meier, Theissen, Klausner, Rubenstein, Boyarin, Teppler, Stanton & Stroumsa, Kessler, Sanders, Neusner, etc. stating that the name Yeshu where it is used in Hebrew and Aramaic texts is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth. And yes of course I would like "properly cite" as I was doing before it became clear that citations were being automatically deleted, but first we have to get past the concept of sources which contradict the POV of the lede sentence being allowed.

(B) A substantial section with academic sources on (Sephardi, Andalusian etc.) texts from 1300-1800 where Yeshu is used to is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth.

(C) A substantial section on modern Israeli usage where Yeshu is used to is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth.

(D) We could also add sources to the claims for alternative Yeshus if any academic sources exist. Failing that a section on the views of the "rabbinical experts" mentioned by Amy-Jill Levine, which we presume will possibly include Nosson Dovid Rabinovich as per Gil Student's webpage. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I am all for adding more content that is actually informative. Instead, In citu oculi cherry-picks quotes out of context to make her own point, while actually obscuring the points of the scholars she claims to be representing.

If there are important scholars whose views should be included in the article, by all means, let's include them - but let us include their views and not pick just those quotes that further In ictu's point.

She used Berger to support her claim that the widely held view that the different Yeshu stories in the Talmud refer to different people was the invention of Yechiel of Paris - in other words, using Berger to present Yechiel's view. Sorry, but I want more context: who is Berger and what makes him an expert on Jewish-Christian disputations or French rabbis? What makes this the best source on Yechiel of paris? Does he really say that this was Yechiel's own view, rather than a Jewish iew Yechiel was reporting on to the Christian authorities? That is, is Berger reporting on Yechiel's own scholarship, or on Yechiel acting as a representative of the Jewish community? None of these are arguments against using Berger - they are meant to draw out the content concerning Berber that would enable us to situate his views properly.

She simply say Neusner "treats them as late glosses" and does not include them in his translation of the Talmud. Why does he treat them as late glosses? Do you mean just the name "Yeshu" or the stories? Does he include the stories in his translation? If he does not translate "Yeshu" what name does he provide? Do you even have Neusner's translation of the Talmud? have you looked at it? Please share with us his interpretation of these passages. Then we can actually include Neusner's views.

You do not answer any of my questions about Voorst, either. All we know is that Voorst reports that the Greek name Iesous is usually translated into Hebrew as Yehoshuah, well, we don't really need any source for that. We all know that Iesous = Yehoshua. And since we do not have a Greek source for the braita, this is not relevant to the article.

You provide none of these details about Horbury. You simply wrote that he says Yeshu is a "reference or reaction to the Christian Jesus." Really? You are being vague. Which one is it? Does Horbury say the stories are references to Jesus? or does he say they are reactions to Jesus? In what way are they "reactions" to Jesus? Why are the names of the disciples wrong? Or how does Horbury explain the discrepancy between stoning and crucifixion? When jesus was alive, Rabbis had no authority to stone anyone, so either the story took place before Roman rule, or was altered - which one? Why?

All the same questions about Setzer.

This is not a test to see whether these sources agree with my view or not. It is an attempt to make sure that we present their views accurately and in context.

In general, for any source we wish to introduce on this topic, we should provide all the relevant information. Can you provide the following information:

• do they attach the name Yeshu to the stories, or like Maier do they think the name is a later interpelation to an older story?
• When, exactly, do they date the story itself, and if they think "Yeshu" was added later, when?
• Do they say that the story (or name - whichever they say) is a reference to:

• Jesus of Nazereth, who preached and healed in the first century?
• Christians in general
• minim in general
• something else? if so, what?

How can adding this information be a bad thing? Yet In icto keeps naming the sources without answering any questions about them. Can you please work collaboratively with me? For the views you wish to add, can you please answer the above question? This is the fourth time I am politely and in good faith asking you if you can provide the following information about these views you wish to add. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

And this is the fourth time I am politely and in good faith replying that (a) each source you deleted says what it says and (b) you do not have [{WP:Ownership]] of this page, a citation does not have to agree with you before you allow it "if you can provide the following information about these views you wish to add." Let us start with one source and see if you will not delete it. Voorst, Voorst says that the name Yeshu always refers to Jesus and Yeshua to other Joshuas. Will you allow this source?

In ictu oculi (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, in addition to Slrubenstein's comment above, I note that "Voorst, Horbury, Schafer, Berger, Maier, Meier, Theissen, Klausner, Rubenstein, Boyarin, Teppler, Stanton & Stroumsa, Kessler, Sanders, Neusner" is not a proper citation. For example, you mentioned wanting to add Berger earlier. Is there a specific citation from Berger you wish to add? If so, what exactly is it i.e. what is the book name, page number, what does he say there, etc.? In general, I don't think people here have objected to the addition of relevant material - however, what keeps happening instead is a complete re-write of the article, including the wording, meaning and intent of the lead (contrary to the clear consensus at your RFC), combined with all sorts of "sources", some acceptable, others of the "see article refs for Johann Maier (talmudic scholar), Jacob Neusner, John P. Meier" kind. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

No "Voorst, Horbury, Schafer, Berger, Maier, Meier, Theissen, Klausner, Rubenstein, Boyarin, Teppler, Stanton & Stroumsa, Kessler, Sanders, Neusner" are not "a proper citation" they are a list of modern academic authors from whom I have either already added properly cited citations (and had them deleted) or would like to, or have cited in Talk. The question is not whether I am capable of properly citing a citation - have I ever not done so? -

"This is likely an inference from the Talmud and other Jewish usage, where Jesus is called Yeshu, and other Jews with the same name are called by the fuller name Yehoshua, "Joshua"" Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus outside the New Testament 2000 ISBN 13: 9780802843685 p124

...the question is whether you and Slrubenstein will allow a citation in the article which disagrees with the view of multiple Yeshus. Will you allow such views in the article? Start with Voorst, same as above. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course you have "ever not done so" (properly cited a citation). I've already shown you adding references like "Maier, Schafer, Voorst, Horbury, Setzer, references as deleted previously", "see article refs for Johann Maier (talmudic scholar), Jacob Neusner, John P. Meier", "Berger, 1998, reference as deleted previously". Here's another: "The list of 20th and 21st century academic scholars supporting this view includes: Maier, Meier, Theissen, Neusner, Klausner, Steinsaltz, Schafer, see references in this article".

And, as pointed out, when you finally produce a citation that more-or-less complies with WP:CITE (albeit with completely idiosyncratic formatting), you still get it wrong. For example, you just now added what you describe as "Quarles (2008)".[1] In fact, the reference is Bauckham (2008): I know this because I added it myself three weeks ago!

Now, you started this section by claiming that "One of the modern academic sources which was deleted by Slrubenstein and Jayjg was that of Berger analyzing the original argument of Yechiel in 1240". I've asked several times what you are referring to, without response. It's time to put your money where your mouth is; which WP:CITE-compliant reference to Berger have I deleted? Show me the diff. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Well where is it in the footnotes now? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

you started this section by claiming that "One of the modern academic sources which was deleted by Slrubenstein and Jayjg was that of Berger analyzing the original argument of Yechiel in 1240". I've asked several times what you are referring to, without response. It's time to put your money where your mouth is; which WP:CITE-compliant reference to Berger have I deleted? Show me the diff. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Well with all the deletions it's difficult to know, maybe you and Slrubenstein didn't delete this one, maybe I only cited it here in the Talk as something I'd like to add if things weren't being deleted. In which case an apology, but it should say something that so many academic sources have been deleted I can't keep track. So, you have no objection to Berger Jewish history and Jewish memory: essays in honor of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, 1998 being added? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"maybe you and Slrubenstein didn't delete this one" - you mean, you are making this stuff up?

In ictu, in a final attempt at collaborative editing, I beg you not to view this as a contest to add sources. What we should be doing is identifying important sources and discussing what they say and how best to incorporate their views into the article. This is why I have been asking the questions you continually refuse to answer. But if you do not like this approach, you can go back to fabricating accusations. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what material from Berger you are thinking of, and how you would like to use it, so it would make sense to actually (and finally) explicitly state it here. And by the way, you are still inserting laughably absurd citations: for example, today in one paragraph you managed to insert "Jeremias cited in Beckwith", "Meier; cf. Theissen", "Bauckham in Quarles", "Schafer; cf. Setzer", and "Schafer; cf. Horbury", none of which meet the requirements of WP:CITE. Stop blaming your failings on Slrubenstein and me, and start citing properly. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

How can I possibly keep up with the speed at which you delete academic sources? I am having to type in again and again and again the same titles before you come along and delete. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Random last names are not "academic sources". Show me where I've deleted a citation compliant with WP:CITE; until then, make more truthful Talk: page comments, stop blaming your failings on Slrubenstein and me, and start citing properly. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

Do I have your word that I retype out in full, again, sources disagreeing with your lede sentence you will not delete them? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, do I have your word that you will present any sources you wish to add to the lede sentence here first for discussion, and not attempt to modify the lede sentence before a consensus to do so is reached? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

For the time being you have my word that I will not attempt to remove your view "or individuals" from the lede. If at some point in the future if other editors who can see that that is a POV not represented in modern scholarship arrive I will try to have it removed then.

You do not have my word that I will discuss in detail every source with you here and then only when I have convinced you post it. I am telling you now generally that I intend to counterweight your POV in the lede 1st sentence by adding scholars that disagree with you. That will include Horbury, Van Voorst, Schafer, Klausner etc. Do you intend to delete them? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, there are no "scholars that disagree with me", so I don't understand what you're saying here. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

The last UNDISPUTED scholars to agree with you were Dalman 1922, Jeremias 1935 (yes I know that you think there have been others since, but they are not UNDISPUTED so let's leave that). Van Voorst, for example does not agree with you. Van Voorst does not think as your 1st sentence lede that "Yeshu is an individual or individuals" any more than Van Voorst thinks "Cleopatra is an individual or individuals", Van Voorst thinks Yeshu is Jesus.

Though honestly, if you think all scholars agree with you, why are you deleting them? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu octuli, scholars don't "agree" or "disagree" with me; they don't know anything about me. For that matter, you have no idea what they think about the first sentence of this article. As stated before, you're getting stuck on words that don't express your meaning properly. Also, you're slipping back into the "Jeremias 1935" ritual incantation, which basically ends discussion. If you want to have a meaningful dialog here, please use words that a) explain what sources you'd like to use, b) explicitly state what they say, and c) explain how you would like to modify the article's text to accommodate those sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg,

Does this ritual incantation of the phrase "ritual incantation" work in other fields of life? Enough said I think you all know what needs to be done to allow modern academic sources, you just have to stop deleting them. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu, I have no idea if your ritual incantations help you in other fields of life, but they certainly aren't helping here. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem

Probably need a restate of the problem here:

• No.1, as it stands this isn't about Yeshu (name) but a POVfork from Jesus in the Talmud with here extensive badly written and badly sourced duplication.
• No.2, the need of the article to hit the reader with the Yechiel/Ramban/Dalman POV straight out of the gate: Do all WP:RS sources agree with the lede sentence "Yeshu is the name of an individual or individuals mentioned in Jewish literature" ? Do Voorst, Horbury, Schafer, Berger, Maier, Meier, Theissen, Klausner, Rubenstein, Boyarin, Teppler, Stanton & Stroumsa, Kessler, Sanders, Neusner, etc. all agree that "Yeshu is the name of an individual or individuals? obviously not, it could easily start with "Yeshu is a name" without "an individual or individuals" so why is it so essential to get that provocative underlined bit up in the 1st lede line? Why can't we have a neutral 1st lede sentence?
• No.3, deleting academic references and then adding etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do you say this is a POV fork of the Jesus in the Talmud page? What is your evidence?

In fact, this article was written loooong before the Jesus in the Talmud Page. That page is a true POV fork because it exists to promote only one view, that Yeshu=Jesus.

Your agenda is clear: you aim to do whatever you can to disrupt this article, to violate NPOV and NOR, so then people will read it and reach the conclusion you want people to reach, that it is a badly written and badly sourced duplication of the Jesus in the Talmud article. You are not editing in good faith.

Please provide just one source that says that "Yeshu is not the name of an individual or individuals in Rabbinic literature." You have failed to provide even one view. Just one. You can't even do that. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi

1. Yeshu was created on 30 March 2004. Jesus in the Talmud was created on 4 September 2010, and much of it was copied from the Yeshu article. It is therefore impossible for the former to be a WP:POVFORK of the latter.
2. You created an RFC on removing the "individual or individuals" language from the lede, and the consensus there was strongly against you.
3. What you described as "deleting academic references" was actually your re-write of the lede, combined with the insertion of various last names of individuals, but few (if any) actual citations.

You have been told all of this already, and you really need to move on from this constant repetition of phrases and points that have already been answered. Any further reference to these will simply be ignored. You need to use new language for productive conversation, not re-hash old settled issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

The criteria in WP:Povfork do not deliniate "which article started first" a the definition of a POVfork. As it stands Jesus in the Talmud contains mainstream academic sources representing them accurately. Wheras this article Yeshu maintains one view misrepresenting sources. Whichever was first isn't a criteria.

The RFC gained 3 outside voices, who I presume saw Slrubenstein's comments misrepresenting what was happening. And yes it was against.

The above are not "old settled issues" - yes I have asked before questions such as "Do all WP:RS sources agree with the lede sentence "Yeshu is the name of an individual or individuals mentioned in Jewish literature" ? Do Voorst, Horbury, Schafer, Berger, Maier, Meier, Theissen, Klausner, Rubenstein, Boyarin, Teppler, Stanton & Stroumsa, Kessler, Sanders, Neusner, etc. all agree that "Yeshu is the name of an individual or individuals? obviously not, it could easily start with "Yeshu is a name" without "an individual or individuals" so why is it so essential to get that provocative underlined bit up in the 1st lede line? Why can't we have a neutral 1st lede sentence?" ........ but show me where you have answered them?

Why can't we have a neutral 1st lede sentence?

"This is likely an inference from the Talmud and other Jewish usage, where Jesus is called Yeshu, and other Jews with the same name are called by the fuller name Yehoshua, "Joshua"" Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus outside the New Testament 2000 ISBN 13: 9780802843685 p124

Voorst (for example) says that Yeshu is used only of Jesus, Yehoshua/Yeshua of other Joshuas. Does Voorst then agree with "an individual or individuals"?

Why can't we have a NPOV 1st lede sentence? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi

1. Quoting WP:POVFORK: "In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies". In other words, WP:POVFORK is explicit that it is the second article that is the POVfork; in this case, that would be Jesus in the Talmud, which was created six and a half years after Yeshu. "POVfork" is one of the ritual phrases you continually incant on this page; because it defies reality, it is an excuse to avoid meaningful discourse, rather than an attempt at achieving it. If you mean something else, which you likely do, then use words that are accurate and express your meaning, rather than obsessively repeating obviously false statements.
2. As has also been explained, repeating long lists of last names, without any context (e.g. "Voorst, Horbury, Schafer, Berger, Maier, Meier, Theissen, Klausner, Rubenstein, Boyarin, Teppler, Stanton & Stroumsa, Kessler, Sanders, Neusner") are also ritual behaviors that have little semantic content. You have been challenged to produce actual citations, which would include book names, author, year, page number, and relevant quotations. You continually refuse or fail to do so.
3. When you finally produce a citation that more-or-less complies with WP:CITE (albeit with completely idiosyncratic formatting), you still get it wrong. For example, you just now added what you describe as "Quarles (2008)".[2] In fact, the reference is Bauckham (2008): I know this because I added it myself three weeks ago! Not only that, the material you added (about the ossuary, Sukenik, etc.) was already present in the article, in the very section in which I added the citation! If you do not read the article, then how can you comment on its contents, much less attempt to edit them?
4. I have kept your "Voorst" (actually Van Voorst) citation, and again, put it where it belongs. For the longest time, the lede had the sentence "There are some modern scholars who understand these passages to be references to Christianity and the Christian figure of Jesus", with the citation <ref>Such as Dalman</ref>, which is obviously not a proper citation. Rather than replace it with Van Voorst, who makes the same point, and is a century newer, you oddly repeat the material in a second sentence. There is no rational explanation for doing this that I can see.
5. We absolutely do have a neutral first sentence in the lede, despite your best attempts to the contrary - that was the clear consensus of the RFC above. Your fixation on the claim that Yeshu does not refer to an individual or individuals leaves you in a very difficult spot. It has been your on-going contention that the name "Yeshu" is merely the name used by rabbis for Jesus. However, when you insist that "Yeshu" does not refer to an individual, or demand proof that it does, what you are also demanding is proof that "Jesus" refers to an individual, since it is you that insists "Yeshu"="Jesus". Do you not believe Jesus was an individual? I can assure you that Van Voorst (or "Voorst", as you like to call him) thinks Jesus was an individual. Are you promoting, then, the Jesus myth theory?

I am doing my best still to assume good faith here; unfortunately, to do so, I am forced to come to the conclusion that the issue with your edits and comments here is one of competence. I am now very strongly encouraging you to propose changes here, accurately citing the reliable sources you would like to use to support those edits. It is not fair to other editors to force them to continually clean up various policy violations and other messes. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

Evidently the effort in repeatedly having to enter the same sources and having you delete them takes its toll. Yes the Names on the Ossuaries essay in Quarles is indeed Bauckham in Quarles, which could have been covered by changing "Quarles" for "Bauckham" rather than more wholesale deletion. these deletes were unjustified.

Why did you delete Voorst? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't delete "Voorst", nor did I do "wholesale deletion". The Van Voorst citation is still in the lead (though, of course, I had to clean up your formatting a bit), and the other material you added from Bauckham et al was already in the article. Please review the previous comment, where I explain exactly what I did, specifically going over these points. In general, please read my comments before responding, and then please respond to them. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

I stand corrected re POVfork, I was judging it on the state of the two articles now, rather than the history. And you are correct, the WP guide clearly says that the second is the fork even when it is the one that is neutral in content.

Re the editing, I have already said, under these circumstances where I have been subject to automatic deletion for 3 weeks, one gets tired.

I have explained above why scholars do not believe Jesus is "or individuals" in Aramaic and Hebrew texts. It is a fringe view based on medieval polemics, any more than Eve or Abraham is "or individuals" and this should not be stated as a fact in the lede sentence. "name" would be perfectly neutral were it not for the need to push a POV that is not supported by any scholar since Jeremias in 1935 following Dalman in 1922. I do not dispute Jeremias or Dalman, they are clear. But they are the 2 most recent sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Citations I inserted in the lede 8 days ago to sources from 1966, 1991, 1998, 2005 and 2008 that support this view.[3] Jayjg ^(talk) 05:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

As you know of the citations you inserted in the lede 8 days ago the only recent one is Beckwith (not a scholar of this area)'s passing repeat of Jeremias 1966 (=1935) citation of Dalman 1922. The others are disputed, and as much as you may think your side of the dispute on those references is right, nevertheless as disputed references they cannot be used for the lede sentence if the article is going to ever lose the POV dispute banner. Find some references of the clarity quality of the Jeremias one, which actually say what Jeremias says post 1935 and they can be included. At the moment the last 4 are WP:Synthesis and the opposite of what the authors actually say. And again, they are disputed. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Jeremias' third edition was printed in 1960 and translated in 1996, so that's the 1960s. Beckwith (2005) is neither Jeremias or Dalman - agreeing with another scholar does not make one identical to that scholar. Powell (1998) clearly also questions the identification of Jesus with Yeshu, and you do not dispute this. Well, you do ritually invoke the phrase "he is not mentioned by name", but I then use the counter-spell "Why does Powell quote the Talmud using the name Yeshu, and write 'Yeshu [=Jesus?]' ", to which you have no response, so there's no dispute here. And then there's Amy-Jill Levine and John P. Meier. These references all have a great deal of clarity. I see you are now trying out a new potential ritual phrase, "WP:Synthesis and the opposite of what the authors actually say". This is obviously nonsense (see, for example, the Powell counter-spell), but I'd be interested in seeing you try to justify it. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg Well the full context of Powell Maier Levine can be kept out of the article, but is still there in full in the books if not in the selective ref. Let's get back to focus on the main problem with your lede 1st sentence: Is Dalman 1922, Jeremias' 1935 view undisputed? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait, is Powell Maier Levin one source, as you now claim? I only know of three different sources. But why do you want to exclude the full context? Why do you want to censor Powell, Maier, or Levine? By tall means, please provide the full context 'as I have politely requested several times so we can provide fuller prepresentation of their views in the appropriate places in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

As to your question, whether anyone disputes Dalman or Jeremias, well that is of course a question you ar free to answer if you can. If it turns out that there are scholars who hold other views thn those of Dalman or Jeremias, that is great! We would just add their views, to comply with WP's policy that we provide multiple significant views. But, uh, do you know anyone who holds a different view? Why have you been withholding that information? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein. It was Jayjg who deleted the full text of Powell, not me, I inserted it.

Jayjg, I ask again: Is Dalman 1922, Jeremias' 1935 view undisputed? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

In icto, and will you now tell the class why Jayjg deleted the extensive quote? What matters is that jayjg did not delete the view. The view is still in the article; that is what matters. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

And, in fact, it was me who added the Powell quote in the first place, and me who left it in and even expanded it. A lengthy quote from Powell is still in the article.

@In ictu oculi, it was you who violated copyright to make a WP:POINT. I don't know what you mean by your new ritual phrase "Dalman 1922, Jeremias' 1935 view". Do you mean "Dalman (1922), Jeremias (1960), Meier (1991), Powell (1998), Beckwith (2005), Levine (2008) view"? And I ask again, "Why does Powell quote the Talmud using the name Yeshu, and write 'Yeshu [=Jesus?]' "? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

Irrespective of how you and I might differ reading it, (1) your decision to prevent part of the reference being read by Wikipedia readers is clearly in dispute. (2) Your reading of the reference is in dispute. (3) Your conclusion from Meier is in dispute. While these references are in dispute, therefore your wording "or individuals" in the lede sentence is in dispute.

This is a fairly serious allegation "violated copyright" - where is the Wikipedia admin area where I can check this? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In icto oculi is clearly nothing more than a tendentious editor. In ictu oculi himself propvided the link to the copyright violation policy on 04:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC) so it is quite disingenuous for him not to ask where to check it. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As for Jayjg's readings of sources bing in dispute, In icto, you need to understand that here at Wikipedia, complaining that "I don't like it" is not what we refer to as disputes. if you have a different reading or interpretaion of a source, just provide the supporting quote and explain your interpretation. So far you have not exhibited much of a capacity for or inclinication to do either. Repeating your complaints is not a reasoned discussion. I have asked you several times quite coureously to provide further information about sources and you have refused to provide the information that would resolve the dispute. On one oaccasion you confessed to lying. You really need to learn to do better. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly a case of WP:TE. No one can be that uncomprehending. It's more like topic domination at any cost. This editor has a pattern of propagating edit wars on multiple talk page sections, which then spread to related articles. Ovadyah (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ovadyah,

Yes I've been in the situation where I've talked to incumbent page owners on Talk pages before. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi,

1. As has been pointed out already, I actually linked to the online page so that readers could read the entire page for themselves, so I could hardly have been trying to "prevent part of the reference being read by Wikipedia readers". Again, please make comments that are more factual and conform to reality.
2. My reading of the reference is clearly not in dispute; you acquiesced to that reading when you repeatedly did not respond to the question "Why does Powell quote the Talmud using the name Yeshu, and write 'Yeshu [=Jesus?]' "?
3. Yes, I understand that you dispute the plain reading of Meier; however, even if we were to ignore Meier, that would leave several other 20th century scholars.

Jayjg ^(talk) 19:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

(1) Well you may not like it but your reading of Powell evidently is in dispute. I did not "acquiesce[d] to that reading when [you] repeatedly did not respond to the question "Why does Powell quote the Talmud using the name Yeshu, and write 'Yeshu [=Jesus?]' "?"........ since I have said already several times in the Talk above, Powell does not say "the Talmud uses the name Jesus" (Jayjg), on the contrary he says "sometimes thought to be veiled references to Jesus, but since he is not mentioned by name, no one knows for sure. ....The main problem here is that the materials that make up this work were collected over a long period of time, finally coming together around 500-600 CE Thus, there is no way of knowing how early (or how reliable) the reference may be... and the herald went before him 40 days saying "[Yeshu] is going forth to be stoned, since he practiced sorcery and ..". so, assuming he knows anything about the subject - since it's only a short para - he's saying that the name of [Yeshu = Jesus] may not be mentioned in the original text, which is Maier/Neusner/Meier's position. In any case it isn't a statement that you want him to make that the name Yeshu can refer to another Yeshu. so it doesn't support your "individual or individuals" POV anyway. Jeremias 1935 does.

(2) Anyway, back to the point. Powell is not a major source, to insist with your own [mis]reading of Meier when you know it is in dispute simply, to me, demonstrates that you're seeking dispute and confrontation. A neutral lede would simply say "Yeshu is a name" - you're seeking dispute and controversy by having to add your extra words "of an individual or individuals" to it.

(3) You have taken up WP:Ownership of the lede sentence but I ask again, will you allow further academic sources, more modern than Jeremias 1935, which disagree with your lede sentence to be added to the article? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No In ictu oculi, it is you who are guilty of WP:OWN by repeatedly editing against WP:CONSENSUS of the RfC and the other editors working on the article. Consensus doesn't mean continuing to argue endlessly until you impose your will on the article. That is a violation of WP:IDHT. Avi, Jayjg, and Slrubenstein have been extraordinarily patient with you. I suggest you step back and reconsider your behavior here. Ovadyah (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that Wikipedia:Disruptive editing includes Talking, maybe it does, but WP:IDHT maybe should be applied to constructive dialogue of Slrubenstein: On one oaccasion you confessed to lying. sort. I would have to consider whether WP:HEAR is an issue and whether Wikipedia:Tendentious editing applies to sitting here watching as modern academic, or even non-medieval material is deleted. I've certainly had more than enough. And your latest contribution has saved me hours to come. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

In ictu oculi,

1. "Why does Powell quote the Talmud using the name Yeshu, and write 'Yeshu [=Jesus?]' "?"
2. The current lede sentence is neutral; your assertion that a "neutral" lede would say something that is merely that, an assertion. Saying it again and again will not convince anyone, nor will it advance the discussion here. Arguments and properly cited reliable sources are what is needed, not assertions.
3. You started an RFC on removing the words "an individual or individuals" above, and the consensus was strongly against you, with people indicating what you call "extra words" were valuable and helpful. This indicates that the phrase belongs and that I have not "taken up WP:Ownership of the lede sentence", but rather that it reflects the consensus of the RFC. Again, please ensure your statements are more accurate and conform better with reality.
4. The current lede sentence is filled with sources from the 1960s and later. "more modern than Jeremias 1935" is a ritual invocation that does not accord with reality. Please engage in meaningful dialogue instead.
5. Your previous attempts to edit the lede sentence have involved removing consensus NPOV text, and adding irrelevant refs. Given the controversy surrounding the lede sentence, and the fact that your view on it so strongly contradicts the consensus of the RFC above, I again encourage you to propose sources, with proper citations, here. Can you explain why you will not?
6. Your comments are starting to be about me again, not about content. Please review WP:NPA. If further comments contain phrases like "you may not like it" or "you're seeking dispute and controversy" or "You have taken up WP:Ownership of the lede sentence" then your comment will be ignored in its entirety, and you will be referred to this and or other comments outlining this consequence.

I hope that is helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jayjg

It's not greatly helpful as much as addressing the question about the neutrality of your lede sentence: does e.g. Van Voorst say that Yeshu can refer to other individuals?

1. Powell quotes a late variant of one Talmud which includes the name Yeshu - we do not know if he writes "Yeshu [=Jesus?]" because he shares Jeremias 1935 thesis of Maiers 1978 thesis on this passage. But I think the real problem here is scraping the barrel in desperation to find sources to bolster the "individuals" POV in your lede sentence.

2. The current lede sentence "individuals" is evidently only neutral if everyone, eg. Van Voorst, agrees with it. Does Van Voorst agree that Jesus is "individual or individuals" - he says that Yeshu is only ever used of Jesus, while Yehoshua/Yeshua is used of other individuals. Correct? So the issue for the lede sentence is, can you insert a cite from Van Voorst in the current slot where Jeremias is?

3. The RFC wasn't well worded. I should have known that the 3 outside comments it attracted would react in that way without knowledge of the sources. I will do a better worded RFC next time.

4. >The current lede sentence is filled with [disputed] sources from the 1960s and later.< The point is not that you have added in Powell and Meier, I see you have, the point is that they are disputed.

incidentally >"more modern than Jeremias 1935" is a ritual invocation<

This "ritual invocation" adhominem has to stop, all it says is that you are not listening.

5. >Your previous attempts to edit the lede sentence have involved removing consensus NPOV text< Jayjg, you + Slrubenstein does not equal "consensus". And in any case the consensus should be of academic sources. I ask you again, does e.g. Van Voorst say that Yeshu can refer to other individuals? and please don't give me "ritual invocation" again since you have ignored this question 5 times already.

6. >Your comments are starting to be about me again, not about content.< Yes, but the problem is partly yourself. But you can redress this by answering the question does e.g. Van Voorst say that Yeshu can refer to other individuals?, thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi

1. "we do not know if he writes "Yeshu [=Jesus?]"?? This is utter nonsense; he specifically writes this. I'm not going to bother discussing Powell with you any more, because you ignore what he actually says in favor of your theories about you think he means and inferences based on sentence fragments.
2. You have misunderstood WP:NPOV here; "individuals" represents the view of those who think there may be more than one Yeshu, or think Yeshu doesn't always or necessarily refer to Jesus. There is no claim, implication, or even hint that everyone thinks this way, merely that some do, and that NPOV demands their views be recognized. You have misread, misunderstood or misconstrued what the sentence says.
3. The RFC may or may not have been well worded, but the statements of those responding were quite clear.
4. It's reasonable to "dispute" a source, but not reasonable to pretend it doesn't exist. The phrase "more modern than Jeremias 1935" does the latter.
5. If you want people to stop mentioning your ritual invocations, then you must stop using them. Constantly repeating a phrase doesn't give it magical power, and in particular (as is almost always the case here) when it doesn't convey your actual meaning, and defies reality.
6. The consensus of the RFC is quite clear, and involves quite a few individuals. Your attempts to pretend it is just me and Slrubenstein must stop; in this thread alone Ovadyah has also expressed his disagreement with you. If you continually make statements that defy or ignore reality, then people will simply ignore what you say, which is not what you are trying to achieve.

In ictu oculi, I'm going to try to help you here, because I see you're still getting caught up in ritual incantations, e.g. "does e.g. Van Voorst say that Yeshu can refer to other individuals?" Now when you continually chant this phrase, I think what you're trying to say is "Van Voorst doesn't support the view that the Talmud uses Yeshu to refer to more than one individual, or an individual other than Jesus". You are therefore concerned, because you want to somehow emphasize in the lede that while some sources think "Yeshu" in the Talmud does not refer to Jesus (or does not always refer to Jesus), other sources do think it's Jesus. You think that somehow this first POV is not being represented, and that therefore NPOV is not being met. What you may fail to understand is that Van Voorst's view is already captured in the lede sentence, because Van Voorst believes that Yeshu is a name of an individual mentioned in Jewish literature - specifically, Jesus. Jesus was, after all, an individual (or at least Van Voorst and most other scholars think he was one). Thus the lede says "an individual [Van Voorst et al's view] or individuals [Powell et al's view]". If Van Voorst must be added as a source, there is no issue with adding him to the first sentence of the second paragraph, where the article states "understand these passages to be references to Christianity and the Christian figure of Jesus". But wait! Van Voorst is already used as a source there!!! Thus the lede perfectly captures NPOV on this subject - some scholars think the name Yeshu refers to an individual (typically Jesus), others think it may refer to multiple individuals.

Finally, I see you've carried your dispute with me here into other articles, where you have suddenly started to oppose me and refer back to this article, even though you don't seem to actually particularly disagree with any of my edits there. If you want to "fight" with me there, that's fine, but I won't do it in two places, so you must decide. If you restrict your dispute with me on this article to this article, then I will continue the discussion here. If you wish to dispute this article in another article, then I will continue the dispute there, but not here. I suspect you'd prefer to work out this article's content here, but it's up to you. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

1. Does Van Voorst agree with your 1st sentence wording "Yeshu is an individual or individuals"?

2. Will you allow sources that disagree with "Yeshu is an individual or individuals" to be added?

In ictu oculi (talk) 07:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, I don't think Van Voorst has read this article, so it's hard to say whether or not he'd agree with its first sentence. To which sources are you referring? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

1. I'll rephrase it. Based on Van Voorst statement that Yeshu always refers to Jesus, Yehoshua refers to other Joshuas, do you think that he would agree with your 1st line lede statement that Yeshu refers to "individual or individuals"? --- or put another way, would you like to add Van Voorst's statement as a supporting ref alongside Jeremias and Dalman in ref box 1?

2. By allowing sources that disagree with "Yeshu is an individual or individuals" to be added I would mean Schafer, Horbury, Herford, Klausner for example. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

1. I am quite certain that Van Voorst thinks Jesus is (or was) an individual, and since he also thinks Yeshu is Jesus, I believe he would definitely agree with that statement.
2. I feel fairly certain that Schafer, Horbury, Herford, Klausner think Yeshu was an individual as well. Do you have examples of them saying otherwise? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg,

We have been through this a dozen times with examples such as that "Churchill was an individual" ≠ "Churchill was and individual or individuals" to illustrate that it is the insistence that or individuals" be cited as a fact in the lede which is causing the controversy on this page. So it really doesn't help when an editor involved in a dispute is asked a direct question about the disputed term "individual or individuals" for the editor involved to answer back about just "individual" without the disputed "or individuals"

The question is the same as ever: Are you certain that Schafer, Horbury, Herford, Klausner think "Yeshu was an individual or individuals"

If that is confusing, then are you certain that the Ramban, the Rambam, Rashi think that "Hillel was an individual or individuals"?

Same question - answer either one - but please answer the question per the question, not the question with "or individuals" removed. Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, WP:NPOV insists that multiple points of view be represented in an article, rather than just one. Thus sources used in an article do not necessarily agree with one another. By presenting multiple possibilities (for example, using a phrase like "X is A or B"), an article complies with this core policy, as some sources might agree with the view that "X is A" while others might agree with the view that "X is B". Also, there is no "controversy" regarding the lede; rather, the consensus, as demonstrated by the RFC you initiated, is that the lede properly represents the subject in a neutral, policy-compliant way. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, the lede as it stand does not attempt to give a neutral view. If it did it would give a neutral view and wouldn't be loaded by you trying to find a source more modern than Jeremias. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu, do you have an actual English dictionary? I do not mean English - Hebrew, or English - whatever language you speak, I mean a real English dictionary? if so, please look up the word "or" in it. Once you know the definition of this word, you will see how much time you have been wasting with this non-existent point. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In my experience someone who says something like do you have an actual English dictionary? on a Talk page probably will say similar things to people in real life. Whatever, the POV banner remains on this article while the medieval polemic remains as a fact in the first line of the lede. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, unfortunately you're simply repeating yourself, or making unsupported assertions. The lede sentence is supported by a half dozen 20th and 21st century reliable sources, not "medieval polemic". Please review the many previous comments which have already responded to this issue. And if you can't find an actual reason for tagging the article, then the tag will eventually be removed; persistent disruptive tagging and WP:ICANTHEARYOU is typically rewarded with blocks of increasing length. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Addition of Yechiel of Paris to lede

I have also added in Yechiel, and Berger's reference. It seems as the earliest source of what Berger calls the "two Jesuses theory" he should be mentioned. The only problem is I'm not sure whether the word "authority" applies to him? Is there a better word that "authorities"? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"Scholar"? -- Avi (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, Berger certainly is an authority on this. See his wiki entry for more details (David Berger (professor)). -- Avi (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Avi. No, I mean is Yechiel of Paris an "authority." according to the view of the dominant editors of this Wikipedia article? (Berger himself does not take seriously Yechiel's defence any more than any modern scholar). In ictu oculi (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"Berger himself does not take seriously Yechiel's defence any more than any modern scholar" where does Berger say this? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, among the references that wasn't deleted - please read the article for Berger's footnote: "Whatever one thinks of the sincerity of the multiple Jesus theory" In ictu oculi (talk) 04:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu, now you are engaging in original research. Berger is being brought as a reliable source to substantiate the fact that Yechiel subscribed to the two Jesus's theory—no more no less. If you would like to write a paper on your beliefs about the multiple Jesus theory, by all means, go ahead, but wikipedia is not the place for it. This is not the place for us to discuss what Berger means. In any event, if you read Berger, you would see that his issue, if I am not mistken, is not with multiple Jesus's per se, but with Yechiel having two versions thereof, in one where one of the Yeshu's refers to the Christian Jesus and the other where the Christian Jesus isn't written in the Talmud. Which reiterates why we cannot allow our own interpretations of sources to color wikipedia articles. -- Avi (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Avi, Sorry, you misread what Berger is saying - but I'm not going to discuss it, please read the whole chapter. In any case the overriding issue here, as before is this:

Is it right for you, as an admin, to be defending the "Hillel is an individual or individuals" line being represented as an undeniable fact in the 1st line of the article when you, I assume?, know that Van Voorst, Schafer etc., etc., etc., don't agree that "Hillel is an individual or individuals" In ictu oculi (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is being presented "as an undeniable fact"; rather, the lede presents the differing views of reliable sources, in compliance with WP:NPOV. Also, the RFC you initiated came to the consensus view that the first line of the article was accurate and complied with policy. Finally, this section is about Yechiel and Berger; you've already raised your faulty understanting of NPOV and the lede sentence in several other Talk: page sections. Rather than repeating the same ritual phrases in this section, please focus solely on Yechiel and Berger. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg,

Something ironic about "ritual phrases" being repeated as a ritual answer. Do you agree that "Hillel is an individual or individuals"? As the person who added this or individuals to the lede sentence, you should be willing to be questioned about it. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu, if you keep repeating phrases as talismans or incantations, despite them having little relation to reality, and little semantic content, then I'll likely have to keep pointing it out. Perhaps you should try just communicating clearly instead. As for the rest, you've raised the same question in almost every thread in which you've commented, including the RFC you initiated, in which the consensus was that the phrase was appropriate. This section is about Yehiel. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, in ictu, the fact that I volunteer to do maintenance work "behind the scenes" as it were, to support the smooth running of this project gives me no more or no less authority when it comes to matters of article content than any other editor. The only issues I can think in which it may even have the slightest impact is that I am likely to be familiar with some of wikipedias policies and guidelines, as one of my volunteer activities is enforcing them. Being a volunteer sysop or functionary here does not give anyone any extra authority in article space; thankfully. However, that does not mean that I won't be correcting issues I believe are counter to Wikipedia's policies or guidelines or issues that make the article sub-par, as I'm certain you won't stop either :) . -- Avi (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Avi

Well, I already have been stopped haven't I? It's been 2 weeks since I tried to change this POV "[Yeshu/Hillel] is an individual or individuals" in the lede sentence. Do you see me restoring the deleted dictionaries, 16th to 20th Century uses of Yeshu? The fact remains, this article presents as a fact in the 1st line "[Yeshu/Hillel] is an individual or individuals" which the main living writers on the subject, Schafer etc, disagree with. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia works as a collaborative and consensus-driven project; if the consensus is against a particular point (and that consensus is in and of itself not in violation of a core principle) then that is how the project works. -- Avi (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Well the problem is that a consensus of 3 editors, especially in cases where they might share a same philosophical approach to the relative value of medieval commentary versus modern text-critical scholarship (for example in a religion, Roman Catholic, Muslim related subject) against 2 editors does not in itself comprise "consensus" it just is the rule of maximum reverts.

And yes I believe that the 1st line or individuals opening statement of this article is an a violation of a core principle: Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. It is evidently not verifiable that Yeshu is or individuals, in fact we have living scholars such as Van Voorst and Schafer clearly saying that Yeshu is not "or individuals"

The opportunity was there to have a NPOV lede Yeshu is a name, period, and then leaving the pushing of medieval polemics for later. But no, the medieval polemic had to be presented as a fact in line 1. That is a violation of a core principle: Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. It is not verifiable that Jesus is several individuals any more than Hillel. The most glaring example of this is that the whole article lacks any single historical reference to anyone else ever called Yeshu in any text. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I now understand why you seem so troubled by what is happening here, In ictu—you seem to be under a fundamental misconception as to what verifiability means in the Wikipedia context. I have wiki-linked the word for you to follow and review more carefully, but in a nutshell, verifiability means "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." It does not mean, as you seem to understand, that the statement is true. You are confusing truth with verifiability. Of course, we cannot know for certain whether or not the Talmud referred to more than one person as Yeshu; the redactors of the Talmud have been deceased for near a dozen and a half centuries, we cannot ask them. However, the standard for wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Therefore, in our case, we have verifiable sources bringing expert opinion that the "Yeshu" in the Talmud refers to only one individual (Christian Jesus or not) and, conversely, we have verifiable sources bringing expert opinion that the "Yeshu" in the Talmud refers to more than one individual (Christian Jesus or not). Therefore, the first sentence is the very embodiment of WP:NPOV. If you still have issues with the concept, I suggest you review Wikipedia:Verifiability and possible ask for more elucidation on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. -- Avi (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Avi

Thanks, but I'm well aware of verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." ......in this case the sources vary - we have Dalman 1922 and Jeremias 1935 saying Yeshu can be or individuals, and we have the living sources Van Voorst, Scafer, Horbury, Maier, Theissen, Meier, Klausner, Herford saying no, Yeshu is always Jesus. No given that we all agree that Jeremias says YES, and we all agree that Van Voorst says NO, so = why is Jeremias' view presented as a fact in the 1st line of the lede? The lede says (by virtue of being a lede "[all scholars agree unanimously that] Yeshu is an individual or individuals. But they don't say that do they, far from it. So why can the NPOV and uncontroversial "Yeshu is a name" not be left in the lede sentence?

This of course is only one problem, but it's emblematic of the approach of putting medieval authorities ahead of modern scholarship. And of WP:Overweight in that a couple of disputed references in a sixth Century Aramaic text take up 95% of article space. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu, you are just going to have to trust a handful of people who are native English speakers, since this seems to be a reading-comprehension problem. The first line of the article says that "Yeshu" may refer to an individual. Or it may refer to individuals. It does not say which position is right. The lead allows for the possibility that Jeremias' view is right, and it also allows for the possibility that Van Voorst is right. that is what makes it NPOV.Slrubenstein | Talk 08:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu, please provide us with a quote where Theissen says that "Yeshu is always Jesus." I have asked you several times before an you have not provided an answer. I have the book, I have read the book, I do not see where he says this. I also do not see where Meier says this either. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No, you don't. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I ask for a quote. If you had an appropriate quote, we could add it to the article and improve it. Same for Meier. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

1st sentence

• Yeshu is a name.
• Yeshu is an individual or individuals.

Which of these is more NPOV? Be honest. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop being a disruptive editor. I see no point in responding to this silly question. We are discussing how to improve the article in the sections above and I will only respond in substance there; this :talk page is for improving the article.Slrubenstein | Talk 08:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein.

Well, if there's such a thing as "stop being a disruptive TALKer" given that I already gave up attempting to edit here 2 weeks ago. Do I need your permission to Talk as well now? I thought as I'm leaving I'd say simply and cleanly on a fresh bit of the page what I think. Feel free to fill the space below with a choice selection of your best insults, adhominems and accusations from the past 4 weeks before the Talk scrolls quickly up into the archive... bon nuit, אַ גוטע נאַכט. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu, Jayjg did bring up a salient point, and that is that names can be of places or objects, and not only people, so the target of the name is needed in the lede, and if so, then the fact that there may be more than one person is relevant. If names only referred to people, and nothing else, I'd agree that "is a name" is cleaner and more elegant than the second option. Do you have any ideas how to incorporate both in a better way? -- Avi (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu, in fact the lede says "Yeshu is the name of an individual or individuals...", which is without question the most NPOV of all the alternatives. Also, since the lede says neither of the alternatives you've proposed, why do you ask this hypothetical straw man question? Please review WP:TALK. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Does the Rambam (Maimonides) belong here?

Does the Rambam at the end of Judges:Kings chapter 11 (uncensored) belong here? True, he says Yehua and clearly refers to the NT Jesus, but he says, "he was killed in Bet Din". Wouldn't that indicate that he was referring to the Talmudic version, as the notes in the Shabsai Frankel critical edition indicate? Or would one need more proof?Mzk1 (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

His opinion, whatever it was, would indicate this is NOT Jesus because Christian scripture (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ALL) say that Bet Din did not kill Jesus. That is why this article should contrast what Christian scripture says about Jesus next to every item suggesting that there is a reference in Talmud to Jesus. Both scriptures need equal time, for one thing, and for another, it would show that they say different things about the character under discussion. It's not possible to assume that people interested in this topic have a copy of Christian scripture around.

4.248.222.74 (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)