August 11 Information

What was the original Danish term for Rotation method? The article gives a citation for page 4 of an English edition of Either/Or, if anyone has the Danish version handy for a quick leafing. Skomorokh 03:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The article " Enten - Eller" says vexel-driften. Note: The "-en" at the end implies that it is in the definite form ("The crop rotation"). Gabbe ( talk) 08:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Also bear in mind that the present-day Danish word for " crop rotation" is vekseldrift. I assume the spelling differences (dash; "x"/"ks") is due to some spelling reform. Gabbe ( talk) 14:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Fantastic, thank you very much Gabbe. Skomorokh 07:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Besides Robert Mugabe, defiant at 87, there is other dictator guys like Him. Yoweri Museveni is another bad guy like him. How does Yoweri Museveni do bad to blind Africa. Corruptions? Killing people? How is he brutal. Paul Kagame another dictator of Rwanda, a 53 year old being a ruthless killer. When I look them up on Google image, it usually say what he is-tyrant and that. Is he a corrupter, why is he almost like Adolf Hitler basically. Mwai Kibaki one site say he practice dictatorship and best friends of museveni-i thought Kibaki is not that bad. I thought other leaders like Pierre Nkurunziza, new leaders like Jakaya Kikwete, Armando Guebuza rules states just fine. They are more friendly and try to support the state rather than trying to commit genocides.-- 69.229.5.134 ( talk) 03:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Have you a question, or are you just trying to start an argument? This is not the place for arguments.

You have linked to articles on several of the people you name: those articles will tell you a lot about them. If you have specific questions about them that the articles do not answer, you are welcome to post them here. -- ColinFine ( talk) 07:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

How to vandalize wikipedia without getting caught? Please suggest some tricks of vandalism. -- WW009977 ( talk) 04:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

There's a particularly insidious form of vandalism where you study up on the topic and improve the article, thus fooling everyone into thinking you're an expert when you're really just a vandal. StuRat ( talk) 04:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

We have a policy relating to questions like that: see WP:BEANS. Looie496 ( talk) 05:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

First, become an Administrator. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 11:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia should be posted on Wikipedia:Help desk, not here. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 11:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Vandalism is beginners' stuff. I once crashed Wikipedia, globally, for about ten minutes. It was an accident, although I guess I could do it again if I was feeling malicious. I don't think anybody realised that I'd done it, although if I did it repeatedly, I'm sure a dev could figure it out. I won't explain how I did it, but becoming an administrator is the first step. Warofdreams talk 12:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Can a vandal face legal trouble after vandalizing wikipedia articles and userpages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WW009977 ( talk • contribs) 04:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, we usually just trace where a vandal lives then send assassins.--  Obsidi♠n  Soul 05:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Except we call them Hired Goons. (No disrespect to goons.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Not vandalism, it's hacking!
Sleigh ( talk) 07:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm not aware of anyone getting in trouble with the law for vandalising Wikipedia, but people have got in trouble with their school/university/employer for misusing their computers. -- Tango ( talk) 09:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

You could be sued for libel or defamation (e.g. [1]), or for harassment. But note that we can't offer legal advice: if you're considering vandalising Wikipedia I suggest you consult a lawyer first. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 11:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm not aware of any case where someone WAS sued for libel under these circumstances, but it's a distinct possibility. They'd have to prove you published a known untruth (or simply didn't care if it was true or not) that caused damage, though. HominidMachinae ( talk) 20:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

But how can one hack "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? -- Nricardo ( talk) 00:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

You may find this relevant. 87.112.14.181 ( talk) 00:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

LOL, that was hilarious. I'm surprised they didn't bring in the CIA and the USSOCOM too. I'm glad we at Wikipedia are more refined, in just utilizing our vast army of assas... er Hired Goons.--  Obsidi♠n  Soul 00:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

At what age did (historical) Jesus realize he was the Messiah? Did he realize it first, or did his parents? Does the bible show any disagreement between him and his parents about how he should use his powers?

Note: I am trying to imagine what would happen if my son were the Messiah. Obviously the above could contain inaccuracies in my preconceptions. I am not a historibiblical scholar, I welcome corrections! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.130.231 ( talk) 09:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

It's very doubtful if the historical Jesus (who, if he existed, likely was a peasant preacher from Galilee) ever though of himself as the messiah (literally "the anointed one", i.e. a king, and in this case a king who would rebuild David's kingdom). -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 09:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Can you clarify: are you saying he said it, but didn't believe it himself? Or that he didn't believe it, didn't say it, and didn't perform miracles without noticing, and then his disciples invented all of this after the fact? I am trying to see why it got ever written down in the Gospels, if he neither said it, nor did it, nor had someone invent that he did it? Most likely, is that he DID say it. My question is when he started saying it, saying stuff like he is the way, the truth, and the life... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.130.231 ( talk) 10:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

i.e. at what age did he start saying he was the messiah? or, did he never say that himself? (talking about historical jesus now). note that I don't care if he actually did miracles or prove he was the messiah, my question is when he started saying he was, what age. thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.130.231 ( talk) 10:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't think he ever did explicitly say he was the messiah. All instances of the association consists of other people asking 'Are you the messiah?' and him replying something ambiguous. The most he claims to be seems to be 'the Son of God', which can be interpreted in many ways, but can also simply mean being human.

The whole 'vibe' I can get from the passages about it, was that people wanted desperately to believe that he was the messiah, and he simply went with what they wanted to believe in order to get things done without ever explicitly saying he was. Ironically, this was what made him so unpopular among the clergy. Notice the different words that his disciples attribute to him.

When asked if he was the messiah, his replies: “You have said so” ( Matthew 26:63-64); "“I am." ( Mark 14:62); and "You say that I am." ( Luke 22:70). Two versions say he gave a nonanswer. Then again, I'm no Bible scholar, nor do I believe in it. :P --  Obsidi♠n  Soul 10:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

When Jesus met John the Baptist who had been announcing Him. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 10:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for actually answering my question, lovely Cuddlyable. But could you dumb it down a shade more! What age was he when he met John the Baptist who had been announcing Him? -- 84.2.130.231 ( talk) 11:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Could you also quote the relevant verses for us, please Cuddlyable? This is a really interesting thread. -- Dweller ( talk) 11:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Aid to Bible Understanding: In the autumn of 29 CE, Jesus came to John to be baptized. (Note that this would be a jew baptizing another jew.) John at first objected, knowing his sinfulness and the righteousness of Jesus. But Jesus insisted. God had promised John a sign so that he could identify the Son of God. (Matt. 3:13; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21; John 1:33). When Jesus was baptized the sign was fulfilled: John saw God's spirit coming down upon Jesus and heard God's own voice declaring Jesus to be his Son. Evidently no others were present at Jesus' baptism. - Matt. 3:16,17; Mark 1:9-11; John 1:32-34; 5:31,37. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 20:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Luke 3:21-3 suggests he was about 30 when he was baptised and started preaching: "When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened (22) and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: 'You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.' (23) Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph" (NIV). -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 11:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

How is that telling us that he then considered himself the messiah? -- Dweller ( talk) 11:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

It seems to me that Jesus had a vision when he was baptized, so, as much as we can date anything this ambiguous, that would seem to be it. He is reported to give evasive answers, but of course those answers were written down hundreds of years later. It seems from e.g. riding into Jerusalem on a donkey that he was acting as the Messiah, not just being called one. But of course the true Messiah could have defeated the Romans with a sweep of his hand, so when he was arrested, people decided we was a false Messiah. (Denied 3 times etc.) His followers who did not abandon him then reinterpreted his kingdom as being in heaven rather than on earth, had him say he knew he would die even though it seems obvious his followers never heard him say that, etc. That is, he went from being the Jewish Messiah to the Christian one, though Christianity and Judaism were all but identical until about the 5th century. — kwami ( talk) 11:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

That's a little weak. Did everyone who rode into Jerusalem on a donkey thereby definitively proclaim themselves as messiah? There'd be thousands of messiahs every week in those days. -- Dweller ( talk) 11:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

No, it's the way he did it. He was fulfilling prophesy. It was clearly a significant event from the way he was received, and the way the Bible tells it. — kwami ( talk) 11:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Does the Bible tell it in such a way that tells us that Jesus rode a donkey into Jerusalem and therefore, unambiguously, Jesus considered himself the Messiah? If so, please quote the verse, because it'll answer the OP's question. -- Dweller ( talk) 12:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

No, nothing is unambiguous. It comes down to the obvious interpretation that people would give things, when we would no longer think to interpret them that way. That's why people spend their lives researching these questions. — kwami ( talk) 12:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

So, did Jesus never claim to be the Messiah? -- Dweller ( talk) 12:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

How can we know? All we know is what the gospels say, and they weren't written by Jesus or any of his disciples.

Read Mark 11:

(1) And as they approached Jerusalem, near Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples (2)and said to them, ‘Go to the village lying before you. As soon as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there on which no one of men has ever sat. Untie it and bring it here. (3)If anyone says to you, “Why are you doing this?” say, “The Lord needs it and will send it back here soon. ”’ (4)And they went and found a colt tied at a door, outside in the street, and untied it. (5)Some people standing there said to them, ‘What are you doing, untying that colt?’ (6)They replied as Jesus had told them, and they let them go. (7)And they brought the colt to Jesus, threw their cloaks on it, and he sat on it. (8)Many spread their cloaks on the road and others spread branches they had cut in the fields. (9)Both those who went ahead and those who followed kept shouting, ‘Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord! (10)Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the highest!’ (11)And he entered Jerusalem and went to the temple. And after looking around at everything, he went out to Bethany with the twelve since it was already late.

Now compare this to Zachariah 9.9, when the messianic king arrives to claim his throne:

Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion! Shout, daughter of Jerusalem! Look, your king is coming to you: he is legitimate and victorious, humble and riding on a donkey—on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

There are lots of passages like this, where Jesus fulfills the expectations of the OT Messiah, acts like the Messiah, speaks like the Messiah. But that all started with his baptism and vision at age 30. — kwami ( talk) 12:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

..but, it seems, doesn't actually proclaim himself as the Messiah. Strange. -- Dweller ( talk) 12:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

But it seems he did. It's just not reported as an official pronouncement. — kwami ( talk) 12:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

See Confession of Peter, where Peter says he believes Jesus is the Messiah and Jesus responds, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven", which is effectively saying "Yes, I am". He was more discreet when Pilate asked him that question. Pais ( talk) 16:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Just a comment on "what the gospels say, and they weren't written by Jesus or any of his disciples. " What shitty disciples. -- 84.2.130.231 ( talk) 12:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

No need to be offensive. -- Dweller ( talk) 12:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, it was an oral society to a large extent. Writing was scripture, and at the time these things happened, they weren't scripture, they were current events. — kwami ( talk) 12:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The gospels Matthew and John have traditionally been attributed to these disciples. There is no Biblical basis for impugning the posterior cleanliness of any of the disciples. On the contrary, Jesus was particular about washing their feet. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 12:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Mark text

That Mark text mentioned above is interesting. According to Wikisource's King James Version, the question asked was "Are you the Christ, the son of the Blessed"( [2]) which isn't quite as unambiguous a question as the one cited above. What does the original (Greek?) text for Mark say the question was? I guess part of the problem here is the ambiguity between messiah meaning anointed and messiah meaning the one who'll deliver Israel... and the meaning of "Christ". All the Israelite kings and many priests were anointed (for example), but no-one would claim King Ahab to have been the messiah! -- Dweller ( talk) 11:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Excuse my ignorance, but why would the Messiah's existence on Earth not be written down until "hundreds of years later"?? Wouldn't this be like the Book of Mormon being written TODAY, in 2011, saying "Oh, by the way, a couple of hundred years ago, in the eighteen hundreds, God sent a new Prophet down, but we haven't gotten around to writing it down until now..." That just doesn't make sense. Joseph Smith convinced people he was a new prophet in his lifetime, and people thought this was remarkable enough to write home about. Jesus convinced people he was the SON OF GOD in his lifetime, and NOBODY thought it was remarkable enough to write home about? This makes precisely ZERO sense to me, please explain! NOTE THAT I AM THE OP OF THIS THREAD AND THE ENTIRE THREAD IS ABOUT HISTORICAL JESUS/JOSEPH SMITH, ETC. No part of this thread is concerned with whether anyone was or is a prophet, son of God, messiah, etc. Just, what they say, who they convince, when they start believing it, etc. -- 84.2.130.231 ( talk) 11:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The Bible wasn't compiled until 325. We don't know how old the texts were that it was compiled from; estimates vary widely, but they're all generations after the fact. Of course, people may have written stuff down, we don't know; all we do know are the texts preserved in the Bible, and that there were many more texts which were not chosen and are now lost. And of course things could have changed between the time they were first written down and when they were compiled into the Bible—after all, they were changed even after they were compiled into the Bible! — kwami ( talk) 12:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Why are they "all" generations after the fact. This makes ZERO sense to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.130.231 ( talk) 12:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

You're asking a historical question. I don't know. Mark is probably the oldest gospel, and I've seen estimates as early as 70AD, two generations after the crucifixion. It's thought that many of Paul's letters are older than that, but of course Paul was not a witness to the events. In any case, we don't have any writings from any witnesses or companions of Jesus that have survived, at least as far as we know. (There has been speculation that some boy in the crowd who ran away may have been the author of one of the gospels, but that is speculative.) — kwami ( talk) 12:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

AD is supposed to be dated from Christ's birth, not the crucifixion, so 70 AD is only one generation after the crucifixion, about the time that the witnesses to it would be getting old and starting to die off from old age, and people would start to think, "Wait, we'd better get some of this written down, since we won't be able to ask them to clarify later." If you look at the epistles, which tend to date from the time the Apostles were actually going from place to place, telling people what they'd seen and heard and writing (or dictating) letters to other communities, it really was being passed on by people visiting the churches and telling them it orally, and to some extent by reading letters sent out. Why not? It would have seemed the obvious way to do it. Why would your first reaction be to write up new Scriptures, rather than tell as many people as possible what you had heard and seen, and answer their questions first hand? It started small.

Mark, the oldest Gospel, is traditionally considered to have been gathered by Mark taking dictation from Peter when he was fairly old. That was why it was said to have a slightly meandering quality, and to not be particularly stylish: Mark supposedly didn't want to reword anything, or rearrange it, in case he missed something out, so it's a dictated old-man's telling of the story of what happened when he was in his twenties/thirties. The Gospel of Mark is criticised by early Christian writers for not being in a literary style, but nobody seems to suggest it doesn't fit what they had received orally, or to suggest that the Apostolic nature of it (taken from Peter's telling) is unlikely.

In a similar vein, see Luke (I forget if Matthew does it too) mentioning that this is the account he's gathered from various witnesses (traditionally, he was supposed to have talked to Mary, among others) and actually making an effort to name witnesses. And the author of John also talks about his Gospel being the story he has compiled based on what the disciples saw, although does not record on what basis he knows this. The later appendix claims that it is all vouched for by one disciple ('this' disciple), but that's a later addition. 82.24.248.137 ( talk) 16:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

You don't get the question. Wouldn't you consider it strange if nobody wrote about the fact that Joseph Smith convinced a bunch of people in the nineteenth century that he was a new prophet, until two generations later? And that is the earliest text to get into the book of mormon? Why would the bible not include anything contemporaneous, if this guy convinced all these people that he was the messiah! It does NOT add up to me, I do not understand this. Please explain why no sources contemporaneous with Jesus were deemed important enough to include in the bible -- didn't people write letters or diaries at the time, wouldn't somebody "blog" (in the terms of the day) about hanging out with the son of God, who is the Messiah??? Please explain to me. Thank you. -- 84.2.130.231 ( talk) 12:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, that would be strange. But it's not parallel. First, we don't know when things were written down. AFAIK the only historical date we have is the Council of Nicaea in 325. Sure, Mary Magdalene might have kept a diary, but if so it hasn't survived. Second, literacy wasn't what it is now. It seems clear from, say, Mark that everybody knew these stories. That is, they were passed from person to person, or taught in the temples/churches, and it may not have seemed important to write them down right away. All we know is what we know, and that isn't much. — kwami ( talk) 12:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

However low literacy was at the time, it wasn't 0. Jesus picked some seriously shitty "disciples", who in no way memorialized him, and now 2000 years after the fact we are left guessing. -- 84.2.130.231 ( talk) 12:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

You've got the same problem in Islam, where Muhammad was illiterate, and at one point there were 13 conflicting official versions of the Koran. We don't even have a good copy of the Ten Commandments. Seems to happen a lot in religion. — kwami ( talk) 12:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Do you have any evidence that literacy levels in early first century Judea were poor? I'd have assumed the opposite? -- Dweller ( talk) 12:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I think they were generally pretty poor before universal education, some religious groups excepted. That was a radical idea at the time. Remember, a lot of Jesus's followers were peasants. Also, many of his disciples abandoned him when he failed to defeat the Romans. Maybe all the literate ones left. — kwami ( talk) 12:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

That's the point... I think we are indeed talking about "some religious groups" - or rather, one religious group, Jews. -- Dweller ( talk) 12:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

If Jesus was from the royal family, as the Messiah should be, he would presumably have been literate. But many of his disciples were "simple folk". Jews place great value on education now, but that's following millennia of being dispossessed. At the time, I don't know. Scripture was of course paramount, but that doesn't mean that a simple fisherman or goat herder would spend much time at the local book store. — kwami ( talk) 12:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Literate ones tend to become rabbis. And none of his disciples were even remotely close to being a rabbi. Even if one of them actually were literate, it's a bit unlikely that they'd carry around little notebooks jotting around every little detail of Jesus' life like paparazzi waiting to write a prize-winning biography someday. And a very detailed biography at that, written by what can only be an actual scholar, not a peasant. I think the main problem is someone apparently saw these different versions of the compilations of oral and scattered accounts (the books) and felt the need to attribute them to a specific disciple. When in truth, they may have simply been different versions of people using slightly varying sources.

Anyway, the 'messiah' in Jesus' time probably had stronger connotations of being a pretender (i.e. claimant to the throne) rather than simply being theological, and probably added to the confusion. Some probably called him that because they saw him as the literal messiah, i.e. someone of royal blood who is coming to restore independence of the Kingdom of Israel from the Romans. Hence the obsession with the descent from David. --  Obsidi♠n  Soul 12:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, he was going to restore a Jewish Kingdom and rid Judea of the Romans. He had the power of God flowing through him as the rightful heir to the throne. That why his arrest was so devastating, and his execution inconceivable—or, rather, proving he wasn't the Messiah after all. — kwami ( talk) 13:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

First, let's not forget oral history... much more common in the first century than today. Second, what makes you think that there were no contemporaneous sources?... there are some indications that the Gospels we have today borrowed material from an earlier source. If this theory is correct, then Mark's Gospel is not the earliest account... its simply the oldest that survived. This happens all the time with ancient sources. An eye witness (or at least a contemporary) writes down an account... someone else copies it (and adds material that was passed down to him orally)... at some point, however, the eye witness account gets lost... so the earliest source we have is the later copy. Blueboar ( talk) 12:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Exactly, there may have been contemporaneous sources, again he was very notable for his time, but the ones in the Bible now are unlikely to be it. They all seem to be compilations of the aforementioned contemporary sources, yet the Council of Nicaea all proclaim them to be contemporary, even going as far as attributing them to specific disciples.--  Obsidi♠n  Soul 13:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, that's presumably what happened. But all we know is what survived. — kwami ( talk) 13:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Oh, of course! There was no reason to write anything down, because you would only do that to preserve historical events for posterity. The Kingdom of God was at hand; the end of history would occur during the lives of those living. Why would you bother to write things down? — kwami ( talk) 13:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

answer to rest of original question?

I also ask whether he realized it first, or his parents... this is an aspect of my question no one has answered directly. But can we agree that by everything detailed above, it is pretty clear that Jesus realized he was the Messiah well before his parents did? (It also seems this happened around when he was 30.). Thanks... -- 84.2.130.231 ( talk) 15:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

If the OP has not yet done so, he/she might do well to read our article Messiah, which I don't think has previously been linked in the discussions above. The Jewish concept of the Messiah was rather different from the one later evolved in Christianity, perhaps in part to explain why Jesus (to use the name he himself would not have recognised) had not fulfilled the requirements of the former. There were many aspirants to the role of the Jewish Messiah around that time, some of whom are much better recorded in contemporary documents than Jesus, of whom no contemporary record at all survives. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.129 ( talk) 15:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

In Luke, the angel Gabriel pretty much spells it out before Jesus' birth. He goes through the Messiah checklist: Thone of David, house of Jacob, and son of God. It would take a real idiot not to get the point. -- kainaw ™ 15:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Indeed. Luke 1:26-35 has the story, including the name Jesus, kingdom without end, throne of David, Son of the Highest, Son of God, etc. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 16:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

But! This was to Mary. Did they tell Jesus? I imagine it'd be like hunkering down and saying... "Son... you're adopted.". :P --  Obsidi♠n  Soul 16:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The episode of the Finding in the Temple suggests he knew he was the Son of God without anyone having to tell him, and that he assumed Mary and Joseph knew it too. Pais ( talk) 16:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Ooh. Good point.--  Obsidi♠n  Soul 16:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Also, if you believe the non-canonical Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the killing of a boy (and blinding of his parents) via a curse, animating clay pigeons, resurrecting the dead, and successful re-plantation of a severed foot should give both Jesus and the onlookers a hint that something unusual was going on... -- Stephan Schulz ( talk)

( edit conflict)x3 To expand a bit on this, it seems rather trite and arbitrary to demand that Jesus stated unambiguously "I am the Messiah" to confirm that he knew he was The Messiah at any point. If a man is planting and harvesting corn all day, do I need to hear him say "I am a farmer" or can we assume he knows pretty well what he is doing from the evidence of his actions? If we go by the textual evidence in the Gospels, its pretty clear from the text that he knew his role definately by the time of his baptism. From Matthew 3:13-17, God states unambiguously in verse 17 "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." To claim that after this time, Jesus didn't know or understand his role seems pretty rediculous. As noted before, the text indicates he was "about 30" years old when this event occured, so that is the absolute LATEST age when he should have known he was the Chosen One. There are other events in his childhood and youth when it shows he had some idea that he was different with regards to his relationship with God; though none is as completely unambigious as the baptism as described in Matthew 3. See Luke 2:25-52, which describes several incidents in his childhood which would steer a reasonable person to understand something was different about themselves. (post EC) or, exactly what Pais said. -- Jayron 32 16:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The thing is, being the Son of God isn't the same thing as being the Messiah. AFAIK, none of the OT prophecies about the Messiah say he'll be the Son of God, let alone God the Son incarnate. Pais ( talk) 16:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Yeah, but Jewish thought contemporary to Jesus' time was that the Messiah would be a warrior-king (ala Joshua, David, etc.) who would lead to the new independence of the Jewish state. There wasn't any expectation of a religious leader who would lead a Heavenly Kingdom or anything like that. If we go by the expectation of who the Messiah would be, Jesus never claimed that he was that. The question needs to be asked "When did Jesus ever claim to be the military leader who would lead a military force to rise up and lead to an independent Jewish state" the answer is "never". If the question is instead "When did Jesus realize he was going to be leading a religious revival, and knew that his role was to lead people to God through a new covenant based on faith in him, as the Son of God incarnate" then the answer is almost certainly by his baptism, and likely even in childhood (per the Luke passages). -- Jayron 32 16:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Note that the original question was asked for "the historical Jesus", not "the mythical Jesus". Only very few parts of the gospels are generally accepted as probably true in the historical sense. In particular, everything that has only one independent attestation (where typically the shared tradition between the synoptic gospels is not independent), and that fits in well with the overall intention of the early church, is highly dubious. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 17:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

A contemporary person who also solely did 'God's work' was John the Baptist, and I assume he did much of the same things Jesus did (miracles even) without actually being labelled a messiah. To use the farmer analogy, they both plant and harvest corn all day, yet only one of them is getting government tax cuts. Should it be evident in the way they plant and harvest the corn? A messiah is not equivalent to a godly man who goes around healing people, if that were the case, there would have been dozens of prophets mistaken for the messiah long before Jesus' time.--  Obsidi♠n  Soul 17:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I need to get my hands on some of those seeds that farmer has if he can harvest corn the same day he plants it. Googlemeister ( talk) 18:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

They were utilizing the revolutionary technique of extremely rapid crop rotation™, planting and harvesting exactly one plant a day, everyday! :P --  Obsidi♠n  Soul 20:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

My understanding is that Jesus realized he had a mission when he was baptized and then spent the 40 days in the desert. Temptation of Christ. That seems neither implausible from a believers' standpoint nor from a historical and psychological one.

If you want to credit stories of baby Jesus doing miracles, they made both a Star Trek Charlie X and a Twilight Zone It's a Good Life (The Twilight Zone) episode on that theme. μηδείς ( talk) 18:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The main thing that you need to understand about Jesus is that he was an apocalypticist. He preached to his followers that the world would be ending within their lifetimes. They weren't supposed to be writing things down! or divorcing, or accumulating possessions, or doing anything that implies that the world will be around for a while. His messianism is related to, but not necessarily more significant than his apocalypticism. The idea was that upon his being martyred, the end would come. He was mistaken, and hence the line "Why hath thou forsaken me." When did he get this idea? Well schizophrenia often has an onset during the late twenties. See Apocalypticism. Greg Bard ( talk) 00:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, that is both reasonable on its own, and congruous with the thought of authors as varied as Robert Graves ( King Jesus) and Geza Vermes. Nevertheless there is a tension between Jesus' moral and his apocalyptic teaching. Perhaps this implies the influence of different later redactors? What a fertile subject Jesus is, even for us not wholly unsympathetic atheists. μηδείς ( talk) 04:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I think that much is being speculated here with little evidence in order to make events consistent with the Nicene Creed, or belief in it - but I wonder if that really represented what Jesus had to say. The standard phrase "son of man" from the texts reminds me of Nietszche's Übermensch (an atheistic repackaging of the concept which clarifies the idea that love and will can transcend traditional moral codes) But the more historically relevant concept may be the Lamed Vav Tzadikim, a tradition which so far as I know seems unfortunately to have been lost from Christianity. Current concepts of the "son of God" seem excessively literal - I don't think a Christian should necessarily need to believe that DNA cloned from a piece of the True Cross would contain half Mary DNA and half God DNA, sired by divine semen. Rather it should have a more abstract meaning, which does not need to be disprovable by science. Wnt ( talk) 10:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I should point out that the idea of Mary being inseminated with divine semen, and Jesus having half human and half divine DNA, is completely alien to the mainstream Christian idea of what it means for Jesus to be the Son of God. What you describe is closer to the Mormon view, which is far from the mainstream. The mainstream view, at least that espoused by the Catholic, Orthodox, and traditional Protestant groups, is that Jesus was 100% human and 100% divine; that his human nature was completely derived from Mary, and his divine nature was completely derived from God ante ómnia sæcula (before all ages). He did not have any divine DNA. The article hypostatic union might help to summarise the actual mainstream views. 82.24.248.137 ( talk) 11:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Where did his Y chromosome come from then? Then again, considering his extreme inbreeding perhaps that was the least of his worries. Nil Einne ( talk) 17:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, once you're positing that God was incarnated of a virgin, I don't see that this is a problem. There isn't an official position of the Catholic Church on this, so no answer that is considered definitively right or wrong, and chromosomes are a more recent discovery, so there is no general position accepted by other Churches either. Regardless, a God who could incarnate of a virgin could clearly turn an X chromosome into a Y. 86.163.214.39 ( talk) 18:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Considering that God created a human from dust once, doing it again wouldn't be that big of a stretch of the imagination. Googlemeister ( talk) 18:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I think you're missing the point. I'm not saying god couldn't do it. I'm asking how did god do it? Or rather, why is it believed/claimed god didn't give a Y chromosome or at least the essential genes from it? I mean sure, god could have induced the protein synthesis from the Y chromosome (at a minimum the the SRY protein) which would mean god didn't give genes but did give proteins so still calls in to question the claim Jesus's human self is 100% Mary! In fact if his human self required the effective constent interference of god, I think this calls in to question even more the claim his human self can really be considered entirely human so I would suggest this idea is even worse then him having a Y chromosome that came out of nowhere.

BTW, just to emphasise, if god 'turned' a X chromosome into a Y chromosome, that implies Jesus's human nature and particularly his genes were not derived entirely from Mary, since the only way to turn a X chromosome into a Y chromosome would imply modifying and adding genes which were clearly not Marys. In other words, I can't see how the Catholic and other churches can really claim his human part was 100% Mary since from our understanding of molecular biology in particular the human sex determination system and embryology it's not possible unless Mary had a Y chromosome which was somehow partially inactive, perhaps that explains the Roman Catholic view of Joseph and Mary having no children which then leads to the claim of Mary's perpetual virginity. Alternative you have to relax what you consider human (allowing something which requires the consistent interference of god to be considered human)/Mary (allowing genes or even a whole chromosome which did not really derive from Mary to be considered Mary) in a rather strange way. The best you can do is perhaps to argue the Y chromosome arose in a pseudo-natural way, a serious of mutations arising from natural processes which just so happened because god was in charge to replicate a Y chromosome or at least the SRY gene. Since normally the genes coming from a parent would be still considered to derive from said parent even with whatever naturally occuring mutations, you could try to make the argument it's the same thing but when you have such a heavily modified in such a specific way gene I find this questionable.

In case I'm still not being clear, the impossibility comes from the fact that the way things work mean it's not logical for us to accept the claim Jesus is 100% Mary no matter how god did it, not by placing arbitary restrictions on what god could do. Whether you call the proteins induced without genes or Y chromosome that came out of no where or however you believed it happened, divine or artificial/sythentic or whatever is mostly beside the point.

Nil Einne ( talk) 18:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Oh, I see what you're asking. I'm not sure how thoroughly I can answer the 'why is it believed', although I can probably point towards some of it. Jesus is considered to be the Son of Man, and completely human, and as a completely human person he is considered to be completely the son of Mary, descended from David, and hence the Son of David. As the Son of God, he is completely God, and is completely the same substance as God the Father (this starts to be more Western, as the Orthodox Churches tend to disagree on some of the details here), but God the Father is spirit, not matter. Which is why he couldn't contribute himself to the fleshy human aspect of Jesus, quite apart from that starting to get into demi-gods, which isn't a Christian thing. As to why it isn't believed that God just 'poofed' the matter that became Jesus into being? Well, sort of because that isn't what God chose to do, because God chose to have Jesus born of Mary, and because it messes up the symbolism. God could have chosen not to involve Mary at all, to create an adult human body from the dust, but that wasn't the plan. How God chose to do it was by incarnating as a human from conception, with a natural mother. Mary conceived him (look in Luke), she didn't merely incubate him. Jesus's human nature was descended from David ( Romans 1:3), because he is genuinely Mary's son: his human nature came from her. For him then to add some 'made up' DNA wouldn't really fit with this. Jesus is Man begotten of Mary just as he is God begotten of the Father. I can't find a straighforward treatment of this, but it all sort of suffuses the way this stuff is discussed.

Just to be clear, this is why there is the mainstream, orthodox view that Jesus's human nature is derived entirely from Mary. As I said, the question of how the X and Y chromosomes work is not something that there's an official view on, or any sort of concensus. To be honest, nobody's really spent much time pondering it because it isn't one of the more important aspects. There are all sorts of ways it could happen: Jesus didn't have to be fertile, and Mary didn't have to be non-divinely fertile. 86.163.214.39 ( talk) 22:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The angel um... *cough* performed artificial insemination maybe? Seriously though, an even funnier thing? Both wildly contradicting genealogies of Jesus trace his roots back to David through.. dundundundun... JOSEPH! So unless Joseph was Mary's brother, they did do the durty after all! Or someone somewhere really messed up their cover stories badly. --  Obsidi♠n  Soul 23:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, artificial insemination by an angel would again be straying into more Mormon territory. The traditional answer on the genealogies of Jesus is that one genealogy is of Joseph, showing how Jesus was adopted into his family, and the other is of Mary, hampered by the lack of an accepted way (at the time) to include women in genealogies at the time. So Mary has to be listed as being Joseph's wife, and bearing Jesus, even though it is her genealogy that matters. Compare the genealogy at the end of the Book of Ruth, which includes Boaz as the father of Obed (and hence the line of David), even though the whole book of Ruth is about Ruth and about Elimelech being Obed's legal father, whose line he continues. The genealogies in the Gospels are clearly constructed into symbolic bits of writing anyway, especially in Matthew, so their literal genealogical information is not the main point. Matthew's is structured and formatted as poetry, with symbolic divisions and numbers of names, and references to the promise and Israel's history. Might be more of a problem if someone were sola scriptura. 86.163.214.39 ( talk) 11:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Geza Vermes whose various books I have all reread and strongly recommend addresses Jesus and the concepts associated with him such as "son of man" within the Jewish context. It is the layered contextual meaningfulness of many of Jesus' reported statements and actions which make it impossible to believe that his existence was a hoax. There is a huge difference between the Jewish concept of the Messiah and the Gentile Christian elaboration of fertility god themes such as the virgin birth. μηδείς ( talk) 18:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

What is the criteria for becoming an administrator in English Wikipedia? How many edits I should have and for how long I should edit? -- WW009977 ( talk) 11:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

There are no official requirements: see Wikipedia:Administrators, Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. However it might be a good idea if you know the difference between the Reference Desk and the Help Desk; the latter is for questions about Wikipedia and the former for general factual questions. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 11:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

It's not clear whether the OP is asking out of random interest or personal desire. If it's the later, I would note there's also little chance of becoming an admin while you can't work out how to become an admin by yourself (although you should already have a fair idea by heart before trying to become one anyway). In addition people are often sceptical of those who appear too keen to become admins (again not saying this applies to the OP). Nil Einne ( talk) 13:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

You must first prove that we can trust you. That means surviving the seven deadly trials of doom.--  Obsidi♠n  Soul 11:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Bah, you kids today don't know how easy you have it, back in my day it was 12 trials of doom-- Jac16888 ^Talk 12:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, but they weren't deadly. --  Obsidi♠n  Soul 13:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Try telling that to the first 16887 Jacs ;)-- Jac16888 ^Talk 13:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

And here I thought it was your credit card pin number. :( --  Obsidi♠n  Soul 15:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Of course not, my pin number is 723....wait a second, I'm on to you now, nice try-- Jac16888 ^Talk 15:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Arrgh. What do you think the n in PIN stands for? This is as bad as talking about an ATM machine. Googlemeister ( talk) 16:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Why, Noodles of course. Everyone knows that!--  Obsidi♠n  Soul 16:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

In my opinion (which is rather piss-poor when it comes to admins), becoming an admin is very easy. Make a bunch of dummy accounts. Edit a few times with them just to ensure they work. Then, do the RfA. Flood your RfA with praise from the dummy accounts. Use the dummy accounts to play down any scrutiny. You're in. Now, to avoid problems, you should think through how to handle the dummy accounts. Vandalize with one of them. Block that one yourself. Then, somehow identify the others as socks and block them too. Then, you'll be the cool admin who shut down a whole ring of vandal socks! -- kainaw ™ 15:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Riiiiight. You don't think people will notice blatant sockpuppeting from accounts that have never voted on an RFA before? There are people who spend a considerable portion of their day voting on RFAs; they'll notice if something is amiss, the same way that we notice when things are out of order on here. (Imagine if someone came on, posted some sort of idiotic question, and then 5 other people who each had 10 random edits each showed up and started agreeing with the original poster. It'd stand out.)

It used to be that if you hung around for long enough, edited enough, and were friendly enough, RFAs were pretty straightforward. My perception is that nowadays it's a much more painful process, with much deeper scrutinizing of edit histories, arbitrary numbers assigned to editing habits (how many edits you've done in the main namespace, on talk pages, on admin pages, etc.), and so on. When I became an admin in 2005 or so (with a different, mostly defunct account), it was pretty much a breeze. I'm not sure I would have been able to get it with the same sort of editing history today, even though I don't think the additional requirements have probably made it any more likely than an admin is going to be a good admin. But such is how it goes. I don't think it's at all easy to become an admin — I think it's gone a bit far in the other direction. -- Mr.98 ( talk) 16:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The problem with nowadays is that people pretend that adminship means something more (socially) than it used to. You still get access to the same basic 3 functions (protect-block-delete) but people have this weird idea that being an admin means that you have some sort of additional power or status with regards to resolving disputes at Wikipedia; that somehow the opinions of admins mean more than the average editor of similar experience, or anything like that. It shouldn't be that way AT ALL. Admins should just be experienced editors who have extra editing tools, and the tools should be much easier to give, and to take away if they are misused. As Mr. 98 notes, it used to be much better. It would get better again if people would stop treating adminship as a social prize, which grants the holder status. It shouldn't do that. -- Jayron 32 16:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Yeah. We should reduce the seven deadly trials of doom to six. --  Obsidi♠n  Soul 16:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

A few years ago in my city there was a spate of incidents in which security guards overstepped the mark, and some innocent or not very guilty people got very badly hurt. In an enquiry into a death, the wise statement was made that probably the worst kind of person to recruit to such a job was someone who really wanted to do it. Does the same rule apply to Admins here? HiLo48 ( talk) 20:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Plato had a similar idea a few thousand years ago, after a whole series of incidents in which people got badly hurt. I think you're right, it applies to Wikipedia administrators too. Wikipedia needs to move away from the volunteer method of recruiting administrators, and instead introduce conscription. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 21:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

We can try an admin lottery, and force anyone drawn to be an admin! Athenian democracy, har! --  Obsidi♠n  Soul 21:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Admin lottery in June, corn be heavy soon? -- Trovatore ( talk) 21:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Both term limits and an Admin lottery would help immeasurably since most admins are nepotistical (spellcheck says that's a word!) vain, sanctimonious, clueless and arbitrary. A few simple rules impartially imposed would be a huge improvement upon the present lazy self-validating failed-academic jacobins in charge. The usual admin response to any valid ANI complaint is "do you seriously expect me to read the diffs or understand the topic at hand when summary judgment based on popularity contests and political correctness can be had?" At least with randomly assigned admins lechebotte creeps would on occasion suffer what they deserve. μηδείς ( talk) 22:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I suspect, for the sake of accuracy, you should change your statement from "most admins" to "most admins I've lost an argument with and am still unhappy about." It's ridiculous to generalize in such a way. You haven't interacted with most admins. Frankly I doubt even the ones you've interacted with deserve such silly insults. -- Mr.98 ( talk) 22:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

What does lechebotte mean? I can't find this word in dictionary. -- WW009977 ( talk) 03:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, no. I stand by my conclusion that most admins are lazy partisans rather than dedicated objectivists, because, even those who have, on occasion, found in my favor, have done so not from investigation or adherence to principal, but as the easiest way out. Wikipedia is, as a moral enterprise, a joke, and anyone who thinks it is anything better than a starting point from which to conduct one's own investigation is fatally mistook. There is no such thing as thought by proxy.

In all justice I must say that User:Kwamikagami is a dedicated admin who and a distinct exception to my complaints. μηδείς ( talk) 20:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Lechebotte is rather transparent French and means bootlick. μηδείς ( talk) 04:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Have to agree with μηδείς here. It's the same with most courts of law. Some people always seem to be found guilty of all sorts offences. Clearly the judges/jury are at fault, there's no way someone can be the one at fault that often. And the reason why judges/juries sometimes come to a conclusion very fast is because they were too lazy to actually consider the evidence, not because the case was clear cut. Such is life of course. Whenever someone has a problem with someone or someone gets in trouble it's clearly everyone else who is at fault, that's self evidentally true and can't be wrong (even if it doesn't make any sense). (Incidentally wikipedia policy has never really aimed for objectivity either in articles or interactions, in fact arguably one of the guiding principles is there's no such thing as true objectivity.) Nil Einne ( talk) 07:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

There are some 1500 Wikipedia administrators which is enough to defeat any generalisation of them. One can only say they each made a grab for power and gained it, often over the objections of a minority of responsible editors. Since acclaim and/or nepotism are the criteria for selection, the qualities of our administrators are necessarily varied and follow the bell curve encountered in social sciences. Both the upper and lower "tails" of the quality distribution, that theoretically have no limit, are amply populated. No aspirant is tested for their sobriety, sanity or ability to write an English sentence with correctly placed apostrophes and without profanity. Despite such drawbacks of mopster rule, the apointment of unpaid fag-masters (see Fagging) is as convenient for the Wikipedia Foundation as it was for British private schools in the 19th century. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 12:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

And the 20th - or at least, most of it. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 14:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Grab for power? You get pretty much three actual "powers" as an admin. If you misuse them, other admins will use their "powers" against you. It is not a "power" thing. If anything, there is a social "prestige" aspect that one gets with any in-crowd. Anyway, generalizing for thousands of administrators is ridiculously stupid. There are all kinds of administrators, just as there are all kinds of non-administrators. I am not sure who is supposed to be arguing that Wikipedia is meant to be a moral enterprise, in any case, or what relevance that is supposed to hold here.

And Nil Einne — I have to say, I'm not convinced by your logic that "there's now ay someone can be the one at fault that often." Why not? I have met plenty of people who are, again and again, the ones at fault. In my experience it is the one who thinks that multitudes of individuals are independently at fault in causing their ills are usually the ones who are, themselves, the cause of their ills. (I'm thinking of a friend who is constantly getting fired, and constantly blaming others for it. But if you get fired again and again and again by totally unrelated individuals — you're probably the one doing something wrong, one way or another.)

Anyway, for a Reference Desk thread, this has dissolved into more or less admin flaming. I see no references, nor even any productive discussion, alas; only pointless griping. -- Mr.98 ( talk) 15:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The observations by Medeis and Nil Einne about lazy admins may be supported by the frequency of blocks ascribed to "behaviour for which (s)he was earlier blocked". Mr. 98's prediction that if an admin misuses their "powers", other admins will use their "powers" against them is meant to be comforting. It does not answer the question Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?. It does not explain why one admin acts to suppress the quoting on a user's own page of what has been posted in Wikipedia by another admin with whom the first admin is friendly. Is it credible that there is no exchanging of favours among 1500 admins? Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 21:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

It sounds like most people missed what I thought was obvious sarcasm in my post. My point was that if I follow my intepretation of μηδείς's logic, the reason why some people are repeatedly and usually found guilty of whatever criminal offences they are charged with is not because they really are guilty but because the judge/jury made a mistake. I think most of us here do accept there are people who commit a large number of crimes (even though we may not agree on the best way to deal with them or reduce the number of crimes and number of people) so wouldn't agree. Similarly, I was being sarcastic when I suggested that whenever a jury or judge comes to a decision quickly it can't be because the case was clear cut but because the judge/jury was too lazy, since I think many people would accept that at least some times it would be because the case was clear cut. In case it also wasn't obvious, when I made the statement 'whenever someone has a problem with someone or someone gets in trouble it's clearly everyone else who is at fault' I was also being sarcastic. My later comment was pointing out it doesn't make sense, since it's not possible for everyone else to be at fault all the time, otherwise it means no one is ever at fault and everyone is at fault. 13:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(Unsmall) I thought your irony was obvious, your implied smear not worth response, and your underlying implication off. My complaint is not of personal mistreatment toward me by admins, but that those who populate ANI fora tend to be far too arbitrary in their actions. Inaction by admins is far worse than action. Concise ANI reports are often met with the complaint that not enough has been documented to take action. Detailed reports on the other hand will be met with Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read. Blatant wp:3rr violations will be winked at when the admin is sympathetic to the POV being pushed. "I am not interested in the technical details of the issue and I don't want to be bothered to read the diffs (but am closing the report anyway)" is quite common. Received opinion gets far more respect than objective enforcement of the rules, and to complain is to yell at a brick wall. All too often the reality is that clear-cut technical violations will be ignored if the admin's own POV on the matter isn't being gored. And if action is taken it will be the moral-equivalent expedient of blocking the article rather than its abuser. If admins don't want to do the grunt work objectively and conscientiously they shouldn't have the position. They have become an incestuously self-selecting class of sinecure holders no different in their bureaucracy than tenured academics or the Catholic priesthood, with the same institutional results. Term limits and an admin lottery would go far toward curing that. μηδείς ( talk) 16:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Is the report cited here available online? Thanks. Apokrif ( talk) 18:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I think this is it. Marco polo ( talk) 19:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Marco polo. I myself did look but could not find. You used google translate? In any case, once again you show your merit. μηδείς ( talk) 22:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Actually, I can make out a bit of Danish without Google. Marco polo ( talk) 00:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I also found it but Marco polo had posted by then. I don't have his language skills but it helps somewhat that I happen to be Danish ;-) There are many Danish media stories about it but I couldn't find one with a link so I went to the website of the Integration Ministry and found a list of publications. [3] It also listed the related [4] published the same day 28.04.2011. PrimeHunter ( talk) 03:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Be aware that even the people who was behind the rapport criticised the conclusion posed in the article posted by the OP (Danish article, I am afraid). The rapport could only be said to conclude that immigration was a a net negative, if you manipulated the figures (that is, did not remove expenses on the budget that would have appeared even without immigration). The leader of an opposition party stated that without that manipulation the rapport actually stated they were a net benefit. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 09:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

When I sell my shares in a company, to whom am I selling them? Conversely, from whom am I buying shares? 166.205.10.235 ( talk) 19:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Generally, someone who is offering to buy shares, and someone who is offering to sell shares, respectively. Various types of trades allow you to further specify the subset of offers that you'll match with. Our stock market article, and related articles, provide additional context. — Lomn 20:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

In practice, that other party may be a large institutional investor like a mutual fund. This is particularly true if the stock is listed in a major index; large portions of the equity of many large corporations is owned by such large investors (Apple 71%, Microsoft 72%, GE 52%, Ford 64%). If one of those large funds elects to change its position at the time you're in the market, it's quite likely that that's who you'll be buying from/selling to. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 22:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Depending on the market and the stock, there may also be a market maker. In rare circumstances the buyer/seller may be the company itself - in the case of an IPO/SPO or other equity offering, you may be buying stock in a company from the company itself. Conversely if a share repurchase is underway you may be selling the company's stock back to it. And in cases where a company is going in or out of government ownership, you may be dealing with that government (or some government-owned financial corporation). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 22:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

If you are selling your shares to the public, that's who can buy them. Literally, anyone with the cash may purchase them; though as noted most stock trading goes on at the institutional level. That is, if you are selling your company's shares via an initial public offering. You can also sell shares of your company privately. If your company is a Privately held company it may still be organized into "shares" which aren't publicly traded. These types of securities are called Private equity. -- Jayron 32 02:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)~ reply

Wikipedia has an article about the Initial public offering (IPO) process of raising capital for a company by selling shares through banks known as "underwriters". Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 11:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Most likely unless you are talking about shares on the order of 10s of thousands or more, you are probably going through a stock brokerage. The stock brokerage buys your shares and the brokerage house deals in larger quantities directly with the corporations or mutual fund large scale purchasers. Googlemeister ( talk) 18:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

See our article Electronic communication network, though it's a little jargony. When you put your 100 shares of AAPL up for sale, you can either set a price (see limit order) or you can sell them at whatever the current market cost is. If you set a limit order of US$390, then this order goes up on the ECN and whenever some random person out there wants to buy some AAPL at 390 then your sale will be triggered and you'll sell the shares to whatever random person or company issued their buy order. If you had sold them with a market order, on the other hand, that order, too, would go up on the ECN and whatever shares are available at the cheapest current price are the shares the system will purchase for you. Comet Tuttle ( talk) 20:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply