Talk:Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament/Archive 1

message: As of right now, the only links to the article are some that obsess over the "J" sound in the modern English version of the name, despite the fact that ALL ancient words beginning in "Y" have come to begin with "J", by an ordinary and normal process of linguistic development, if they went through Old French, or had their pronunciation affected by the French pronunciation of Latin words.  This applies to many dozens of Biblical names, as well as to numerous ordinary words such as "Judge" (pronounced Yoodeks in ancient Latin).
I guess I'll add a link to my site http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/yeshua-yasu-isa.htm for balance, but the article really needs more work. AnonMoos 22:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfortunate Links 

message: “Jesus is derived from the Latin Iesus, which in turn comes from the Greek Ἰησοῦς (Iēsoûs).”  Jesus was first written in early Latin as "IESVS" before adaption of letter U/u in the Middle Ages. Perhaps early Romans confused Greek letters ν (lower case Nu) and υ (lower case Upsilon).  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_alphabet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_alphabet (Evolution) “V stood for both u and v.”  “The Roman alphabet is an adaptation of the Greek alphabet to represent the phonemes of the Latin language”  My native language Finnish is ideal and exact in investigating evolution of languages cause without few exception Finnish is written same way as pronounced (one letter = one phoneme). Finnish does not have any “vowel pair sounds” like French or English does, e.g. Y[ou] in English , V[ou]s in French.  Finnish also the most ideal language for computerized Speech_recognition -- Unsigned by User 213.216.199.18 or JPV
:Sorry, but V-like forms of Greek Nu didn't exist until centuries after the beginning of Christianity, and a name IESNS doesn't make any sense from any linguistic or etymological point of view. AnonMoos
:: I do not understand what this has to do with anything. "Iesus" is a very straightforward transliteration of the Greek. In any case, I think the letter form is irrelevant to this article. --CTSWyneken 16:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name of Jesus 

message: In the 1611 KJV, did they use Iesus or Jesus? in 1611, did they pronounce the Name as yesu or jeezus? when did they start to say jeezus instead of Yesu? when the Name was printed as Jesus did they pronouce it as Yesu or jeezus? what other language pronounces jeezus? why did people start to say jeezus? if the Name was originally spelt Iesus, and when changed to Jesus they still pronouced Yesu, why did they go to jeezus? "J was originally a capital of I." if they spelt "Jesus" when people were saying Yesu, why aren't they saying Yesu instead of jeezus?  -- Unsigned by 138.89.68.186
:Dude, the purely visual distinction between the alphabetic letters "I" and "J" did not begin to be consistently made until the 17th century (just little bit after the time of the KJV) but the "j" or "dzh" sound had existed in English many centuries before (ever since the palatalizations of velar consonants in words such as "bridge" or "brycg" in Old English) -- and had existed in the name "Jesus" ever since word-initial sound "y" became the sound "j" by an ordinary process of linguistic development (phonological change) in the French language in the early middle ages.  As I said above, this historical change also affected quite a number of ordinary words, such as Latin Yoodex (original Latin spelling IVDEX) becoming modern English "Judge" through French. Jesus, pronounced in Classical Latin more or less as Yaysoos (original Latin spelling IESVS) is quite parallel to the word "judge" in this respect.  The change of [s] to [z] in intervocalic position is also an ordinary historical phonological change.  For some further info, look at  site http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/yeshua-yasu-isa.htm AnonMoos 18:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  when and why jeezus? 

message: Raymond E. Brown, in Theological Studies #26 (1965) p.545-73 wrote an article entitled "Does the NT call Jesus God?" which can be summarized as follows: Mk10:18, Lk18:19, Mt19:17, Mk15:34, Mt27:46, Jn20:17, Eph1:17, 2Cor1:3, 1Pt1:3, Jn17:3, 1Cor8:6, Eph4:4-6, 1Cor12:4-6, 2Cor13:14, 1Tm2:5, Jn14:28, Mk13:32, Ph2:5-10, 1Cor15:24-28 are "texts that seem to imply that the title God was not used for Jesus" and are "negative evidence which is often somewhat neglected in Catholic treatments of the subject." Also: "Jesus is never called God in the Synoptic Gospels, and a passage like Mk 10:18 would seem to preclude the possibility that Jesus used the title of himself. Even the fourth Gospel never portrays Jesus as saying specifically that he is God. The sermons which Acts attributes to the beginning of the Christian mission do not speak of Jesus as God. Thus, there is no reason to think that Jesus was called God in the earliest layers of New Testament tradition. This negative conclusion is substantiated by the fact that Paul does not use the title in any epistle written before 58." And "The slow development of the usage of the title God for Jesus requires explanation. Not only is there the factor that Jesus is not called God in the earlier strata of New Testament material, but also there are passages, cited in the first series of texts above, that by implication reserve the title God for the Father. Moreover, even in the New Testament works that speak of Jesus as God, there are also passages that seem to militate against such a usage - a study of these texts will show that this is true of the Pastorals and the Johannine literature. The most plausible explanation is that in the earliest stage of Christianity the Old Testament heritage dominated the use of the title God; hence, God was a title too narrow to be applied to Jesus. It referred strictly to the Father of Jesus, to the God whom he prayed. Gradually, (in the 50's and 60's?) in the development of Christian thought God was understood to be a broader term. It was seen that God had revealed so much of Himself in Jesus that God had to be able to include both Father and Son."
:: Please register as a user and sign your posts. It is hard to defend anonymous users. I'm with you on the title, but cannot afford the time for a major edit war when I'm trying to finish documentation on Jesus So please! Sign! --CTSWyneken 22:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the NT call Jesus God? 

message: Folks, it does not matter what we think the translation of this passage is. The fact is that a substantial number of scholars think that it is a point blank statement of Jesus as God and a substantial number that it is not. We can solve the problem by crafting text that represents both views. --CTSWyneken 11:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how substantial the number is that disagree. From what I can tell, all scholars agree that 1.) John 1:1c refers to deity (however they understand it, and however they reach that conclusion -- either by understanding theos as definite or as qualitative), and 2.) that Jesus is directly identified with the Logos. --MonkeeSage 12:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we should wipe and re-write Divinity of Jesus to deal with this issue in more detail, then link from this article to the new one? Under that article we could actually take the time to go over each passage in the NT tradition as well as different theological points from various denominations and other religions and keep things tidy. --Steve Caruso 16:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reason for leaving out the ὁ here is not because we're discussing Jn 1:1 in the body of the text, but because we are summarizing what a half dozen or so passages say. Some, like John 1:1, do not use the ὁ; some, like John 1:18, do. By leaving it out, we generalize. --CTSWyneken 11:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All this is not relevant 

message: I see an improvement, but we still need to fill these out. Because editions vary, editors and translators vary, in some cases, authors vary, we need for the first reference to each work:
Author of the entry. "title of the entry." edition. editors (up to at least two, better three, then et Al.), tramslators if different from the editors. Place: Publisher, date. Page of entry. If online, the URL.
After these, the author, and page number are sufficient. --CTSWyneken 21:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References Better, but still not complete 

message: I have just added content that was in the original version of the article but that had been removed.  I suspect it was removed in order to make this a shorter article, with details in linked articles.  I think this is neither necessary nor effective.  It is not necessary because the article is not too long for anyone's server, not by a long shot.  It is not wise because many of the linked articles (not all) are not specifically about Jesus or Christianity.  They thus say nothing about the "names and titles of Jesus."  I have restored content that is specific to Geza Vermes' arguments about the names and titles of Jesus.  This is only one point of view, although it is a very well-regarded point of view.  If the problem is that other points of views need to be represented, the solution is to add, not to delete. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was probably me who removed some (or most) of it. You're right, I was trying to consolidate (though I also tried to keep the main points of the longer version), and I also linked most of the titles to their main articles. But I see your point about the other articles not always being in context, and I have no problem with your latest edits. I've also added (a little) more content to compliment or balance out the discussion. --MonkeeSage 07:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding more content 

message: I added in the personal name section one of the places where Philo uses Ἰησοῦς for Joshua, Moses' successor. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae shows four other possible occurances. --CTSWyneken 13:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Reference for Philo 

message: "This shortening also allowed for some confusion, as the 3rd person imperfect form of שוא [shua`] (to save) is ישוע, allowing the Aramaic name to take on the meaning "He will save.""
This statement is incorrect.  ישוע would be the 3rd person imperfect form of שוע (H7768), meaning "he will cry out to God". See Sayings of Jesus on the cross, Aramaic of Jesus.
Strongs 03442 and 03443 in the edition I'm currently looking at agree with what I compiled. --Steve Caruso 03:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in article 

message: I've archived all conversations over a month old. They can now be found under the Archives template on the right. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 01:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: 205.188.116.201 from Ames, Iowa, please sign in and state your reasons for consistently wiping edits made to this page. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 13:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential edit war 

message: Ok, everyone, I think we need to sit down and actually go over what's happening here. One does -not- need to discuss every edit that people go over and make. WP:BOLD outlines this. If there is a problem with the edits that some one has made, the onus is on <U>the person who is complaining</U> to bring their issues to the Talk page and not start an edit war. :-) So, what are the problems with the edits that I have made? What are the problems with Clinkophonist's edits? Let us discuss this, and not squabble back and forth over restoring edits, as of this moment I believe that all of the recent edits that I have made have been reverted, and from other people I'm not sure which edits survived. Let's talk. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 21:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to know what the problems are with my edits. Its now half a month since Thadman asked for someone to explain what the problems are. If no problems are raised here I shall assume that all reasonable editors consider my edits justified, that they should remain in the article, and that all the editors removing them are committing acts that the wider wikipedia community regard as vandalism; i.e. acts that should be reverted on sight. Clinkophonist 11:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current state of this article, edits flying 

message: The present article states quite emphatically: "What we do know for sure is that it originates from the Hebrew  [yehoshua`]". Apart from the fact that no source is cited for this claim, it is rather stronger than warranted; at best this might be a generally accepted theory. But I further see a contradiction with our article Joshua, which renders the name in Hebrew as , where the difference in spelling cannot be a simple mistake, as the text proceeds to discuss the "missing" vav. One can also check here that the name for Moses' companion in Exodus 17:9 (not 17:8 as the present article has) is spelled without vav. In contrast, Yeshua is spelled with a vav (see, e,g, Ezra 5:2). --LambiamTalk 18:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Half the article was dominated by this POV material on the Old Testament.  By the way, this is Watchtower (Jehovah's Witnesses) material and does not meet Wikipedia's standards either in quality of writing or in matching scholarly consensus.  Specifically, it violates Wikipedia's prohibition against giving WP:NPOV#Undue_weight] to tiny minority viewpoints.  But this article was dominated by it.  - Cestus Cd 05:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do we know for sure? 

message: I assume that there's supposed to be a yod in the Title of the article given as reference #1... is that right?
--rmagill 18:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference #1 

message: Reading the bit on "Son of God", I read the following:The phrase itself is thus taken by many to be synonymous with divinityWhy is this marked with a citation tag?  I'm removing it; if you want a source (I don't know how to do the little source tag that redirects to the bottom of the page) check the Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 8 section 2 — it's a document to which many millions have and do adhere.  Nyttend 13:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Son of God 

message: YHWH šuā actually stands for Indoeuropean Dīāvā sūnah 'the son of the god', cf. Skr dyāvah 'god', Lith. sūnus 'son'. Roberts7 18:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah, that's a nice one! — Gareth Hughes 15:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Complete B.S.. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 03:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal name 

message: The following section was formerly in the main article, however, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. At the very least it is complete WP:OR and does not conform to WP:NPOV. אמר Steve Caruso 18:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  God Section 

message: Light of the World (Jesus) redirects here, but this article doesn't have anything about this topic. --62.214.229.215 (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Light of the World 

message: A friend of mine once said that in Jesus' day he would have been known (full name) as Yeshua bin Joseph ha Dovidl (spelling is, I think, as how he had it), literally, "Jesus (/Joshua), son of Joseph, of the house of David".  Would that form of name construct have been used in Jesus' day, or would just the simple name of "Yeshua" (one name only) be more plausible?  (I'm thinking having another name as a distinguishing mark isn't all that uncommon, for some of Jesus' contemporaries were "James, the son of Zebedee" (which leads me to believe that the "son of Zebedee" (bin Zebedee?) was used to distinguish from the other Jameses around at the time) and "Judas Iscariot" - seeing as how "Judas" was/is a common name of Jews at the time, a further identification makes sense, but, as far as I know, Jesus/Joshua was common too, which makes sense that the prophet from Nazareth would have a "more full" name (if you want, a "last name") than just "Jesus".  Is Yeshua bin Joseph ha Dovidl likely?  --Canuckguy (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal name 

message: I removed this section:
:The original Aramaic (or late Hebrew) name for Jesus is Yeshua—a contraction of yehÖshÙa (Joshua), help of Jehovah + yÀh, Jehovah + hÖshïa, to help." ( http://www.plim.org/JesusOrigin.htm ) In Hebrew, YESHUA is from the Hebrew YESHA—Yud Shin Ayin—meaning Help, Salvation, Deliverance. (Alcalay, R. The Complete Hebrew English Dictionary. Jerusalem: Massada. 972); also http://www.hebrewbabynames.com/item.cfm?itemid=292 ) The more accurate name for Jesus, derived from YHWH, may be spelled: Yahshua, which means "Yahweh is salvation," or "God is salvation."
Its sources are articles written by religious groups that make pretty weak linguistic claims and present no proof. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yeshua | Yahshua, PLIM 

message: I've been noticing that several edits to this page have been made lately, the vast majority of them being by an unregistered user with the IP address 66.93.140.42 and all of them (as far as I can see) being made as additions under the "Other titles in the New Testament" heading.  Currently there are 89 subheadings.  At what point do we draw the line?  It almost seems as if we keep going, we're going to end up quoting the entire New Testament.  Additionally, the user making additions seems to have a kind of evangelical agenda as seen by the following specific edits.  So what do others think?  Is this informative or just evangelism?  Euphgeek (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Writing as one who completely agrees with the agenda of the four edits you link, I have to agree with you: these are evangelism not reporting; they're not without controversy even within Christianity; and they're about Jesus' nature, not name (it's in the wrong place, even if admissible by other measures). Jackrepenning (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informative or Evangelism? 

message: I've removed what seem to me to be a few instances of evangelism - some from the IP 66.93.140.42 mentioned just above. They seem to be stating some Christian beliefs as fact, rather than from an NPOV. I might have misunderstood though, and they might not have been meant like that, so I'll hold off for a while and see what others think. Oscroft (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye I've just pulled down a few things, too, but I find myself a bit pinched for time to continue. This article needs a thorough culling of 100% POV material an re-writing of that which is POV but could be better put. Much of this could be expressed in a constructive and NPOV way without preaching. אמר Steve Caruso 14:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed a LOT of preaching, but there's more. I'm a little confused about The_Thadman's note in recent edit summary: "True God: I also hate to say it, but declarations of divinity as fact  doesn't adhere to WP:NPOV." The article reads, "The Bible says that Jesus is the true God" and gives the citations.  The Bible may be wrong, but the very title of the article is Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament. I don't see how we can go all the way through the article and be more neutral (assuming the preaching/teaching comments are gone). Since I work on the article, please give me your suggestion. Thanks, Afaprof01 (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree - saying "The Bible says that Jesus is the true God" and providing a reference that supports the assertion seems entirely factual and NPOV to me. Oscroft (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The page excludes the important title "Word of God." --Ephilei (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Word of God" has been added.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word of God 

message: The article should maybe point out that the Old Testament has been a source of christology just as well. There is a notable work on the subject by Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg. ADM (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Let's create a new page for the names and titles of Jesus in the Old Testament.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christology of the Old Testament 

message: The introduction to this page says that christology is the study of the names.  This seems to be false on its face, since all the theology I've studied purporting to be christological has dealt with the nature of Christ rather than names.  If the study of the names is a branch of christology, though--which is absolutely plausible--shouldn't the linked christology page have some material on that?  In any event, clarification is probably in order.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.162.115 (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposal:  If Christology is the study of the nature of Christ, I propose that we also add the "nature of Jesus" to describe the page--e.g., "the names, titles, and nature of Jesus".  For example, "Suffering Servant" is a widely accepted title for Jesus--it describes Jesus; but the Bible does not specifically put the two words together.  Another example is "Christ Crucified", a title which was erased; yet, the words "Christ crucified" appears together in the New Testament.  [ see http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/1-23.htm ]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.40.171 (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christology as study? 

message: :Proposal:  If Christology is the study of the nature of Christ, I propose that we also add the "nature of Jesus" to describe the page--e.g., "the names, titles, and nature of Jesus".  For example, "Suffering Servant" is a widely accepted title for Jesus--it describes Jesus; but the Bible does not specifically put the two words together.  Another example is "Christ Crucified", a title which was erased; yet, the words "Christ crucified" appears together in the New Testament.  [ see http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/1-23.htm ]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.40.171 (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Christology:  "the names, titles, and nature of Jesus"

message: Someone REMOVED the title "TRUE GOD", along with it's newly cited encyclopedia/biblical references.  The reference requirement was met.  Please reinstate the title "TRUE GOD".
:Proposal:  I propose that the title "TRUE GOD" be reinstated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus Not Followed 

message: some 50 or more tags have been placed to every title entry stating there's no reference nor source to such title when a portion of biblical scripture is quoted and the reference for that portion of scripture is provided... then there are the references, and the article's title reads: Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament then New testament is source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.119.128 (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: True.  Most names/titles cite Bible references, and some cite other references as well.  The authority for this page is purported to be The New Testament, but the consensus to this date has excluded the Bible as a "verifiable reference".  (But man's errors in thinking--though contrary to Bible teachings--have been accepted as "verifiable references".)  In practice, the authority for the wiki's Names and Titles of Jesus is man, not the Bible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.37.6 (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: A Table summarized the names of Jesus (Messiah, Jehovah, Yeshua, etc.) by languages:  Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English.  It presented a clear overview of how Jesus' name changed with time, and how its original meaning is lost in Greek, Latin, and English. It was a great help in understanding how the many "different names" of Jesus have one origin, and are but one name. Why was this table--with its reliable references--deleted?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important Information Being Deleted 

message: The author of one website has a Doctors Degree in Theology (D.D.).  The other website uses authentic  Hebrew dictionaries.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: D.D. is not a Doctor of Theology, which is a D.Th.. D.D. is Doctor of Divinity and, in UK tradition, is the highest of all doctorates. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: By contrast, in the U.S., D.D. (Doctor of Divinity) is an honorary degree today. I find some evidence from some 1800s writings that it may have followed the UK tradition back then, but in the 1900s and later it is strictly honorary. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose Reinstating Title

message: The title "Yeshua" is reinstated per the above discussion: (1) since both references are reliable and reputable, and (2) since the claims are not "pretty weak linguistic claims" as first thought,  and (3) since no other objections to these impeccable credentials are given.  It is important to retain the title Yeshua because newer Bible translations are beginning to use this name "Yeshua" (or other Aramaic-Hebrew spellings of this name) in place of the name "Jesus".   The meaning of Messiah and God (YHWH) is clear with the original Aramaic-Hebrew name "Yeshua"; whereas, the meaning of Messiah is lost with the English name "Jesus".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 06:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Reinstated Title

message: ::::I propose we change the web links back to the original websites to prevent more errors and confusion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Users are encouraged to be BOLD. I'd support linking to Bible.cc, but editors should be aware that there is an ongoing dispute about whether external links to Scriptures should be allowed. They typically are allowed, but that seems to be more community looking-the-other-way than an explicit rule.--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that external links are healthy; otherwise, there exists the danger of controlled information (propaganda) within wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.215.122 (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I will start to change the Bible links back to the original Bible Links with the ~17 different Bible Translations.  This will eliminate such current problems as having NO Bible verse showing up on the linked page, which still happens on occasion when clicking on links to BibleGateway.com.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal--Change Links back to Original Websites

message: If you note below, the subject of Disputed Items often pertains to the deity of Jesus--Jesus is God.  Also, the most controversy and debate under the "Names and Titles of Jesus" also pertain to the deity of Jesus, or as Lord/God/Saviour of man.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.50.144 (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Subject of Disputed Items

message: Substituted at 21:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment