User talk:Yoshiah ap/Archive 4

Jewish? terrorist group

Of course there have been many Jews who are not religious. I'm one of the them... I do not understand, though, what this has to do with classifying Irgun and the Stern gang as "Jewish terrorist organizations." Other labels are more precise, such as "Zionist," "national liberation," "Israeli," or "nationalist." If you apply your logic to militant organizations in the Muslim World, the Kurdish Workers Party, Fatah, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine would be classified as "Islamic terrorist organizations." Yet, none of these organizations advocates imposing Islamic Law. 172 01:10, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is an ambiguity caused by the fact that "Jewish" refers to both a practitioner of Judaism and a member of the Jewish ethnic group. Jayjg 02:23, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They were Jewish, and they were terrorist. What more needs to be said? If the Kurdish Wokrers Party, Fatah, and the Popular Font are all Terrorist organizations, and are all Muslim organizations, then yes, they are Islamic Terrorist organizations.--Josiah 02:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not really taking sides on this, I can see where both parties are coming from. Jayjg 03:27, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yoshiah,

You don't seem to realize that there are very diverse movements in the Middle East. Some are secular and nationalistic, and some are religious and universalistic. Islamacists like Osama bin Laden are clearly of the latter type and want to see a revival of Islamic society, free of outside non-Islamic political and cultural influences, and bound to the basic tenants of their faith. This is the thinking on their part that legitimizes their use of terror as a military weapon against those outside powers that they feel are trying to corrupt their ideals. They hate secularizers, modernizers, and socialists in organizations like Fatah, the PFLP, and the Kurdish Workers Party (the examples that I'd brought up). While other "terrorist" organizations happen to be predominately Muslim in their membership base, this does not mean that they are "Islamic organizations." The PLFP, KWP, and Fatah, e.g., see their cause as national liberation. Thus, in Category:Islamic terrorist organizations we do not see groups favoring the cause of, say, a secular, socialist, and nationalist state, and championing the cause of Arab nationalism (not Islam as such)... Instead, pan-Arab movements are classified according to ideology or nationality... The same goes for Israeli groups. Yes, the members of Irgun were Jewish (and I suppose that you can call them "terrorists"), but the organization, as a nationalistic group espousing the ideology of revisionist Zionism, should be identified on the basis of nationality or ideology, not the religion of their members. 172 03:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then they would still be Jewish, ethnically/culturally. Jewish doesn't mean religous, as we mentioned earlier. The groups you mentioned, since they were not specifically Islamic, would be Arab. While there is a distinction between a religous and non-religous Arab, there is not a distinction between a religous and non-religous Jew.--Josiah 04:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The last sentence is correct, but other terms are simply more precise for nationalistic groups like Irgun, such as Zionist, Israeli, or national liberation. 172 21:27, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If there is a category for Israeli Terrorist groups, then I would support it being classified as such. However, if there is not, labeling them as a Jewish Terrorist group would be the most appropriate.--Josiah 23:39, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What about "Zionist Terrorist groups"? Jayjg 15:50, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think "Israeli Terrorist Groups" would be best, but I guess the other title would work as well.--Josiah 04:58, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think when you say "X terrorist", you're implying a connection between the terrorist activities and X. We would, for example, be confused to hear a news report about "Irish terrorism" when it just happened that an Eire was involved in some terrorism unrelated to an Ireland-related cause. --Improv 22:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vote

Please vote on the title for Pursuit of Nazi collaborators. You can vote here. --Viriditas 02:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

CfD: Category:Advocacy

Please vote on Category:Advocacy. HistoryBuffEr created this category as a duplicate of Category:Activism, and fabricated a negative definition associating Advocacy with propaganda -- a definition that cannot be found in any dictionary. Then, he replaced Category:Activism with his new Category:Advocacy on Hasbara and Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Advocacy groups are already categorized under Activism so HistoryBuffEr's new category is essentially a duplicate, and contains a false definition. --Viriditas 10:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr

Please keep an eye on HistoryBuffEr if you can; he's been inserting his entirely new versions of articles into the Yasser Arafat and Sabra and Shatila Massacre articles again. Jayjg 03:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbcom candidacy

Check your spelling on the candidate statement page. I think you spelled "disappoint" wrong. --Viriditas 05:32, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying what you meant elsewhere--Josiah 20:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Abrahamic mythology - Vandalism

Stop vandalizing the Abrahamic Mythology page with Abrahamic POV proselytizing, or you will be reported for abuse. These reverts you keep making and your original "NPOV" change are nothing but attempts to downplay the fact that no objective researcher denies that Abrahamic mythology is derived mainly from Sumerian mythology. Only adherents disagree with this.

Furthermore, those who feel that Abrahamic mythology is derived from Sumerian mythology are not critics. They are not trying to "debunk" your beliefs. They are indifferent researchers attempting to put these religions in historical perspective, no matter how much you may not wish to believe this.

Again: Stop vandalizing the Abrahamic Mythology page, or you will be reported. --Corvun 03:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

With all due respect, I could care less whether someone shares my beliefs or not. There are many theistic scholars who don't buy the theory your are presenting as fact on the page. "Critics" refers to those who disagree with a POV. It does not neccessarily refer to a person trying to debunk an entire belief system. Lastly, "objective" is in the eyes of the beholder. You can go ahead and report me, but I doubt it'll do you any good. Maybe instead you'll use the talk page on Abrahamic Mythology?--Josiah 04:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FYI... Asyrian mythology and Sumerian mythology are linked to Chaldean mythology. Also, let's keep this article about mythology. I agree that Corvun's comments about "believers" has nothing to do with the mythology, and should probably be moved to the Abrahamic religion page. --Viriditas 04:47, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The two words mean essentially the same thing, though "Myth" is used in regards to things not believed by anyone anymore. I don't have an issue with labeling it mythology. I do have an issue with presenting a POV as fact. I would have no problem if it said "Critics believe that the Abrahamic religions were influenced by <insert word>, as evidence of this, they point to the following..." Similarly, if one were to write about the chapter 53 of the book of Isaiah, I couldn't say that my POV was correct because "most scholars" believed it to be correct. I'd have to point to reasons why, as well as show why the Christian POV disagrees, because there is not a universal consensus.--Josiah 05:37, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Aloha, Yoshiah. There seems to be a miscommunication between all three of us, so let me try to clarify. Myth and religion do not mean the same thing. Myth does not necessarily mean "things not believed by anyone anymore", although people have been known to use the word that way. See the myth page. Although myths are often considered to be accounts of events that have not happened, many historians consider that myths can also be accounts of actual events that have become highly imbued with symbolic meaning. Many myths (most good ones at least) are based on certain truths, which can be conveyed through symbols, or rather, imagery. Religion, on the other hand, is an organized body of beliefs, composed of adherents, which may or may not embrace the mythology in question. The discussion of mythology is separate from discussions about theology and religion itself, although they obviously reinforce one another. The Abrahamic Mythology page should try to structure itself in the same way as Christian mythology, Greek mythology and Roman mythology. Notice, this is different than the articles on Greek religion, Roman religion, and Christianity. Every belief system has a mythology associated with its beliefs, no matter if those beliefs are true or false. --Viriditas 06:22, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Disappoint has two "p"s

Thought you'd want to know. Jayjg 20:06, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That word must not like me. Thanks--Josiah 20:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

YHVH stuff in Bible

Hi Josiah, I'd appreciate it if you responded to my comment on the Talk: page there. Jayjg 23:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration Elections

You may remember that I coordinated the previous two elections, for the board, and for the arbitration committee. I am willing to coordinate this election as well, and have asked Elian to assist. However, we would like to have the support of the candidates to do this. Do you support us coordinating the election? My policy is to be entirely neutral, and to ensure this, I will not be voting myself (I didn't vote in previous elections either). All results will be announced following the final count. Please answer on my talk page. Danny 01:15, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration request

Please format the examples you wish to present in this format: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Al-Aqsa_Intifada&diff=7713493&oldid=7710286 this format]. Also, did you request mediation? Fred Bauder 17:22, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I am under the impression that all forms of mediation have been used, other than arbitration.--Josiah 19:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Notice that clicking on the link above connects you to a specific edit made by a specific person. That is the way evidence needs to be presented. A link that simply goes to the talk page is not good. You have to search and search to find out what the problem is. Fred Bauder 19:49, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Haven't I shown what the problem is?? The problem is the constant personal attacks from Alberuni against other wikipedians.--Josiah 19:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see you requested an aribtration against User:Alberuni. I think the following would interest you, since I also suffered verbal attacks by him:

• "Using the IDF mafia terminology for killing people "terrorists were hit" is not appropriate for an encyclopedia although for Ziopedia, it makes sense" [1]
• "These illiterate and factually incorrect edits were reverted dozens of times by Zionist editors who would rather promote their fellow hasbara propagandists' pro-Israel POV than bother to read and edit accurately. The future of Ziopedia is at hand; Israel first, facts last." [2]

You can find many more on Talk:Al-Aqsa Intifada.

MathKnight 21:35, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't forget about Black September. In the edit summaries, Alberuni calls editors "roaches", liars, propagandists, mutes, vandals, etc. He labels Jayjg's edits, "BS", tells him to "get a life", calls him a "Zionist propagandist", reverts the main article six times in 24 hours, etc. If there is a policy that Alberuni hasn't violated, please let me know. I am saddened by this state of affairs, because I think that Alberuni is an otherwise intelligent and witty editor who has a lot to offer if he decided to cease the personal attacks, the revert wars, and other policy violations. If he was able to do this and simply focus on writing an encyclopedia, he could be one of the best editors on these topics. --Viriditas 23:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good for you for starting this. Please LMK whatever help you need. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 00:25, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What does LMK mean?--Josiah 01:17, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not Humus sapiens, but if I had to guess, I would say it means, Let Me Know. --Viriditas 03:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Judaism in the Qur'an

Yes, I started a page at User:Lameen/Judaism in the Quran, though I only got about halfway through surat al-Baqarah before losing steam; you're certainly welcome to work on it, as it would be great to have such an article. But a caution: sometimes Qur'anic verses need to be interpreted in the light of the particular circumstances of revelation rather than in isolation (thus, for instance, it would be hard to make sense of surat Abasa or surat al-Fil without the commentaries and hadith which explain their background.) - Mustafaa 16:01, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sock puppets

You should ask a developer to check the IP addresses of the users you're suspicious of. Normal administrators can't see IPs. Andre (talk) 20:23, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Umm... who/what exactly is a developer? (Please forgive me if i'm being dense tonight)--Josiah 21:43, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Developers are users that can do things with the MediaWiki software. The few I know of are Kate, Jamesday, and Angela. There's a whole list here. Andre (talk) 22:46, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Your response was quite reasonable under the unusual circumstances, actually. Hopefully it will make that idiot realize just how little he knows, and maybe even push him closer to some sort of understanding of NPOV. I have little desire to work on that article, but I may yet be forced into it... - Mustafaa 18:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re:CheeseDreams: Please take your RfC to a RfA

Hi Josiah, I cannot fathom what Cheesedreams wants. Please move the RfC (Request for Comments) that you commenced against him, into a formal RfA (Request for Arbitration) since (as you are aware) he has now decided to have his own RfA against all those who have signed the RfC against him. Thank you. IZAK 05:20, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

IZAK, I started the RfC - see the history of the Wikipedia:Requests for Comment page. CheeseDreams 20:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams vs. "Fundamentalists" RfC

Fred,

I'm confused. Why did you accept CheeseDream's RfA, when he didn't even notify the users he was making claims against of the RfA being made against them?--Josiah 23:39, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

The case was accepted to consider CheeseDreams behavior. Fred Bauder 12:09, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

A Message to my Fellow Candidate

Friend,
The Arbitration Committee elections are almost here. I humbly ask for your vote in this election cycle. I have been a user of Wikipedia for over a year. I was here before the Community Portal, categories, or {{stub}}. I know how Wikipedia operates, and I am prepared to do my part to deal with problematic accounts. I wish to cut out the bureaucracy that makes our website stagnate. We need solutions to our problems now. If you want an arbitrator who believes in action, frankness, honesty, and fairness in every case, I am your arbitrator. Thank you for your time. You are under no obligation to answer this message.

--Paid for by Mero. for ArbCom

"Yeshua Ben Miriam" or "Isa"

Thought I drop this here, too. From Talk:Muhammad.

Like Christianity before it, Islam claims to be a continuation and, in this case, culmination, of the same sequence of guides (prophets and messengers) that the One and Only Creator has sent to mankind to keep them on the, shall we say, straight and narrow that the Jews believe in. Muslims believe that The Creator (who they call Allah, but who is understood as the same as the God of Abraham and Jesus) has sent messengers to "every peoples" (and other intelligent creatures, like the Jinn--Genies) through the ages. The Judeo-Christian sequence of people who have kept the faith since the days of Adam is seen as one such line leading through Isaac to David and Jesus and through Ishmael to Muhammad. Muhammad is seen as the final and best of them.

Jesus is seen as a precursor to Muhammad, much as Christians see John the Baptist as a precursor to Jesus. See Isa.

One more significant item: Muslims believe that Muhammad was the only messenger of The Creator to come with a ministry aimed at all mankind; that is, Islam is a religion for all humans, while Judaism, for example, was for one tribe/ethnic group (the Hebrews/Jews), and Jesus was sent, like all of the Hebraic Prophets from Abraham through Moses and down to John the Baptist, also as a Prophet to the Jews. In the Christian canon, too, it is only after his crucifiction that either a resurrected Jesus or Paul (depending on what your beliefs are) declares a ministry to the Gentiles. The Muslims, in short believe in Jesus as a Prophet, but not in his Universal Ministry.

As I said, see Isa. (The word is the Arabic form of the Hebraic "Yeshua" or Latin Iseus.)

Hope that helps.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 04:23, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Everything O.K.?

Hi Josiah, I haven't seen you around in a while, and you haven't responded to my e-mail. Is everything O.K.? Jayjg 21:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, things have been a little crazy around here lately with the change of affiliation and finals week in College. I probably never got the email, because I took my old sites down because of my change of affiliation. (I'm now working on a new site - [3]) Try emailing me again. I just updated my Wikipedia settings with a working email.--Josiah 00:25, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Hi

this is a copy of an e-mail I sent to you:

Hi

what's up with you? how are you?

I hope that everything is allright.

I am going to be in san francisco in 2 weeks.

Anywhy I hope to see you, I hope you will be happy to meet me too.

I read what is written in you userpage, that you don't believe in the way of karaite judaism, and think that the orthodox judaism is the right way.

I would be happy if you tell me what make you think that way, and how that happened.

anyway, I say again that I will be happy to meet you.

hope to hear from you, you can by e-mail neria haroe.

---

Hi Neria, my old emails don't work anymore. Send me an email through wikipedia - (at this link: [4]) and I'll get back to you. Peace --Josiah 17:45, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Lost Tribes input needed

Hi Josiah: First of all Mazel Tov on changing affiliations! It takes guts to be YOU, that I can tell, so keep up the good work! Keep me posted, I would really like to hear from you! Second, please see Lost Ten Tribes and Talk:Lost Ten Tribes as to how this article should be presented. This is how I recently found it: [5]. I then edited it to this: [6]. Another user then changed it to this: [7]. Finally, I edited it to this: [8] which is where it essentially stands, awaiting more input. Your suggestions would help, the topic is important. Thank you. IZAK 07:15, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you IZAK. I've promised a few people that I will eventually write an article about why I chose to change, and when it is finished I will begin a general counter-missionary site where it will be posted. It'll first be posted on the Jews for Judaism forums, which you might be interested in joining since it is a good source for Counter-Missionary discussion. (I am user "Yoshiyah" on the site). Once I take my flight back home I'll become more active in Wikipedia again, I'll take a look at the Lost Tribes while I'm here though.--Josiah 18:13, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Rename of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Can you please support the rename and requested move to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter=day Saints Wikipedia:Requested moves#Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints_.26rarr.3B_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints Thx in Adv --Trodel 06:36, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Karaims

Hi! I can't agree, that Karaims should be merged with Karaite Judaism! Some reasons are:

• The origin of Karaims is not absolutely clear, some events in they history could be disputed
• Karaite Judaism include religious meaning first of all, but there are some interesting facts, that can not be stated in one paragraph of such article: Karaims history, serving to Lithuania, discussion about Khazar origin, their traditions, differed from ther Karaims traditions, their language, differed from language of Crimean Tatars and Crimean Jews, their recognition as independent nation in 1930's and their survival during WW2, alphabets they used for Karaim language.
• This is a big theme, there are much more information could be find in Turkish and Russian sources, so we may improve first article about Karaims.
• The contacts of Jewish and steppe Turkic culture is also interesting.

So, you may dispute it at en:User talk:Untifler. Sorry for my English :). --Untifler 13:19, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Banned again for no reason?!

This is really sick. Simonides and Zero instigated four out of nine Admins to ban me from editing all Judaism articles for a full year. Worse, they did so on the very articles on which I and others have the most success cooperating!

Josiah, JayJG, JFWolff and I have very different ideas about Judaism, yet we obviously have been able to work on these Judaism articles.

It is a gross violation of Sysop and Admin power to create rules that apply to only one person, and to no one else. By definition, when Wikipedia Admins engage in such behaviour, they are violating their own mandate, and thei "rulings" have no authority and are not binding.

1. I am not involved in any flame wars. So why the year long ban? Not a single Wikipedian was ever given a year ban when they were NOT in a flame war.

2. I am not involved in any revert wars or edit wars. So why the ban? Not a single Wikipedia was ever given a ban when they were not in revert for edit wars.

3. The supposed problems are in articles in which the articles HAVE ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED, long ago! So why the ban?

Not a single Wikipedian was ever given a year ban when parties amicably came to an issue. It seems that some Admins are enraged that our system actually worked, and parties peacefully worked out their differences. What kind of hateful people think that such a positive result is grounds for a year long ban?

4. I repeatedly take week-long (or longer) Wiki-breaks to let things cool down and allow other people to have their say without any problem. So why the ban?

5. I have taken many contentious articles OFF of my Watchlist, and simply let others do what they want, rather then engage in multiple arguments. So why the ban?

6. I have asked for and successfully used mediation when necessary. So why the ban? The action to ban me was taken behind my back, without informing me, and proceeded based on false assumptions - and potentially deliberate lies.

I have e-mailed Jimbo Wales and others about this very issue previously; they were all unable to come up with even a single instance of this ever happening. Ever. The entire ban is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and we should not allow four people with a vendetta to wreck our whole system.

We are unfortunately dealing with a small number of people abusing their Admin power out of some sort of personal vendetta. If it happens to one person, it will happen to others. What steps should we take next to initiate disciplinary action against them for these serious violations?

RK 20:42, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC) (Robert)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Addressing Anti-Jewish Bias

Thought you might be interested. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)