Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies/Archive 2

message: Slim's asked for citations for the arguments relating Kristallnacht and OtJaTL. It's a reasonable request, so I went hunting. There are lots of different essays and articles relating the two (since a cursory examination makes the comparison downright obvious); the only question is, are any of the essayists and expressers of opinion sufficiently notable to quote? Just because an opinion is commonly expressed doesn't make it worthy of expressing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are right, there are quite a few writing on both sides of the issue. I think putting between one and three citations in a footnote for each viewpoint is likely to be sufficient. The point is to show each has scholarly proponents. We can always add citations to a note if we find better ones. Only if we feel compelled to add quotations should we worry about especially apt ones. --CTSWyneken 23:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...it could be argued... 

message: Since I have not contested the suggestion that the D. G. Meyers quote contributed by user Doright be removed, is someone going to do this? I'd do it, but then I'd might be accused of whitewashing. --CTSWyneken 17:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  D. G. Meyers 

message: I have added all the citations that every one suggested. If you see any other problem with the edits, please discuss them on this page first before changing them, or deleting the entire article as was done before. Thanks, Thetruthbelow 00:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi TTB, I think it has to be the other way round i.e. you need to discuss your changes here first before making them, because they're too extensive and there are problems with the way the material is presented. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, you added this: "The question of whether Martin Luther's writings influenced Hitler is filled with doubt ..." and I removed it and pointed out the problem with it, but you simply added it again. Why? Questions cannot be filled with doubt. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Slim, I have no problems with removing that line. I don't think it is helpful for the reasons you've described and it is a little preachy, too. If you wish, and if it is acceptable with TruthBelow,  I'd support moving his text here for us to work with. --CTSWyneken 01:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't preachy, CTSW, it's nonsense. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thats fine with me...I was just summarizing my sources, trying to make the information move more smoothly. I have no problem with it being removed, and actually, I agree with you now that I have read it over a few times. Thetruthbelow 01:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't reinsert material that has been pointed out as problematic. Similarly with your "because of historical events" phrase, which you also just added again, although the author didn't say that. Also, please give full citations. Book titles in italics, article titles in quotation marks, publisher and date of publication. As it stands, readers can't tell which title is a book and which a paper. See WP:CITE. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: CTSWyneken told me that after the first time you cite a source you dont need full citations, just the author and the page number. Thetruthbelow(talk) 01:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't add any full citations that I could see. There's something about this whole thing that I'm missing. You go out of your way to post apparently very friendly notes to several talk pages, at the same time aggressively rewriting articles without discussion, reverting when people try to correct the problem areas, and even removing invisible questions. I asked who Alex Bein is. You've removed the question without answering it. What gives? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: SlimVirgin not to seem rude, but you are being a little hypocritical. You kept on changing the Nazi edit on the On the Jews and their lies page, quite aggressivly as you might put it, then criticize me for doing it. As for Alex Bien,since he was the author I put a link on him as I am currently researching him. While this may result in a redlink, it will soon be fixed when I have gathered all the info. I am not trying to upset you, and you must remember that I am new and still trying my best. I apologize for upsetting you, as that was never my intention. Thetruthbelow(talk) 01:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't remove invisible questions until they're answered. Don't remove people's improvements of the writing. And say who authors are, so that the reader doesn't have to go clicking back and forth to work out why you've mentioned someone. You must know who he is, or else you wouldn't be quoting him (I hope!); therefore, just stick it in as you write: "Alex Bain, Wikipedia Professor of History at Cambridge University, has argued that ..." SlimVirgin (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually quoting him from the article that CTSWyneken provided me. You can ask him for a copy if you like, just so you know that he exists. Thank you. Thetruthbelow(talk) 02:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you quote here the sentence in which he says it? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The reason the Alex Bien thing didn't work slimvirgin is because you randomly removed the quote that followed, so the paragraph now read, "Alex Bien disagrees" I put the quot back in, removed the link onBien's name, and now it makes sense. Thetruthbelow(talk) 02:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you're talking about. I asked who Alex Bein is. You removed the question. You still haven't said who he is. Please write for the reader, not for yourself. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As I said, I am still researching that so I wrote his name, and what he wrote in the article. What I said before is that you removed what he said, so that the article read, "Alex Bein didn't agree" or something to that sort. That made no sense, so I stuck back in what he said about Luther, and now it makes sense. Thetruthbelow(talk) 02:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you understand now? If not, I will discuss it with you tommorow after I return from school, as I am going to bed now. Thetruthbelow(talk) 02:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation added 

message: We are talking about Dr. Alex Bein, previous Director (1955-1971) of the Central Zionist Archives , I would assume?--Backroomlaptop 03:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, would you mind doing research on him and publishing an article on wikipedia? I can't find anything about him.Thetruthbelow(talk) 04:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: would you also mind doing Haim Hillel Ben Sasson i can't find anything on him in english.Thetruthbelow(talk) 04:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I would mind. I am grumpy and in no mood to write ANY article right now. Sorry --Backroomlaptop 00:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: They don't need to have their own article. You just need to say who they are in the text so the reader knows who you're talking about. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, Haim Hillel Ben Sasson compiled A History of the Jewish People Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976. This is apparently a translation from Hebrew. --CTSWyneken 15:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  On Alex Bein, all the Wallmann article indicates is he is the author of Die Judenfrage: Biographie eines Weltproblems. It appears to be in multiple volumes. --CTSWyneken 15:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 12:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alex Bein

message: I tried posting this question on JayJG's discussion page on his talk page, but he deleted it without responding, or without explanation. Perhaps he thought it would be a more appropriate question here. Here is what I asked him. I am sincerely asking JayJG, woudl you please respond? Thanks.--Ptmccain 21:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, Paul, backgrounds of editors are irrelevent here. What counts are the scholars cited. Let's see what folks can come up with. I'll be back in the office with my books and the library I work in. Then I'll be able to consult the sources I've been collecting on this subject and will expand this list. I'm sure others have resources at their disposal also. Let's work on assembling them. --CTSWyneken 22:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand what you are saying, but since Jay has expressed an opinion that it is improper to say "most reformation scholars" I'm assuming that he has some sort of background in Reformation studies that leads him to the conviction that saying "most Reformation scholars" is an error on the point we are talking about. I'm merely interested in knowing what sources he has studied that leads him to his opinions on this issue. I think it is odd that he won't respond to the question. I do wish he would.--Ptmccain 01:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOR, WP:CITE.  If you say "many" then you have to provide a source that backs that up.  And what matters here is policy. Please desist from asking obviously disruptive rhetorical strawman questions. Jayjg (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "obviously disruptive rhetorical questions"? I'm asking you a question. I'm doing so in a civil manner. I regret you can only resort to ad hominem criticisms rather than simply answer the question. It would appear you must be quite familiar with Reformation scholarship for you to so easily dismiss the assertion that most Reformation scholars do not attribute Luther's comments and views about the Jews to racism, but to religious reasons. I'm simply asking you to share what sources you have read that would indicate otherwise.--Ptmccain 02:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ptmccain, all that matters here is which sources people cite; we are not allowed to include our personal views, so those views don't (or shouldn't) matter. I could equally well ask what qualifications you have that are relevant to writing, because I've noticed problems with your writing quality, but again, that's regarded as irrelevant for Wikipedia, which is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, for better or for worse. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slim, come now, I'm sure an administrator like you knows not to engage in personal attacks like this. I am sure you can do better and continue to set a fine example for us all.--Ptmccain 02:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't intend it as a personal attack, but as a response to your questioning of Jayjg and others about their qualifications. When I first encountered you, I was surprised by the quality of your writing, and in fact raised it as an issue on Talk:Martin Luther. I'll look for the diff. My point in raising it again is that we have all gripes with other editors' approaches: writing style, lack of knowledge of Luther, lack of knowledge of anti-Semitism, lack of knowledge of WP policies etc. In the end, we are all allowed to edit this page, unless blocked for policy violations, so we might as well make the best of it. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very kind of you to come to Jay's defense, Slim. I'm asking a simple question, in a civil manner. His refusal to answer is to me quite revealing. I'm sorry it has you so worked up and upset. That of course was certainly not my intention. I'm sorry you have to take time out of what no doubt is a very busy Wiki schedule to respond at all, but it is kind of you to notice and care so much.--Ptmccain 03:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You asked a loaded question in a passive-aggressive way, give it a rest.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Let's outdent a bit, folks! Paul, it really doesn't matter the background of editors. So, let's just drop it. What we should be up to is documenting. I'll do at least some of that in the morning. --CTSWyneken 11:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Sincere Question for JayJG