User talk:Saforrest/Archive 3

Wikipedia survey

Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 01:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Bucketsofg

Yes, I'm the Grewal blogger. Bucketsofg 20:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Portuguese Motto

I have removed the national motto "he who dares wins", since I could find no corroboration for it, and in any case it seems fishy that only the English version is given. Also, the Portugese Wikipedia has "Lema: não tem" which as far as I can tell translates as "Motto: none". --Saforrest 20:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Yes, the motto is a recurrent vandalism target. When I arrived wikipedia, the motto was "For the good of the nation" and after removal it started being included almost daily. "He who dares, wins" is also someone's creativity showing up. Unfortunately, the first one is still present in several wikis due to English translations. There's is no state motto. Good work! Afonso Silva 21:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC) "[He] Who dares, wins" is the motto of the British SAS, though it's often mis-attributed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.77.132.97 (talk • contribs) .

Actress

When did I say German or Persian grammer should consider here?. I just said English have two different words for actors, and suppose someone want to know how many Iranian actress are in wikipedia, how he\she can find out?Sasanjan 21:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Syed Mohammad Jaunpuri

Hi Saforrest, Neat explanation there at that article's talk page. Thanks for the comment, however. Azgs 05:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

rfa

I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Administrators

Hello! I thought you might like to check out the annotated list here as well: Wikipedia:List of administrators. --HappyCamper 17:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of religions once classed as cults...

Would you consider changing your vote to keep the information if it were merged with List of groups referred to as cults or expanded into a broader topic: "The Transition from Cult to Religion." That might make a very interesting wikipedia article. cairoi 17:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments left on Jeremy Clarkson talk Page

Hi, i responded to your comment on the Jeremy Clarkson talk page about POV, let me know what you think.TheEnlightened 14:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Kamakaze Highlander

has of course reverted our comments. FFS! — ciphergoth 20:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Genetics

User:Tasc has recently removed Genetics information from your articles on Bertha von Putelendorf, Elisabeth of Tirol, Eleanor of Navarre, Catherine de Foix, Blanche I of Navarre, Juana Manuel of Castile, Blanca de La Cerda y Lara, Eleanor of Castile (d. 1416) and Elisabeth II of Bohemia. He has already went into edit warring with me about removing all Genetics information from biographical articles as "nonsense". Care to adress him? User:Dimadick

Hi, I just noticed this genetics debate. I'm not quite sure what the reasoning is for including genetic information which seems to be likely to be the same for millions of people, with really no significant relevance for their lives? It seems so far that it just happens that royalty, being famous, happen to have been tested, but it has no other significance. Sandpiper 08:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

well, I dont know exactly where you feel it appropriate to draw the line in mentioning genetics. i think i read your making a case for its relevance in identifying the remains of the last czar of Russia, but I'm not convinced that really makes it relevant to an article on any of his relatives who just happened to be used to provide specimens. But the way the subject has been included in articles right now, it really makes no sense and just confuses a reader. Like it did me when I read it, 'what is this nonsense? Ah I know, they must be referring to haemophilia'. Wrong guess. If it is to be included then it must explain its relevance, however slim. I imagine there must be other examples where novel scientific techniques were first used to shed light on history, but I still think all of them really belong in an article on techniques, not in an article stating the facts they have discovered (which in this case seems essentially to be none of any great significance regarding the specific persons). Sandpiper 19:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Citing to the Bible

As a recent participant in the TfD dicussion on whether {{Bibleverse}} and {{Bibleref}} should be deleted, I wanted to make sure you were aware of the new discussion at Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible. The goal of these discussion is to resolve the concerns raised re GFDL, use of an external cite, etc. Additionally, this page should serve as a location for recording research about the different websites that provide online Bible information. Please edit the summary and join the discussion - thx Trödel 15:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

About your comment at War of Tatters

It's only a false colour of that painting. The banner is green, yellow and red, as the Rio Grande do Sul flag (it was made based in the rebellious flag). -Sitenl 23:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Halifax Regional Municipality

Please stop trying to rename "Halifax Regional Municipality" to Halifax I am offended to be told that I live in Halifax when I do not live there --JO 15:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Halifax sockpuppets

Nice work finding sockpuppet evidence. This user has been driving me crazy! Ouuplas 22:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

At least the article's safe for 24 hours now that he's blocked. The page-move thing makes me think he has some sort of sneaky master plan to separate the HRM article into a bunch of smaller ones.

I'm not completely set on changing the article name, and I'm certainly not trying to "ram" it on anyone, but do think it's worth considering. I wonder what he's planning to sue me for? Guess I have to wait until "noon pacifac time" (3.2 hrs) to see. Thanks again, Ouuplas 16:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he kind of went crazy and quit. I read what you wrote on the HRM talk page about him actually making some helpful edits, and I agree. I'd think I'd be able to forgive and forget if he dropped the whole sockpuppet thing.

As for the name change, I think my opinion has changed on it slightly. I still think Halifax, Nova Scotia should redirect (as it does) to Halifax Regional Municipality, Nova Scotia if the name change doesn't end up happening. Anyway, I'm heading to Toronto for a week tomorrow so I'll see how the discussion went when I get back (unless I get on a computer there). Cheers, Ouuplas 02:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your role in blocking my son (matthvm) and my grandson --20060715 13:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Y'know what's weird? When User:Allenwhite archived the Halifax talk page, the sockpuppet discussion mysteriously disappeared in the process. Ouuplas 05:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a mistake in my first time archiving - I don't know anyone involved in the ongoing debates and try not to get involved in the irrational aspects of editing. Allenwhite 11:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

We got another one, folks...User:Compaquser. He went around changing NS highway articles back to "his" versions last night. He was autoblocked for using the same IP as Matthvm, but someone gave in to his complaints and unblocked him. Kirjtc2 11:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you guys fix up the evidence pages on these alleged sockpuppets per the instructions here: Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry/Notes_for_the_accuser. It would really help out a lot. Right now the evidence pages are just links to the same talk page entry which isn't formatted the "formal" way with evidence stanzas and etc. I will be reviewing this case later tonite and if the allegations check out, blocking all the accounts. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 13:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

WISH you had fixed it up but went ahead and investigated and have blocked and tagged as confirmed. ++Lar: t/c 12:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Anusim subject

Dramirezg: Thank you Saforrest for making the questions. I think I have to reword some parts of the article, because the point of your first paragraph is not precisely what I wanted to give across. It is somewhat difficult to convey this meaning, because Jewish Law does not operate within the constrains of what people consider "racial" or "religious" categories. And I will bring you certain points that perhaps will make it easier, but I personally do not know how to put it in the article without becoming long winded. Maybe you can help me out.

In Jewish Law, there are two points one must consider for confirmation of Jewish status. One is the "citizenship" one, and second is the behavioral one.

The "citizenship" point of Jewish Law states that the child of a Israelite woman is still an Israelite, no matter what "religion," or belief system the child may be raised with, he still remains an Israelite, or in modern common parlance, a "Jew." So for example, if the child born of a Jewish mother is raised Catholic, the child though Catholic [in religion] is still Jewish, because "citizenship" wise he still belongs to the Nation of Israel for having being born of a Israelite woman. Similar if a child of American parents who is raised as a Mexican in Mexico, the child still has the rights to American citizenship, though he behaves like a Mexican, because the U.S. constitution protects that right.

Now, why did I prefer to use the word "citizenship" over the "biological" or "racial"? Because for example, a Chinese woman decides to "become Jewish", this means she accepts and is willing to follow the Laws of Judaism. In common parlance, this would be called "conversion", but the terminology in Jewish Law is ger ssedeq, which means "righteous alien". Such person is recognized as a full member of the Nation of Israel. "Giur" [pron. gee-oor, gutural "G" as gable] is the process homologous to becoming a "Naturalized Citizen" in American Law. Even if the ger ssedeq decides to adopt another religion, that person still remains an Israelite, and their children are too Israelites ad infinitum, though they may have ethnic Chinese ancestry.

The behavioral one is a bit more complicated, but the point I made in the article is clear. Suffice to say, the axial element is if the person follows Jewish Law or not. An Israelite who follows Jewish Law to the best of his abilities is termed "kasher". If he does, then he can be considered Jewish for all tense and purposes prescribed in Jewish Law. If the person is a min or a meshumad, then there are restrictions as to what one can do with such person, although for marriage they are permissible. This element would make more sense comparing it to American criminal law. Any person who commits a felony in the U.S. automatically has revoked certain rights and priviliges. But it does not take away the fact that he remains a U.S. citizen. It sort of works the same in Jewish Law. For example, a case of a Jewish "felony" [in Hebrew we use the word aberrá, i.e. transgression] would be breaking the Shabbat. Jewish Law states that any Jew who makes fire on Shabbat has commited a grave transgression. Since most "Jews" today drive a car of internal combustion on Shabbat, that on itself is considered "creating fire," and therefore it is a transgression that would turn them into meshumadim (pl. of meshumad).

So going back to your questions: Since children from the Anusá maternal line remain Israelites ad infinitum, they are still Israelites [alt. Jews] according to Jewish Law. So the descendants of the Spanish Anusim are Jews, eventhough most might be practicing Catholics. The Anusim's children belief system or "religion" does not change the fact that they are still Israelites.

The term "anusim" is not exclusive to the descendants of Spanish Jews converted to Catholicism. It is a legal terminology that can be applied to any Jew in their circumstances.

As far as speech, word usage does not determine nationality. Or is it that using the words Chocolate (from nahuatl, Xocolatl) or the the word Tomato (from nahuatl, Xitomatl) would make you Mexican?

If you can help me to clarify this succintly on the article, it would be helpful. --Dramirezg 21:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks Dramirezg for your response. Two points:

• First, of course I understand that word usage does not in itself determine nationality or religion. My question was a purely factual one, about what religion is actually practised by the people called Anusim in Spain. This is not a question of Jewish law, but of a present-day fact. Do these people go to a church, or a synagogue? If their Spanish ancestors resumed the practice of Judaism some time after their forced conversion, when did this happen, and under what circumstances? If they never resumed the practice of Judaism, then do they still retain Jewish traditions, such as the use of Hebrew loanwords, even though their families have been practising Catholics for five hundred years?
  • I would recommend two excellent books on the subject. One about the period of forced conversions (1391-1492), Henry Kamen's The Spanish Inquisition; about those Anusim who returned to Judaism, Miriam Bodian's The Hebrews of the Portuguese Nation. Literally, the Anusim have kept on returning during the last five centuries, the last big case in group has been those in Oporto, Portugal, during the first-half of the 20th century. Some have preserved Jewish traditions, most without knowing it. Others may not have, but overall, the religous patterns of Anusim can be extremely diverse. On the psychology of Iberian Anusim across history, consult José Faur's In the Shadow of History. --Dramirezg 07:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Secondly, your description of "Israelite" as a maternally-inherited ethnicity which cannot be lost even with conversion to another religion seems to contradict the claim in the article that the reason the Anusim are still considered Jews (or Israelites) is that their conversion was forced. If even willing converts (and other Jews who have transgressed Jewish law) are still Israelites, then how is it possible for an individual to lose "Israelite status"? Regards, --Saforrest 05:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Your second question falls on the issue of Jewish behavior, not on the issue of birth-right. Again, the axial, pivotal, revolving aspect of Jewish behavior centers on the commitment to Jewish Law and traditions. Even when transgressing, the Israelite remains an Israelite, albeit by birth-right. However, such transgressing Israelite cannot function fully as a Jew within the community. What does this mean in practical terms? For example, a Jew is commanded not to transgress on Shabbat, or Jewish Sabbath. A typical way today to transgress the Shabbat is by the act of driving a car of internal combustion. Combustion is Fire, and the Jew is forbidden to create fire on Shabbat. Since Jewish Law, both in the Pentateuchal agreement (five books of Moses) and in rabbinic tradition, prescribe that a Jew who transgresses the Shabbat is denying the sign of the Covenant, he is therefore denying his belonging to the people of Israel as a Nation. In laymen terminology, is sort of like a traitor to the Nation, and therefore punishable by death or banishment (this last one I have to double check).
  • In rabbinic interpretation, such person is considered an unreliable witness. What does this entail in practical terms? Many things: If male, he cannot be counted as part of a quorum of ten necessary for Jewish prayer; he cannot read his own portion of the Torah (Pentateuch); he cannot be trusted in issues of Kosher food or wine, that is, a Jew cannot eat at his table; he cannot serve as a witness in a Jewish wedding or divorce. Among many things. In older times, such person was persuaded to change his ways, but if unsuccessful, the community pretty much acted as he did not exists, and sometimes the family would disown him.
  • Rephrasing your answer, the Israelite does not loose his Israelite status of birth-right, just certain priviliges of participation within the Jewish community are revoked.
  • Today, this is next to impossible to enforce, as most Jews are Shabbat desecrators, plus many are not even aware of all this I have just told you. Can you keep a secret? ;-)

--Dramirezg 07:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Jwalker2006

I noticed you tagged Jwalker2006 as a potential sockpuppet, but it wasn't blocked. Could you give me some followup on what's going on here, as the user has requested a namechange and I'd prefer to know whether the user is legit or not before doing a change. Essjay (Talk) 03:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Tie Guard

Hello. This was a strange AfD as the nominator didn't actually want the article deleted. Best thing would have been to simply add the tags to propose a merge then discuss or simply be bold and do it. But since it was on AfD; the first thing is seeing what consensus was. Three merges and three keeps. Usually defaulting to a simple keep, my decision was swayed by the rationale of merging (seemingly a good idea) and the few edits of the keep-voters. So, merge it was. Now where to? Well, if it was put into the main article there would be more people to look at it and decide where best it fit. Less chance of "hiding" it. So, off to University of Waterloo. I'm glad it finally found a niche. Ifnord 03:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

controversial?

On your user page it says: As a general rule, I tend to stay away from editing immensely controversial articles on Wikipedia [...]

Looking at your recent edits it looks like a substantial percentage are on controversial subjects ... Sbwoodside 21:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Une petite photo

Bonjour Cousin Canadien ! Pour illustrer cet article : John McIntosh, j'aurai besoin de cette photo qui n'est malheureusement pas libre de droit. Si tu en as la possibilité, pourrais tu, à l'occasion, faire une nouvelle photo et la poster sur Commons ?

Merci d'avance. Abrahami 20:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Epsoul User Page

I meant that I generally put an unintentional conservative bias in my edits. Thanks for the advisory, I've already corrected it. Epsoul 00:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)