Talk:The Messiah at the Gates of Rome

Re: Nomination for deletion

IF THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CONTEXT, THEN THE SOLUTION IS TO ADD MORE CONTEXT, NOT TO DELETE. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added some context and clarification. Is this enough, or do you want or need more? At any rate, if a lack of information is the problem, the logical solution is to add more information, not to delete it. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Refimprove

I still believe the article needs more references and citations to support facts. You've added some things to "Sources," but I'm not sure about what the difference is supposed to be between "Sources" and "References." Are "Sources" primary sources to back up the story itself, whereas references are references for the article? In that case, there need to be more references, and more information from the references needs to be included in the article (ie, information about why the story is significant, what importance the story has in the world, etc., rather than just a summary of the story itself). See the AfD discussion for more explanation of what needs to be improved. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 18:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Articleissues

The claim that the article "does not have a lead section" is simply not true. It does. The other tags are too vague, so vague as to be meaningless. What kind of "restructuring" or "cleanup" do you have in mind? Could you please be specific? Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It has a one-sentence lead section that I just added, and that doesn't provide appropriate context (it was just my best guess at what the article is about). The lead section needs to describe where the story is from (what geographical area, what religious tradition, what year it probably originated, whom it's known to, etc.). The section labeled "lead section" in the article is a synopsis of the story, not a true lead section.

The "disambiguation" section makes no sense to me, I don't see what it's trying to assert and why it's included where it is. Same with the "another possible explanation section": there's no context given for what it's trying to explain. It would be better to have a section below the synopsis, describing the various interpretations of the story (and describing them with context and explanation, not just listing quotes from sources that are not even identified in the main text).

The "psychological and therepeutical implications" section is misleadingly titled, and should really be merged into something else (probably the section on interpretations, once that section is written). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There is another problem: refs #1 and #2 list sources that are not given in the bibliography. I don't know what those sources are. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Note 1 points to the third item in the list of Modern references. Note 2 points to the first item in the list of Ancient sources. Das Baz, aka Erudil 20:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the notes before the numbering changed (when you added another footnote); the problem note is the one pointing to ""Gems," The Peaceable Table, March 2009". There is not enough information give on that to identify what it is (I don't know if it's a journal article, a brochure, or what). Using citation templates would be better. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I added an External Link to clarify footnote 3. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The grammar and spelling are 100% correct, guaranteed. As to style, tone, cohesion, I am open to suggestions, provided they are specific and clear. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The Peaceable Table is a magazine for vegetarians. It is presumably link because it has a quote from Benjamin Urrutia who seems to be Das Baz's favourite author. dougweller (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. The quote is included because it is the source for footnote 3. My favorite author is Ursula LeGuin. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what I said, it's included because it has a quote which is the source for footnote 4 (now). But of course it should be a reference, not an external link. Ok, favourite non-fiction author. dougweller (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And it isn't clear where the story originates. the lead still needs expanding dougweller (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

All specific points have been met

You are wrong again. My favorite nonfiction author is Paula Fredriksen. I'm now reading her excellent Augustine and the Jews. Since you are so interested in my favorites, my favorite recent movie is Defiance. I accepted your suggestion to include the External Link into the footnote. Also, added more information as to the origin of the story. In short, I have met all specific points. Vague, meaningless generalities without specifics are nothing but harassment. Das Baz, aka Erudil 18:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What do your personal tastes have to do with the article? Some changes are good; however, more work is still needed. Regarding the copy-editing template, virtually the entire article needs to be rewritten in a more encyclopedic tone. The article as written looks amateurish, with improper use of punctuation, syntax, etc. Wikipedia's Manual of Style will be able to help. The copy-editing template should not be removed, as its issues have not been resolved. The general notability template is debatable. I personally do not have enough information about the subject to make a decision myself. --Ericdn (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are the one who started talking about my personal tastes, so you tell us what do they have to do with the subject at hand. You brought that into the discussion, for mysterious reasons known only to you. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the punctuation or the syntax. Das Baz, aka Erudil 18:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The story is told in the Talmud, in at least one Encyclopaedia, and in at least two modern books. What more "Notability" does anyone need? Das Baz, aka Erudil 18:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not ask you about your favorite authors - not here, and not on your user talk page. There are many errors with punctuation, syntax, phrasing, and other uses of the English language, in addition to the fact that the tone of the entire article is not encyclopedic, and needs a complete rewrite. Therefore, I can not endorse a removal of the copy-editing template at this time. As there is not agreement about these issues among editors, it would be considered vandalism to continue to remove the templates until these issues are resolved. --Ericdn (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Your claim that there are grammatical errors is a big fat Lie. And yes, you did bring up the subject of my favorite authors. Your claim that you did not is another Lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Das Baz (talk • contribs) 17:39, 2 August 2014

I agree with Ericdn that the templates should not be removed. Copyediting is still needed, and notability is not asserted. First of all, being in several different books does not automatically ensure notability; secondly, even if it did, the article isn't clear about why the story is notable.

If you want the tags to be removed, you should request an assessment from an uninvolved editor at WikiProject Judaism or a related project. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Regarding notability, I completely agree that an unbiased assessment is in order. As for copy-editing, this should be obvious to any educated native speaker of English, and, if I'm not mistaken, that is the level of writing that the English Wikipedia aims for. --Ericdn (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please name some specifics, if any really exist

Dougweller was the one to bring up the subject of my favorite writings. Not once, but twice. And no one has yet pointed out even one of the so-called "errors" they claim to see. Das Baz, aka Erudil 20:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC) And "two modern books" should be three modern books - I left out the one mentioned in footnote 3. Das Baz, aka Erudil 20:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Issues concerning notability and copy-editing have been mentioned on this talk page several times. As for copy-editing, I am not going to go line-by-line and point out each individual error, because the number of errors is so large that practically every sentence needs to be fixed. If you do not see the errors, then you should leave this issue to someone with a better command of the English language. I'd rather not be the one to do the work necessary to rewrite this article, as the subject matter is not one of my personal interests. Regarding notability, it has already been mentioned that an unbiased editor's opinion, preferably with some experience on the subject matter, should be welcomed. As for your last statement, quality is far more important than quantity. --Ericdn (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The number of errors is zero. So far the claim that there are errors has not been backed up by a single real concrete example. Das Baz 15:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The second sentence of the lead is probably ok. Most of the rest need rewriting. dougweller (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability tag

The AfD discussion established that the article is sufficiently notable for WP. Some argued that it should be reworded for its lede, but that does not mean that a tag is better than offering a genuine suggestion as to wording. Collect (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the AfD discussion was basically about a different article. I agree with you that the topic is probably notable, but the problem is the article doesn't assert the notability. Things can sit around just being notable by themselves, but an article has to explain why they are so; a random reader won't see the AfD or all this discussion to know why we think it's notable. As of now, the article just relates the story and a few different peoples' ideas of what it means; it doesn't say anything about why the story is important, how it fits into the canon, what it has influenced, etc.

Also, I would just like to note for anyone reading this discussion that Das Baz has been canvassing users ([1][2][3]) to come here and support him. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I can be canvassed to Kingdom Come - but my opinion is not for assumption by anyone. Note that I was one of those saying it should be kept -- so I am not a stranger to this article as it is. Yes -- perhaps Camus and others who have borrowed the tale should be listed, etc., but that does not make the "notability" tag proper, does it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 17:15, 17 March 2009

I was asked to comment. When people ask me to comment, they take their chances, because I do quite often do not say what they expect & anyone who thinks they can tell me what to say is likely to get quite a surprise. The same is true of other people here, though I like to think I'm less predictable than most. As for the points raised, I do not know what is meant by "Does not assert notability" Do you think it needs to say. "This story is notable because it was discussed in Encyclopedia Judaica." It does not -- it just has to give the reference. Everything that is a topic in another reliable selective encyclopedia is accepted in WP as notable.

I hope we will be including every story from the Talmud. I am quite prepared to say they are intrinsically notable, and with help--because I do not have the necessary language knowledge-- prove it from the incredibly voluminous literature commenting on them. If you need to show it notable by being in the canon, the reference to the original source proves it to be in the canon. "A few people's idea of what it means" is what Wikipedia calls Reliable Sources for notability, and is exactly the content desired in an article. If you think there should be additional content, write it. Don't blame other people for not having done it. For this to be nominated as a feature article ity would indeed have to discuss thep oints you mention, but that's a much higher standard than "notability".

And my friend Collect is right--putting a notability tag on an article that has passed AfD is a little nonsensical DGG (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur -- there are many traditional stories which merit coverage -- and if anyone puts an AfD on them, tell me and I shall return. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Again: it wasn't nominated for AfD because of notability concerns, it was nominated for AfD because at the time it wasn't an article. The fact that it passed an AfD doesn't automatically establish notability. And yeah, like Collect, I fought to keep this article from being deleted; but that doesn't mean I don't still see problems with how it's written right now. They're just not deletion-worthy problems. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't want to see this go to AfD and would vote to keep. dougweller (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Step back for a little while

Hi Das Bas, You have asked me for a comment. My advice to you would be to step back for a week or two. Creating an article is quite demanding, and you can easily become emotionally attached to it. If you step back for some time, and re-read the comments of the other editors, I think it will become more obvious that they attempt to help. It's not harrassment. There is no deadline, the article is still here when you return. Your actions right now are more likely to land you in hot water, possibly leading to burnout - not worth it. Perhaps everybody could step back and let it cool for a while. Power.corrupts (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This is very good advice, Power.corrupts; thank you. I, too, will try to keep things in perspective. Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to the point

This article, as does much of Wiki material, suffered from an abundance of irrelevant material. It is a huge waste of time to get involved in trying to get a Wiki entry back on track, but I'm always game to try it once. The material remaining after my edit is pertinent to the topic, and hopefully editors will add material that stays on topic. Specifically, of the thousands of commentaries from the past near two millennia, putting in some recent populist commentary is downright arbitrary and silly. Moreover, adding ex post facto Christological commentary, the new anti-Semitism for which Wiki is the latest platform, is expected, sadly, but still unwarranted. Having been involved with Wiki warriors, I won’t check back to see how the battle for propaganda proceeds on this entry… so let the rhetoric that destroyed Wiki continue!68.43.236.4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC).

This article is far from anti-Semitic. It has been a famous story in Judaism, in the Talmus, for nearly two thousand years. The references are notably Jewish ones, and to call it anything else is odd indeed. Collect (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

One (of many) methods of anti-Semitism is to Christologically reinterpret Jewish tradition. Citing Mathew from the "New" Testament in favor of so-called "Old Testament" is one such example, and hence, such references should be deleted. Mathew is not a "notably Jewish" reference, and calling it "modern" as compared with the Talmudical explanation is just as transparent. However, as I noted above, it is a waste of time fighting with Wiki warriors, who use this as the most recent platform for anti-Semitism, so I won't be contributing to the revisions, although an explanation on this page is worth this one attempt. Watch as the anti-Semites step forth and do their work!68.43.236.4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not a vast anti-Jewish conspiracy. To tell you the truth, most of us don't care one way or another. You may find it convenient to see everything through this one little lens, but it's adding anything constructive. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Alternative Interpretation

"Perhaps this means: You need not expect a future coming of the Messiah. He is here today. Look for him among the homeless, the wounded, the hungry and oppressed." Gems, The Peaceable Table, March 2009. [4] Das Baz 16:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This has been removed from the article over and over again (here is the most recent diff I could find). I'm not sure why you're bringing it up again now? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You answer your query with your comment. This alternative explanation is added to the discussion here because it was vandalistically removed from the article. People have a right to be aware of other opinions. I do not agree with the suppression of knowledge and the imposition of a single POV. Das Baz 16:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason I left a question is, it doesn't appear you're adding this stuff here to promote discussion about it; it looks like you're just using this page as a vehicle to post whatever you couldn't get people to leave in the article. Turning a talk page into a mini-article is not really an appropriate use of talk pages. I'm not going to remove these things, but I would appreciate it if you did, unless you actually plan on having a discussion about whether or not these should be included in the article. (Please note that they weren't removed "vandalistically"; the editors who removed these bits all left rationales for why they did it, and for the most part they were the same editors who were on your side and fighting to keep this article from being deleted. if anything, they were trying to help you improve the article.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The editors left rationales? I haven't seen those. What were the rationales? Das Baz 17:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC) I certainly want to promote discussion, knowledge, and thought. To suppress and delete data does not promote any of those things, or anything except the imposition of a POV. Das Baz 17:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be about the only editor making edits without an edit summary explaining the edit. To describe the edits the way you do seems at least to me to be a clear pov. Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm not making any edits to the article anymore. The article, as orginally written, had two alternative explanations as to why the Messiah said he was coming "today." The reader was free to choose and explore. One of the two explanations was removed - with no summary or explanation or rationale given as to why the removal.So I certainly was not the one giving no summary for an edit. I wrote the article so people could think and talk about it. Das Baz 16:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A rationale certainly was given: look at the edit summary. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And Das Baz has about 50 edits, a quick glance suggests that none of them have an edit summary, no rationale given at all for his edits. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary usage for Das Baz. Most of the edit summaries that actually are there are the automated ones ("created page with...", "redirected page to...", etc.). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems there is a rationale, but it is not a logical one. Dougweller says the source is not reliable because it is a vegetarian journal. That is a total nonsequitur. Das Baz 17:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC

As a link, I think it failed WP:EL -- among other things, it was 100 words out of just over 8000 words in the journal, just above a joke about how many vegans it takes to change a lightbulb. Pretty trivial. And who was it by? It says contributed by Benjamin Urrutia -- does that mean he wrote it? And is Benjamin Urrutia Dr. Benjamin Urrutia? See [5] where an article signed by Benjamin Urrtia refers to "my father, Dr. Benjamin Urrutia," which looks very much as though we have a father and son here, and the contribution is by the son. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller, we know you hate Benjamin Urrutia with a passion. Give it a rest, please. No ad hominem attacks, please. Das Baz 15:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What we need to talk about is the article on the Messiah at the Gates of Rome, and what needs to be included in it and what not. Should the article be limited to considering the historical background of the story? Why did the poor and oppressed Jewish people of the third century imagine their potential deliverer as a beggar at the gates of the capital of the Empire that oppressed them? Or should we consider how the story can be applied today to our own situation? If the latter, then the opinion of a therapist, like Dr. Frankel, is more useful than that of a historian. Dr. Frankel says the Messiah is a Healed Healer, and that we should follow his example. Solve our problems by helping others solve theirs. 15:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary has no rationale for deletions by me for this article because I deleted nothing from the article. Das Baz 15:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You are supposed to always use edit summaries, not just for deletions. As for Urrutia, your comments could be seen as a personal attack. I've got nothing at all against him. And I've certainly made no ad hominem attacks either. It's also a genuine question as to whether 'Benjamin Urrutia' who refers to 'Dr. Benjamin Urrutia' is (and it's the only explanation that comes to mind) is Dr. Urrutia's son, and thus not the author of the short statement in question. Since you've ignored the question I hope that you no longer want to put that quote or link back in. As for your questions, most of them depend upon the sources we can find. But I think it should concentrate on historical sources if they exist. Frankel is an example of modern day use of the story. Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, a little while ago I was thinking that it should be merged with one of the other articles which include the story. What I didn't know then was how much the story has been discussed in Rabbinic circles in the past. It wouldn't have gone to AfD if any of this past interest in the story had been in this article. I'm starting to build it up. Dougweller (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

In the new section, "Reception," I corrected the obvious typo "mentined" (sic) to mentioned. Usually I would not bother to point out such a small matter, but you say you want a record of all changes. I think that discussing all the interpretations of this amazing story, both the Talmudic ones and the modern psychological and theological ones, would fill a whole book. Well, someday there will be such a book. I do not think that book will waste any time discussing whether a quote was supplied by Dr. BU, or his son or father or grandson or grandfather. What difference does it make? That is of no consequence whatsoever. Waste of time. Now, that proposed emendation of de Romi to dromi, "southern," that is very interesting. The Rabbi who suggested it had the southern part of Paradise in mind. Could be. But maybe it refers to southern regions of Earth- somewhere in Africa or South America. Das Baz 15:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

But your opinions and mine about that have no business here or in the article. And an interpretation by someone with no qualifications (eg Uruttia's son) doesn't belong here either. As for speeling flammers, what can I say? Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, what I can say now that I've looked at the edit history is that once again you didn't leave an edit summary. That edit should have been marked minor, and the edit summary should have contained something such as ce sp or ce mentined>mentioned. Please note that a lot of edits without edit summaries get reverted simply because there was no reason given for the edit. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Estelle Frankel

Estelle Frankel, a therapist who is devoutly Jewish and certainly no anti-Semite, says, in regards to the story of the Messiah at the Gates of Rome: "This particular image of the Messiah bears a surprising resemblance to the Christian image of Jesus as the suffering servant of God." Sacred Therapy, 2003, ISBN 1570629978 - pages 166-167. Das Baz 16:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

A silly statement, considering that the Christian concept of the Messiah is drawn from such Jewish traditions as the Suffering Messiah. PiCo (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)