User talk:Danny/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I've seen you in Recent Changes making some positive improvements to several different articles. I would have greeted you earlier, but I generally wait for a new user to create their user page first. Good work - I hope you like the place and decide to stay! maveric149

Welcome to the project, hope you like it here! --Uriyan

Hey Danny. I just fixed a link to your user namespace on my Talk page (from [[Danny]] to [[User:Danny]]). A cool and easy way to sign messages while you are looged in, is to type three tildes in a row. The wiki software will then automatically create a link to your user namespace after you save the page (it currently does not show up in the preview mode though). Hope this helps. Cheers! maveric149

Hi! I thought I'd use this page to raise a topic that has been bothering me. I have been planning to write a few articles about historical figures, but seem to be getting more and more confused as to proper titles and spellings. I realize that the people writing here represent many different countries, cultures, and languages, and that it is therefore inevitable that there will be discretions in naming conventions. I propose that we find some standardized source and stick to it, rather than have everyone using the names and spelling with which they are most comfortable. For example, suppose I choose to write about one of the French royals, say Henry IV. Someone with a French background might be tempted to use Henri, which is more correct, though less commonly used in English. Now, this is easily resolved in more "popular" historical figures, but what about figures or places that are less well-known. I recently saw Malopolska changed to Little Poland, while I was tempted to change it to Lesser Poland. Staying in Poland, Kazimierz the Great or Casimir the Great? How about Mao Tse-tung or Mao Zhedong? Good arguments can be made for all of these options, and this is only the tip of the iceberg.

While I have my own preferences, I believe that they are less important than overall uniformity. There are ways to resolve the problem--it is done all the time in popular reference books. My question is, can it be done here too? Should it be done here? Who will determine what is the Wikipedia policy?

I am sure these questions have been dealt with before, but I do not know where. Has anything absolute been decided? Should it be decided? Danny

Hi Danny -- now is a good time to ask...there have been lots of discussions on various talk pages and elsewhere. There is some discussion in 'History special topics' and I think in history of poland talk. Also in lots of other places where we try for damage control. Right now, there are a few of us who seem more interested than others in standardization -- Michael Tinkler, David Parker, Maveric149, Vicki Rosenzweig, and myself among them. The way it's been working is that someone sees an incredibly badly named article, is horrified, and asks for better suggestions. Then we dink around until we reach a consensus, usually by trusting that the people who claim expertise are not lying! Since there are a few medievalists (or mediaevalists) and classicists around, we've been doing pretty well up through early modern. Any contributions you have would be welcome, and no one is shy about disagreeing! I suppose it's too much to ask if you are a specialist in non-ancient, medieval, or early modern history???

At present, we're trying to use 'most common english version of name', 'ordinal', 'title of place (where not a king or queen)' or 'of place', or Holy Roman Emperor (and I suppose we should also use Tsar/Czar of Russia), for nobility. After that, it's the name most English speakers would recognize. In the case of Chairman Mao, i would go for Zedong, since it's been that way in newspapers and books for about 20 years now, with the older spelling in the first line of the article. Hope this helps! JHK

Belated greetings, Danny - I didn't realise you were new! And sorry I'd previously missed your query above: many thanks for asking first rather than just wading in regardless. As JHK says above, those of us working on these areas of the 'pedia have been trying to come up with a standard form, and your input is most welcome.

The basic form we have so far for kings is, as JHK wrote, "Henry IV of France" - English form of name, ordinal, and "of [country]": where they're below a king, we have the form "George William, Duke of Prussia" - name, ordinal (if any), rank and "of ...".

Where there's an ordinal (I, II, etc.) we avoid attachments like "the Brave", because they're unnecessary and can be translated in different ways from the native original. Secondary names appearing after the ordinal (e.g. the redundant "William" in Frederick I William) should be omitted (so as to avoid confusion with Frederick William I; the former is first in a sequence of Fredericks, the latter in a sequence of Frederick Williams).

The use of the English name is standard practice in encyclopedias and English-language historical works, where it reflects the crucial fact that rulers could move around and rule polyglot assemblages of peoples, or different lands in succession (Emperor Karl V = Carlos I to Spaniards, where he was simultaneously king - so we call him Charles).

Where a ruler held titles of differing rank, as in the cited example, it's the senior dignity that should be used for the article title, in the following order of precedence:

emperor
king
grand duke or archduke
duke
marquis (marquess in England - I used to think it was a female marquis!)
count (earl in England; margrave, landgrave or burgrave occupy a similar position in Germany)
viscount
baron

Charles I of Spain is thus entered as "Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor", because although the crown of Spain was independent of the Emperor, an emperor outranks a king (and the medieval "kings of the Germans", "kings of the Romans" or "kings of the Lombards" were indeed vassals of the Emperor when there was one, being usually his elected successor-in-waiting). These aren't just polite distinctions, and I suspect there's a large element of specifically titular aspiration in duke William's pursuit (1066) of the kingship of England.

The Hohenzollern margraves of Brandenburg are similarly styled "[forename] [ordinal] of Prussia" in 1701-1871 (and "[forename] [ordinal], Duke of Prussia" in 1618-1701 - I'll come to that in a moment): though the margravate of Brandenburg was their physical power base, their rule after 1618 over the smaller, sparsely-populated, less developed and highly peripheral duchy of Prussia (the area later known as East Prussia) carried the higher rank (duke from 1525 to 1701, and king thereafter), so it's the Prussian title by which they're styled.

While we omit "King" from royal titles, we use "Duke of ...", "Count of ...", etc. for lesser ones, the title used in the article heading in each case being the highest that individual attained. An area might have a count Charles I, a later duke Charles I and after a further interval a king Charles I, so we have to distinguish between them. Plain "Charles I of ..." means he was king of the named country.

Prince is a vague dignity which can denote anything from a duke to a count, especially in Germany where it is often associated with the dignity of Elector (Kurfurst) of the Holy Roman Empire (again, including archbishops, dukes and margraves and later one king, though his royal title was strictly held outside the Empire). Both forms should be avoided in article titles where a more specific rank is available. I have, however, so far retained "prince" for the rulers of the early Russian states out of concern as to the accuracy of "grand duke" in all cases (help, anyone?).

[[I think the above is agreed or at least tolerated among those of us who've been trying to work out a standard: what follows is pretty much my own take on additional issues, and I'd welcome contributions from all concerned.]

Tsar is something of a peculiarity (and I'd definitely avoid "Czar" unless you're writing in Polish): though we use it for Russia as tantamount to emperor, Peter I adopted the latter title in 1721, implying an upgrade from a lowlier tsardom. The twentieth-century tsars of Bulgaria were only accorded the rank of kings by their fellow European monarchs, though their medieval predecessors are often spoken of as emperors. While I think either tsar or (from 1721) emperor is perfectly correct in the text of articles on 1546-1917 Russia, I'd leave it out of the title and just have "Peter I of Russia", and adopt the same form for both medieval and modern Bulgaria (and Serbia's two 14th-century tsars).

Where a ruler held different lands each according him the same dignity, one (or an alternative formulation - below) should be selected for the article title (with redirects as appropriate for the other titles). I'd go for the more substantial territory (e.g. the Hohenzollern dukes of Prussia are remembered as such although they'd become dukes of Cleve four years earlier - though in this instance Prussia is also distinguished by its sovereignty from 1660) unless it was held for a far shorter time (e.g. Sweyn I of Denmark, who was king of the larger England for only a few weeks before his death).

Sometimes, though, it's a close call, and the issue is complicated by differences in numeration: Canute/Cnut or Canute/Cnut I of England is sometimes styled Knud II of Denmark, and the difference in weight between the two kingdoms isn't in my view sufficiently overwhelming to choose either to the exclusion of the other: in this instance I've gone for "Canute the Great", reflecting his rule of England, Denmark and (for a time) Norway. I've similarly preferred the form "Harthacanute" (the most familiar one in England, sometimes as Hardicanute, but also valid in Denmark as Hardeknud) for his son (sometimes Canute/Cnut II or Knud III). Where forename, ordinal and territory are straightforward, though, they should be used alone.

A king who was the only one of that name to rule the country doesn't take the number I, but should ideally have some form of additional name to distinguish them from all the country's other inhabitants of the same name: where one can't be found, I think we might need "..., King of ..." in the title after all.

Now to put all that in an article - JHK and MT, if it's about article styles should it go as a subpage under "Wikipedia/" or "David Parker/"?

User:David Parker

Hi David -- I think it should go under both history special topics (nomenclature) AND the page Michael had started on titles or honorifics or whatever. I like the Tsar bit -- agree fully. This is great -- we'll be able to just throw in the appropriate link in Talk to the recalcitrant HJ! Thanks, David for the very nice product of what looks to have been hard work! JHK
Royal and noble styles. Chat away there for standards. Type in good examples of contradictions! MichaelTinkler

Thanks for the direction. Avoiding, for a while at least, the use of titles, I want to get back to spelling of names and ordinals for a minute. The truth is, I agree with the examples you chose, though I am not sure that will always be the case. Here are some questions:

  • Wilhelm II of Germany or William II
  • Franz Joseph of Austria-Hungary or Francis Joseph
  • Peter the Great or Piotr the Great
  • (If Peter--my preference--then what about ...) Pedro I of Brazil or Peter I (of the House of Braganza--or is it Braganca with a cedilla? I think Portuguese names are going to be as hard to call as Polish ones)
  • Juan Carlos of Spain or John Charles

As for ordinal numbers, is it James I of Great Britain or James VI of Scotland or two separate entries? My gut tells me to be Anglocentric here, but is that correct? And it is very uncommon to find James II of Great Britain referred to as James VII (though that does exist too).

I think that the answers should be based on some modicum of common sense, keeping in mind the general readership, not the specialists. In other words, keep Hirohito, though Showa is the more proper term for him after his death.

The problem is that while these questions are more easily answerable, there are also those obscure little figures out there, who vastly outnumber the better known ones.

  • Dubh of Scotland or Duff
  • Dietrich of the Northern March or Theodoric

etc. etc.

That is why I think we should rely, insofar as possibe, on some external source, such as the Webster's Biographical (and Geographical) Dictionary. Having some authoritative problem-solver would eliminate much of the contention that such issues are bound to raise, resolve problems of spellings, and place historical information within the proper context. I wonder what other people think. Danny

I think I've been going by my gut feeling -- but that's based on some fairly comprehensive experience. When I've wondered about usage, I've generally pulled a textbook off the shelf next to my desk! Here's my gut feeling on some of your folks -- Wilhelm, Franz Joseph, Peter (I've taken Russian History at uni and in grad school -- he's never been called Piotr that I can recall, except in very scholarly works), Braganza, Juan Carlos, and Theoderic -- and I am pretty sure that he was Theoderic and that Dietrich is a later convention. By the way, it's not that I'm against external sources, but one of my pet peeves around here is that the trained historians don't actually get much credit in certain quarters for knowing their stuff. If it's something I know because I've taught it or studied it, I think that should count -- especially because I (or any other of the professionals on the site) might actually have more recent (or more generally accepted among the scholarly community) information. End rant ;-)

JHK

Actually, I agree with you on all of that, except Theodoric/Dietrich, and that is only because I don't really know enough to make a call on it. I would also say Pedro of Brazil. Peter the Great was brought in as a foil to Pedro, by the way. I would never think of calling him Piotr (though what do we do about Tchaikovsky ...). As for external sources, I just think it could help to resolve some of the debates that might arise. Then again, I think I learn a lot from the debates too. ;-) Danny
I agree on Pedro. Tchikovsky, I've seen both, but the Piotr is becoming more used, IIRC. I'm not a music historian, though. I'll check the stuff on Dietrich, but I'm pretty sure that Theoderic was right. Still, it's worth checking. JHK

I'd go with the English name forms in all the above cases, though Emmanuel of Portugal does have a particulatly jarring sound (so did Humbert of Italy when I first encountered it). Practice is indeed complicated by our increased familiarity with local name forms through the growth of 19th- and 20th-century media coverage and the increasingly "national" character of surviving dynasties: John Charles of Spain sounds particularly horrible, but then why should be the sole exception?

It's all illustrative of how this os still evolving, and I'm also having to think about things I'd never considered before - which I think makes it worthwhile.

I'd definitely use James I with a redirect from James VI, since Scotland is included in the Great Britain title so it's definitely a "promotion": I don't think though that James VII is legally valid, as both former crowns were subsumed into the new one.

The Japanese case is a very valid one, and I'd have chosen "Showa Emperor" (it's the reign, not the person, and I wasn't happy that someone stuck in a load of "Emperor such-and-such of Japan" entries) but at least it's an isolated case that doesn't undermine all the others.

Tchaikovsky is no problem: the English forename rule only applies to title-holders (including saints too, their status being of a perhaps still more explicitly "transnational" character), so he's Piotr, just as we wouldn't say Leonard of Vinci (name, not title).

The problem with external sources is that most of us won't have a copy of it unless it's on the web - and of course we'd be guaranteed to find some overriding reason for making just this one an exception ...! User:David Parker

Sorry, but in certain cases I just can't agree. "John the Terrible" of Russia is more than just jarring. It's ridiculous. Danny

Ugh -- definitely agree there! David -- what names are most common in school/college textbooks in England? I know that over here the name of the rule (Showa, etc.) has had only limited press. If the average American were to want to find out something on Hirohito, they'd look under that name. Very early on in this discussion (I think before you joined us), or maybe on one of the more general 'pedia discussions, the consensus was "most common usage among English speakers" -- not necessarily the English version of the name. It made sense to Anglicize most of the names of rulers (although I can see an argument for Henri -- but not, as stated in the politically correct World Civ text I'm forced to use, Dom Henrique the Navigator! yes, really), but not all. After all, we still call Theodoric the Ostrogoth Theoderich (and not the accursed Dietrich!)...JHK

--- Hi Danny! Welcome to H.J.'s world! JHK

____ I've just been looking at the situation regarding the Camus novel. In the light of the discussion above, this situation highlights the difficulty. It is certainly debatable whether The Outsider or The Stranger is the proper English title for L'Étranger. When it comes to translating literary works it is entirely the translator's option to call the novel what he wants. Marcel Proust's work A la recherche du temps perdu has been translated both as In Search of Lost Time and Time Remembered. Who is to say which is right? I very much believe that unless a book title has clearly and uniquely established itself in English, the original title should prevail because of its relative stability. Links and redirects from the various english or third language titles will then all point to the same thing.

I agrre completely with changing Gianfranco's agriturismo to agritourism (without entering the debate about whether it should be agrotourism). I also agree with the change to Rudolph Valentino as the established form for this actor, but I don't know whether I would have agreed if a less famous person had been under consideration.

To say that this project is first an English language project is only a beginning, but we then have the advantage (missing from paper encyclopaedias) of instant linkages or wikis. The need to be anglocentric isn't as strong. With the development of non-english wikipedias, the potential interlinkages will become a fantastic challenge. Eclecticology

Hi, Eclecticology. The truth is that I agree with most of what you say here. My one concern, though, is that people looking up information here will have an easy time doing so. That said, certain terms and names, while more technically correct or preferred, will not be the terms that people would use to conduct a search. Agri/agrotourism is one example; Rudolph/Rudolpho is another. As for Camus, The two copies I have of the book in English are called The Stranger, which I think is the more accepted title in English. Funny enough, I was thinking of the Proust title A la recherche du temps perdu when I made the change to Stranger. I personally think that "Remembrance of Things Past" is not a very good translation of the title, but it was the first translation and therefore gained a certain currency that "In Search of Lost Time" does not have. On the other hand, I've done translation professionally for about fifteen years, and I realize how complicated the issues can get. I still say, stick with the most common title, even if you lose something in translation. Danny

Sorry, but Time Remembered was my mistake; it was something else by Anouilh. What brought home to me the point about how strange translations can get was seeing two American films with French sub-titles some thirty years ago: Easy Rider and Alice's Restaurant. That was an experience! Eclecticology

I hear you on that. I used to do subtitles (actually, I still do occasionally), and apart from the inevitable wars with the directors, who think they speak English but don't, it is a real challenge relaying cultural expressions that are deep-rooted in one society but absent in another. Challenge? More like nightmare sometimes ... Danny

Danny, thanks for responding to my questions. I might not be satisfied with your response, but that is probably because the whole situation is unsatisfactory to all concerned. Ed Poor, Tuesday, April 9, 2002

Have a note for you at Talk:Mississippi counties

You left a "deleted--see talk" on "German provinces east of the Oder-Niesse line". See what talk? The page itself has no talk. Vicki Rosenzweig

The "------No alteration allowed-----------" tag alone warrents deletion. --maveric149

Sorry, Vicki. It took me a minute to get the Talk in there. That was just one of the reasons I deleted it, Maverick. Danny

Thanks for the kind words on my movie entries. -- Zoe

Hi Danny -- maybe you could check out and weigh in on the new History standards digest? THanks! JHK

Danny, have you tried the "Hide minor edits in recent changes" option on your "Set my user preferences" page? If you want me to, I am willing to make sure I always check the "This is a minor edit" checkbox when I make trivial changes (such as reorganizing The Simpsons). "Ask, and you shall receive" said the rabbi. --Ed Poor

I really like how you cleaned up the West Bank article. It flows well, and deftly incorporates the conflicting POVs on the term West Bank. --Ed Poor 12:23 Jul 26, 2002 (PDT)

Danny, I like the table you inserted into the Eisenhower article. Would you please do that for each US president? Thanks. --Ed Poor


Hi Danny. On your user page: "Frustrations: The fact that 121 articles link to the Simpsons, and only 47 to Dickens." I very much agree! Perhaps there should be a "Committee of Wikipedians who appreciate pop culture but would really like it to be better balanced against the Arts". Or something ;-) -- Tarquin 09:51 Jul 30, 2002 (PDT)

Yeah, what the dickens are these refugees from Springfield up to, anyway? :-)
--Ed Poor
What about where the Arts cross pop culture? Let's see.... The Godfather, Radiohead, Taxi Driver, M. C. Escher.... --KQ

Hi Danny. I've started to revise the article on Francis Bacon, and found an edit conflict with something that you had done in the interim. Since my latest batch of changes was quite detailed I went ahead and overwrote what you did, or I might have spent a couple hours reconstructing my edits. No hostility was intended. I still have a lot to do on this article. Eclecticology 16:41 Aug 1, 2002 (PDT)

Funny how we jump from Clown to H.J.

LOL! :- D

I wonder why you don't always include summary lines with your contributions. It seems to me they are useful for documenting whatever changes have been made (useful in histories) and also to attract attention to deficiencies, possibilities, or some interesting fact that might attract another reader or writer to the topic. Ortolan88

I guess I'm just lazy. I will try to be more careful with that. Danny

Danny, there is a vote on the city naming issue at Wikipedia talk:Naming convention (city names). Since you participated in the debate, you may want to let your vote be counted as well. Jeronimo

Danny, I just looked at Sons of Noah -- for what it is worth, I think it should not be deleted; any article that does such a good job of presenting what is involved in fundamentalist versus non-fundamentalist readings of scripture (or really any historical text) has, in my opinion, real value. Slrubenstein

That the article as it stands may be both too detailed and not detailed enough is I suspect a commen problem with encyclopedia articles. Hopefully, others as knowledgable as you in Bbiblical history/criticism (or more knowledgable) will add to the article. Nevertheless, I think as long as the article develops along current lines, it will be a good contribution to the project! Good job! Slrubenstein

You're welcome.  :-) -- Zoe

I just wrote what the Aramaic writing said. There is no 'd' in the image. I'm nowhere near fluent in it, as all I have in Aramaic is half of Daniel and a few scattered verses. -phma

Danny, I do not know if you have been following the Biblical cannon page, but I have been going back and forth on the opining definition with another participant, and I would welcome your opinion. I tried spelling out my criteria through several remarks on the Talk page, Slrubenstein

Thanks! Slrubenstein
8/30 -- Partly in response to your comment I have radically revised (and added to) the section on the canonization of the Jewish Bible -- but my sources are rather dated and I hope you will correct me. You point about text vs. book is well-taken, and it is an area in which I am at times sloppy, so I hope you won't mind correcting what I wrote in this regard as well. Thanks again, Slrubenstein

Hi Danny -- I have to ask -- why Muckleshoot? (only because I live about 12 minutes from the casino) JHK

Hiya Danny - thanks for the kind words, which are deeply appreciated, given the contentiousness of things. -- April


Hello Danny, I just read on JHK's page that you work in a Jewish museum. Do you know, or could you find out, what kind of work the prisoners of Auschwitz II (Birkenau) who were not killed right away had to do day to day? I visited Auschwitz this summer and added some material to Auschwitz, but I could nowhere find an answer to this question. Thanks, AxelBoldt

Hi, I'm writing this to you because you have shown a consistent interest in movies. This comes from a brief exchange that I just had with KQ that involved verifying a basic fact about a movie. We all run into these little questions of fact that we would like checked out but we don't know who is the best person to ask. A request on the article's talk page may never be noticed, and "recent changes" has been just too big to be communicative. KQ mentioned the various mailing lists that have been set up for Nupedia; to say that these have been inactive does not do justice to what hasn't been happening there. The specific list at http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/filmtv-l is relevant to our topic. What I'm suggesting is that Wikipedians could take over the list as a vehicle for checking out these little questions. If you are iinterested please go to the site to subscribe. Eclecticology

Danny, I saw the nice table you added to the American presidents. I was wondering if it would be agreeable to you if I changed them a little bit. Here's the proposed new format:


Abraham Lincoln

Larger image
Service: 16th president, 1861-1865
Predecessor: James Buchanan
Successor: Andrew Johnson
Date of Birth: February 12, 1809
Place of Birth: Larue County, Kentucky
Date of Death: April 15, 1865
Place of Death: Washington, D.C.
First Lady: Mary Todd
Occupation: lawyer
Political Party: Republican
Vice President:

Hannibal Hamlin (1861-1865
Andrew Johnson (1865)

What I did was change "Rank" to "Service" since the term "rank" to me implies or suggests a ranking in terms of importance. I changed "Followed:" and "Succeeded by:" to "Predecessor:" and "Successor:", since all other words in the table are nouns and it's not clear why we use the two synonymous words "follow" and "succeed". I also added a colon after "Date of Birth".

I was also thinking about moving the party affiliation higher up in the list, since for me personally that's one of the most important bits, but I left it alone for now.

What do you think? AxelBoldt 17:29 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

I like what you're doing with it. Go ahead. (for some reasonm, I am having a hard time getting to my watch list, so I'm sorry it took so long to answer) Danny


Im not talking about anything in the book except that its an interesting book.

http://www.2think.org/ah.shtml

http://www.transformcolumbusday.org/faq.htm

http://home.earthlink.net/~krazhawk/Columbus_Day.html

http://www.geocities.com/amawek/HeroBarbarian.html

http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/columbus1.html

http://www.indiancountry.com/?595

http://www.trinicenter.com/kwame/2001/Jul/20010713.htm

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/explorers/mexico.shtml

http://www.csindy.com/csindy/2001-10-11/yourturn.html

http://www.csindy.com/csindy/2001-10-11/yourturn.html

well im sorry to clutter your precious talk page. Nobody is editing the article to read, "Columbus was a slavetrader. THE END". The man was a slavetrader, he traded slaves, he made lots of money at it, he hoped to make more money at it, the slavetrade was a dominant part of his life. Its only reasonable to state that the man who sailed across the Atlantic was a slavetrader.

and I never mentioned his diary to you or in any forum. you got an attitude problem dude.

Hey, Danny, Lir deleted your comments on his Talk page. -- Zoe

Wut, you never delete your e-mail? Lir 04:16 Oct 20, 2002 (UTC)

Unlike some people, I have no problems with my articles being modified. Lir acted the same way when people changed her (hmm, Lir's a woman. What a paragon of womanhood) NPOV comments on Iowa State University, then told everybody who wasn't from Iowa not to edit Iowa articles. -- Zoe

Zoe is racist and sexist too! Lir 17:22 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)

I made some changes to Yidlish or yiddensh or whatever it was, as well as Yeshiva and Shabbos. Please take a look. Hey, I think some of the articles and content have some value. I say we spend a week explaining our changes in an attempt to educate and guide someone else constructively, and after that simply make the changes we feel necessary. I'd rather be debating about Columbus, but that's life. Anyway, let me know what you think of my way of handling these three articles, Slrubenstein

Yes, let's get back to the Columbus debate. Lir 17:22 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)

Danny, I think you are right about the parody -- alas, in almost any extreme movement, there is a fringe that manages to be earnest and self-parodying at the same time. What a headache! I do not object to every thing EW has written, but some articles clearly should be deleted and with the others, well, we can't just keep reverting... Slrubenstein

Danny, if you are Sysop, could you revert Relationship between segments of Judaism to the latest non-Ezra version, and then reblock it. Thankyou. -- 137.111.13.32 22:40 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)

Sorry, 137. As I explained, I will not take such a unilateral step in a debate in which I am involved since that would be an abuse of my sysop status. Danny

Please add votes for deletion to the bottom of the page, not to the top.

re your comment on Judaism:talk -- yeah, yeah, you are probably right about the issue at hand (and less of a masochist than I). In any event, whether smicha is meaningless or not, would you mind putting that information on the Mordecai Kaplan page? As you know, one of the problems with Wikipedia is that people really on web-based research; I just checked a whole bunch of other web-encyclopedia articles on Kaplan and discovered that

1) they do not mention his smicha

2) they all copy one another (which is why I do not think it is a good idea for Wikipedia to rely on the web, what a circular mess)

Still, it is pertinant information and SOME web encyclopedia should mention it, why not this one? Slrubenstein

Hey Danny -- I am tempted to e-mail you just so I can say I took full advantage of the charming new address. I look forward to reading your new articles; I doubt I would have anything to contribute. Alsa, I do not know as much about these things as I want to, and once aspired to -- but at least I know what it is that other people know more about, and I know enough toknow when someone is using piety to hide ignorance, fear, and anger. It has been quite a week, but one of the things I really learned from Toirah is just how dumb it is to think brothers will get along with one another.

I guess one thing I say for EW -- he sure has made me appreciate the Sabbath!

On another note, as much as I respect RK, I do not think his blunt approach to the matter has been very effective, and I appreciate the work you have done, and the clarity and authority (as well as humor -- people wonder what I am laughing at) you bring to bare. It does concern me, however, when many other people think that all that is going on is partisan bickering, and do not see that the difference between us and EW is not just our view to Jewish history and religion, but our view of what an encyclopedia article should be; when people do not see that his writings simply are not intended to contribute to an encyclopedia... Slrubenstein

Danny, I shall agree with you, and do it your way. My only exception will be today's comment made at someone who claimed that the Holocaust didn't really happen, and that it was only an alleged event. My BS detector went off, bells ringing, at that one. But other than that specific charge, I will defer to the positions that both Ed and you have stated. RK

Danny, thanks for putting in the missing 'h's in Lithuania. user:H.J.

Hi Danny,

Yes, I noticed that (and I also left a message for RK). I think this is a constant risk with a wiki project, and as long as it doesn't affect the content of the article, I think I may be too tired to respond directly. I did check the content of three articles (Holocaust, the Judeo-Christian page, and the Protocols page), and as far as I can tell this person has not mucked around with the pages. I think we just have to keep an eye on those pages... Slrubenstein

Happy Hanukah to you too! (But you do know of course that the whole story of Hannukah is just a Jewish myth to cover up the Jewish to take control over the Hellenic world!) Slrubenstein

Danny, you are a real Mensch and I appreciate your message. I am not sure about being back though. Matter of fact is , that I notice that at wikipedia you are not only putting up with newcomer 'Happy H.', but with the pesky 'everything has always been Polish' boys as well. This does not really entice me to be back. Have a Happy Holiday Season of whatever kind. User:H.J.

What naming convention do you want for the Colors Trilogy? I'm trying to have each of the three titles end with (1994 movie) as per mav's naming convention. If you have a better idea, I'm all ears.

Danny, I tried adding a bit more info to the article on Modern Orthodox Judaism. Anything you wish to add or clarify would be appreciated. RK

Thanks for your very quick typo correction :-) -- Youssefsan

Danny yoy're not wrong about 172 contribution about Leopold II of Belgium but have look at Genocide, New Imperialism, Pol Pot, User talk:Maveric149, User talk:Zoe,User talk:Ericd and make your own opinion. PS : Look previous version and talk pages too. Ericd

Darn right. And have a look at my talk page too... User talk:AnnieKat

Annie

Danny, could you do me a favor as a colleague and sysop? Please look at the recent history of the article on Guns, germs and steel, as well as the talk page. I included a summary of a critique of the book by a noted geographer. A couple of people take objection and have deleted the criticism. We have gone back and forth a few times. I personally feel the criticism is reasonable; in any event, it is not mine but is one made by a published academic, and it seems to me that it should be included in the article. I would appreciate your take on the matter, Slrubenstein

Danny, I appreciate your opinion. Tannin just deleted much of the critique again, because he finds it "nonsensical." This is maybe the fourth round of deletion/reversion and at this point I think a sysop -- if not you, someone -- should intervene. I am not asking that anyone freeze the article, and I certainly do not consider Tannin a vandal, but I do think there is a need for a referee. Slrubenstein

Danny we're going nowhere with 172 have a look at User talk:Ericd and Talk:History of the Democratic Republic of the Congo Thanks. User:Ericd

Danny, I saw your remarks to Izak on entry on Chabad Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. I have tried to rewrite much of the article, as it was unintentionally a promotional piece, and not a dispassionate entry. A big problem was that the entry glossed over the most important part of his legacy which is still a huge issue in the Orthodox Jewish community today - Schneerson's messianism. I thus have added more material on this subject, with references. Take a look when you get a chance. RK

Hi Danny,

Things seem to have simmered down on the Guns Germs and Steel page -- but I appreciated your intervention. I've also been thinking about your observations (on my talk page) and I see that I myself am growing increasingly impatient with some stuff that happens here, yet I see that the same pattern repeats itself and over time most people do figure out how to work together and things progress. In any event, I just wrote a comment on the talk page of the Bible and history page (which is maybe what you were referring to concerning minimalism and maximalism?) that you might want to check out if you still have the energy, Slrubenstein

Danny writes "There are so many articles I would love to trash and redo: Israelites, Schneerson, and anything that divides biblical scholarship into maximalist and minimalist camps immediately come to mind. I don't though, not because I can't, but because I haven't got the time or desire to argue with people who are more interested in hearing their own point of view than in really considering its implications or honestly assessing other views."

I am insulted. Really, Danny, I have consistently and repeatedly asked for your input on articles, and have constantly rewritten articles to take your point of view into account. You respond by silence and withdrawing, and then complaing that the articles don't represent your input. Whose fault is that? Further, you still fail to realize that you often imply that you are the world's only expert on any subject you are interested in; on occasion you fail yo take multiple points of view into account when discussing controversial scholarship, and vie any disagreement as an insult or arrogance. Well, its not so. Chill out. It you could temper your attitude and explain your positions before you attack people, you could be twice the great asset to Wikipedia that you already are. Get over yourself, and join the team. RK
Somebody's gotta look up the word "projection." Danny

See the Related Topicds in Micronation, where I linked three of your contributions on southern counties that refused to secede with their states. If you did other articles on the same topic, you might want to add them to that list, providing, if nothing else, a little proportion and positiveness. Ortolan88

what complete phrases? Southern Expeditionary Army Group Vera Cruz

Danny, I believe the above character is a troll, a totalitarian, and and plagiarist, but I decided in a fit of sleeplessness last night that I had to stop shadowboxing with these sinister characters, that I should put my Wikipedia energies into documenting the music and literature and the odd little points that I love and refuse to play into their destructive games. It may be chicken, but there it is, economy of effort is a fundamental principal of strategy. I can forward the encyclopedia more by writing about Madame Bovary and XERF than I can in these frustrating struggles with energy vampires. Regards, Ortolan88

Hi Isis. I got this message that you blocked me. Why did you block me? How did you block me? I am a registered user with sysop status. Most of all, why am I only blocked on certain pages. Danny


What message, please? You're the second one I've heard from today saying I blocked you but without telling me when and what IP. I haven't blocked anyone in days, and then it was for vandalizing the Grolier Encyclopedia article again. Please give me the details so I can find out what's going on. -- isis 01:20 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Isis. It was at TTF-Bucksfan, which is no more. Oddly enough, I was able to delete the page (I'm a sysop), but I was not able to delete text. And obviously, I can still edit some things, because I am writing this. I don't understand it, but it could have something to do with IP numbers. Oh well. Danny

In case no one else told you yet, Brion Vibber tracked down the problem. He says it has to do with how AOL is using cached info from when I blocked some IPs on about 6 January. If you need more info, please ask him directly, because I don't really understand it any better than that. Thanks for your kind words -- yes, if I had it in for you, I'd be the first one to tell you, not sneak around blocking you. -- isis 14:29 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

---

Danny, I don't know what difficulties that you are going through in real life (i.e. off of the internet) but don't take your anger here onto Wikipedia. Stop the ridiculous lies, self-aggrandizement, and your constant ad homenim attacks. Further, stop your vandalism. Stop slandering other historians and scholars as liars and idiots, just because they have views that differ from your own. That goes both for the information on biblical minimalism and biblical maximalism, and for the timeline of Judaism article. You cannot claim that you alone are the only reliable historian in the world on ecvery single subject you writ about. That is not just mistaken, it is indicative of an unhealthy mental state. Until you can gain some kind of emotional control, you need to leave Wikipedia, for your own good. I am quite serious; you are really out of control. In any case, I shall not let you continue to vandalize Wikipedia. RK

Thank you for your concern about the state of my mental health. You'll be happy to know that right the most serious threat to my mental health is your silliness (oh, and I really gotta quit smoking). Danny 14:27 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

Since RK decided to remove his ad hominem attack against me, I decided to put it here for safe-keeping.

How is it objective to vandalize an entire page? How is it objective to insult the scholars and historians who wrote books on such subjects? (And it seems that he has not read any of these books. Hmm.) How is it objective to claim that the professional historian who helped peer-review this has a "very biased and poor knowledge of Jewish history, regardless of how many books you might own." ? Danny has a long history of attacking every historian quoted on every topic, except himself (yet, ironically, Danny is not a historian.) And he also has a long history of vandalizing articles by deleting material, making ad homenim attacks, and yet refusing to make constructive changes. Even when others have literally begged him to cooperate and add his own ideas, he refuses. All he does (on certain articles) is delete material and make personal attacks. Until he can control his emotional outbursts and stop his vandalism, he has put himself outside the parameters of the Wikipedia community. RK

Just for the record ... Danny 15:05 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

Danny -- with all due respect, please try to rise above it. I think anyone who is an expert on anything sooner or later becomes very frustrated by something at Wikipedia -- it is inevitable and the nature of the project (and, for what it is worth, RK has made some real contributions, and is far from the worst of the bunch). JHK managed to keep her cool up to the bitter end. Of course, when she lost it, she also left, which was a real loss to the project. I think anyone who has followed your contributions knows that you contribute only when you you have something significant to contribute, and when questioned politely always respond in kind. I don't think you are planning on leaving the project (and you know I would hate it if that happened) but I also hate to think that you might start taking anything personally. I hope you do not mind my saying all this, I write it only because I have so much appreciated your work, and have often struggled with my own desire to respond to abuse with abuse. If you think I am being at all unfair to you, or speaking out of turn, please, just delete this and forget about it (but really, you should quit smoking ;) Slrubenstein

Thanks for catching my oversight on Politics of Senegal. ... On a completely unrelated note, I've been unable to find my notes on Dead Man Walking. I still have the book and may flip through it seeing if it will jog the memory. Two things that I do remember (but not well enough to add to the article) is that the sister of one of the victims was handicapped, but not in the movie, and that in the book (and :. in real life), the brother of one of the killers (I think Sonnier?) had been also convicted but sentenced to life in prison instead of death. Koyaanis Qatsi

Danny, I too have been harassed by RK. He seems to want to tar everyone as an anti-Semite who disagrees with him, or who desires to the Wikipedia to have a moderate, neutral tone. I essentially gave up; dealing with his crap isn't worth my time or energy.

I admire the cool, rational way you have dealt with RK so far. I am taking notes for my own use. :-) I hope you stay and keep contributing to the Wikipedia; your reasonableness and solid contributions are the envy of many. I gladly name you one of the Wikipedias ten most valuable contributors. I am only sad the JHK was driven away by RK's excessive fanaticism. Cheers! --Clutch 11:21 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

Please check out the article Semitism and my comment on the talk page, Slrubenstein

I am checking out for the night but am glad you have joined in -- fight the good fight! Slrubenstein

Thanks for your thoughtful (and patient) intervention on the Semitism page -- I added some less patient comments. In the meantime, I have another request for you, as a sysop. Please look at Ethnoconvergence. I do not have a major argument with the content; although I think there is sloppy scholarship and some NPOV problems, I think it addresses some valid questions. My problem is, I never heard of the term "ethnoconvergence." I just did a google search and came up with -- nothing. I think that the article is trying to describe "Transculturation." If you agree, could you rename the article "Transculturation," or redirect and delete? I do not want to delete the contents -- it needs a lot of work, but I don't want to delete it. I just think the name of the article is another Sv neologism. Slrubenstein