text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 4

Science and theology
RK, the reason for this is that only recently some avowed Haredim have joined the project. And frankly, there is a fair bit of bias when anthropological or revisionist research on Judaism is taken without a pinch of salt. Indeed, historical research is seen as heretical because the inevitable conclusion of such research is something that clashes with the Jewish principles of faith. Some faith is irreconcileable with science, especially when the science is somewhat subjective in itself, almost pathetically rejecting classical Jewish sources as proof because they happen to be religious sources. Scrupulous adherence to NPOV should iron out the differences, but I do believe there's a fair bit of mending to do. JFW | T@lk  17:30, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Once you imply that you view scientists and archaeologists as heretics, you show endanger your ability to work on this project. I still think you two fail to understand the point of thi encyclopedia project. This is not a religious Jewish encyclopedia, and none of our particles follow an orthodox Jewish point of view. Similarly, this is not a not a religious Christian or Muslim encyclopedia. No religion has the right to make sure that they agre with our articles. Rather, Wikipedia is a non-religious encyclopedia which states all known facts in accord with our NPOV policy. If a certain believes X, we say that According to Orthodox Jews, X is true, but according to other groups, Y is true, and according to the nearly unanimous findings of modern science, Z is true. That is all that the adherents of any religion can hope for. RK 12:30, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * Insisting that the current archeological/anthropological/sociological view of Jews, Judaism, Torah, Jewish history, etc. is "fact" and therefore NPOV is a grave misunderstanding of both the meaning of the word "fact", and the intent of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Stating that "a, b, and c are the views of archeologists/anthropologists/sociologists while x, y, and z are the traditional Jewish views" is NPOV.  However, I've already had to edit a number of articles on Jewish-related topics (some of which you were heavily involved in creating or editing to begin with) which say things like "Jews used to believe x, y, and z, but archeologists/anthropologists/sociologists have proved them wrong because of a, b, and c."  This violates NPOV in all sorts of ways, is endemic in many of the less scrutinized articles on Jewish related topics, and I believe this is what JDwolff was referring to. Jayjg 15:44, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, I agree with you that we must phrase all statements in acord with NPOV policy. However, many of the findings of scientists and historians are facts. There is no misunderstanding. The world really is spherical, and not flat, as a literal reading of the Bible tells us. The world really is .5 billion years old, and not 6,000 years old, as as a literal reading of the Bible tells us (the same reading still accepted by most Orthodox Jews.) Life today really did evolve from earlier forms of life, despite that fact that most Orthodox Jews deny this. The patriarch Abraham did not wear a modern day kipa and tallit, and study in a yeshiva, despite the anachronistic teachings of some rabbis. Similarly, all historians and archaeologists are convinced that the Torah we have today has been redacted together from a number of earlier sources (i.e. the documentary hypothesis), and not a single reputable historians holds otherwise. RK

In fact, none of this is contrary to Orthodoxy! In Orthodox Judaism itself a great change in thinking has taken place over the past 100 years, and many Orthodox Jews now believe that the world really is 4.5 billion years old, and that evolution does take place. Also, despite a belief to the contrary, many Orthodox Jews have changed their minds on the documentary hypothsis, and now accept some form of it! (I can e-mail you details and references on this point; I wouldn't make such a claim without multiple references.) RK 13:36, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, you said that you found some articles which said things like "Jews used to believe x, y, and z, but archeologists/anthropologists/sociologists have proved them wrong because of a, b, and c." "This violates NPOV in all sorts of ways... and I believe this is what JDwolff was referring to."

 * I understand your point; but in the past Jews really did believe W, X, Y, and Z, but now, since modern science and history, many Jews really did change their minds. Now I understand that many religious Jews are very upset about this. And we can say this within the article. I understand that on points W, X, Y and Z most Orthodox Jews have not changed their minds, but Orthodox Jews are only a small fraction of Jews living today. In the USA most synagogue-going Jews who practice Judaism their faith are not Orthodox. So to maintain NPOV we have to say that Orthodox Jews today believe W, X, Y, and Z, but due to changes in science and history, non-Orthodox Jews believes in W and X, but Y and Z have been modified or dropped, etc. This is factually true, and is stated in a neutral sort of way. RK 13:28, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * RK, in the areas of archeology and history, what "scientists" say are not "facts" in the same was as what they say regarding the atomic weight of various atoms. Rather they are hypotheses which are quite often debated, with paradigms being overturned on a regular basis.  Now, it is true that some historical facts can be stated as such; for example, the dates of the reign of Queen Victoria are undisputed.  However, other historical "facts" are indeed disputed; for example, the date which the Book of Daniel was written.  The former are based on documented and unambiguous evidence; the latter is based primarily on linguistic theories and analysis.  And it is the latter areas which tend to impinge most strongly on the articles in question.  Whether or not many Jews have come to believe the views of archeologists or historians or whoever is not relevant to NPOV, but saying that Jewish beliefs have been "proved wrong" in these kinds of areas definitely does violate NPOV. Jayjg 04:46, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I am Ok with this. As you may have noted, I have not reverted any of your edits; I was just trying to clarify my thinking on this issue. RK 20:06, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * And I appreciate that. However, what I have often had to NPOV was the exact kind of bias referred to at the top of this section; not Orthodox vs. science, but a consistent pushing of the Conservative POV as correct (and an undercurrent that the Orthodox view is fundamentalist and backward), often combined with a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues involved.  Jayjg 23:54, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I've been away for week or two, and I've been strawmanned rather badly. RK, I do not endanger my objectivity by stating that Orthodoxy considerers some scientific ideas heretical. I am merely stating that this is the Orthodox POV, to which I adhere in person, but I am not arguing against inclusion of these ideas, as long as they are kept seperate and under a clear banner that this is science rather than Judaism. You cannot claim that Judaism now believes that the world is 4.5 billion years old. You can state that in recent times, Jewish scientists and religious authorities have found ways to harmonise the scientific and midrashic accounts. If you could email me your quotes on the documentary hypothesis, I'd be most indebted. JFW | T@lk  09:33, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Since I misunderstood you, I apologize. But you may misunderstand me as well. I did not claim that our articles must say something like Judaism now believes that the world is 4.5 billion years old due to advances in science. Rather, I basically said that due to advances in science that most Jews have come to accept as reliable, most Jews have come to reinterpret their traditional religious beliefs. I want our articles to point out that today most Jews, including many Orthodox Jews, do believe that the world is 4.5 billion years old. We also must point out that many within Orthodoxy reject the findings of modern science, and believe that Earth is only 6,000 years old. I will e-mail you the material on Orthodoxy and the documentary hypothesis. RK 16:41, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

At my mother's Sephardic Synagogue, the issue of Creation vs. Evolution was never a problem. I read a book by Gerald Shroeder (and Orthodox Nuclear Physicist), and it seemed to rectify the "contradiction" quite nicely. So it seems there are Orthodox who do, and Orthodox who don't, have a problem with evolution.--Josiah 14:55, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this effort started with the Tifereth Yisrael (a 19th century Mishnah commentator) trying to fit the recently-found dinosaur bones into the context of midrashim. Still, many present-day haredi authorities shirk all these efforts, and even the Tif. Yis. treatise Drush Or ha-Chaim is slightly controversial. Therefore, one cannot simply claim that Orthodoxy now accepts that the universe is 4.5 x 109 years old. This lies at the heart of my disagreements with RK on many issues. Instead of changing the traditional view as described (e.g. "Orthodoxy accepts homosexuality"), it may be entirely more helpful to distinguish between normative positions (e.g. the Shulkhan Arukh and its glosses), and only then mentioning any recent "progress" in these matters.

 * But I did not say that! I said that some within Orthodoxy accept this view, and some do not. This is not a position of Orthodox versus non-Orthodox. This is a debate within the Orthodox Jewish community itself. RK 16:41, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

 * It's rarely (if ever) a debate within the Orthodox community. Rather, these kinds of statements are usually included as an attempt to support non-Orthodox acceptance of these positions, by pointing out that some Orthodox Jews believe these things as well.  As such, they are also promoting the Reform (and often Conservative) point of view. Jayjg 01:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Jayjg, this claim is absolutely wrong. Please take the time to read the many Orthodox Jewish sources I just gave on this issue. They are written by well known and respected Orthodox rabbis and scholars! This really is an inter-Orthodox debate. Anyone who told you otherwise must have been an Orthodox Jew who is trying to deligitimize all other Orthodox Jews, and present them as non-Orthodox. (I also must protest about the way that the terms "Reform" and "Conservative" are effectively being used as insults.) RK

 * I have seen those sources. In fact, they are very a small number of Orthodox writers, who are presenting their attempts to reconcile Science and Torah.  They are not debating anyone, and I am not aware of any Orthodox debates on the issue; if you are aware of Orthodox authors or authorities "debating" this topic with other Orthodox authors or authorities, please bring them forward.  As for the rest: 1) Please stop trying to personalize this discussion.  No-one has "told me otherwise", so any agendas you have invented are imaginary. 2) The terms "Reform" and "Conservative" have in no way been used as an insult, unless you think that stating the Reform and Conservative movements have a point of view is an insult. Jayjg 16:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Jayjg, these are word games. There most certainly is a debate between Orthodox Jews who advocate the views I mentioned, and Orthodox Jews who perceive these views as mistaken or even heretical. We can use any word we like for this ongoing Orthodox debate. You can call it a dispute, debate, argument, discussion, or anything else! But the word itself isn't important, the ideas are. When you start arguing about the choice of words, instead of the actual phenomenon, it looks as if you wish to avoid the topic. Some people are unable to recognize the significant changes within Orthodox Judaism in the last 200 years, but there are plenty of Orthodox Jews who admit that they debate (or discuss, dispute, argue, whatever) with other Orthodox views. RK 00:31, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

 * On the contrary, your use of the word "debate" implies that this is an important area of conflict within Orthodoxy. In fact, there is little conflict; some Orthodox Jews feel one way, some feel another, and most tend to ignore it.  There is no real conflict between the groups on these issues, they simply do not find them important enough to argue about. Jayjg 02:17, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * You are arguing against a point that I never made. You seem to be agreeing that all the points I made are factually correct, but take offense at the idea that there is some sort of angry "conflict" going on within Orthodoxy. I am not making any such claim! I agree with you that no such angry conflict exists within Orthodox Judaism. But that is not what the words "disagree" or "debate" mean. Scientists are debating about the nature of the quark, and about the nature of the photon. Democrats are debating about the best way to create campaign ads to promote their candidates. But this does not mean that people in these groups are in some kind of angry "conflict". You are reading confrontational things into my words that are not there. RK 03:01, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

 * "Angry" is your word, not one I stated or implied. I disagree that there is even a "debate" about it in Orthodox Judaism. Orthodox Jews have different beliefs on this, and Orthodoxy accomodates both. Attempts to suggest any more than that are "making hay" to promote an agenda, specifically the agenda that "although many Orthodox Jews are ignorant and backward, not all of them are, and there's no need for them to be so backward anyway, the enlightened Reform and Conservative Jews have accepted the scientific view, and even some enlightened Orthodox Jews have accepted it, and they are fighting hard against their ignorant brethren to promote that view within Orthodoxy". Jayjg 15:38, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * If you disagree that there is even a "debate" about it in Orthodox Judaism, then I can only sadly say that you are totally ignorant of this particular subject. I cannot have a conversation with someone who knows nothing about the topic. However, the good news is that in the city where I live, we have four Orthodox Jewish synagogues, from Modern Orthodox to Ultra-Orthodox, and they know about and participate in this debate. Your denial of reality does not affect any of them. In fact, nothing you (or I) say will affect them. Their friendly disagreements and debates will exist, whether you admit they do not or not, whether you approve of not. As it should be. RK

 * Are you saying that these synagogues get together and hold debates on the subject? Speakers from synagogue A give the pro-Science position, speakers from synagogue B give the anti-Science position, and then they debate with each other?  Orthodoxy is full of different positions on various subjects, but that does not mean they are debates.  If one person ties their tefillin one way, and another ties it another, that's not a debate.  If one person waits 3 hours after eating meat to eat dairy, and another six, that's not a debate.  Jayjg 21:21, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Challenge: Torah Views on Science, is a publication of the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists (AOJS), a mainstream Orthodox Jewish group. It it wrong to question their religious credentials, and falsely accuse them of pushing Reform and Conservative views, while only pretending to be Orthodox Jews. That is lashon hara. This WikiProject is about standardizing Wikipedia articles on Judaism, and is not a platform for attacks against all Orthodox Jews who happen to study science and find it compatible with Orthodox Judaism. Our articles may, of course, note that some Orthodox Jews find such thinking non-Orthodox or heretical, but we must also note that this is an inter-Orthodox dispute, and not a dispute between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews. RK

The authors of the articles in this book include: Rabbi Aryer Carmell, yeshivat Devar Yerushalayim; Cyril Domb, Professor of Theoretical Physics at King's College, London University, President of the British AOJS; Nachum L. Rabionovitch, Principal of Jews' College, Longdon; for year he served as a Rav in Tortonto; Alvin Radkovsky, Professor of Nuclear Engineering and Physics at Tel Aviv University; Rabbi Israel Lipschitz; Rabbi Zvi H. Chajes, noted Talmud commentator; Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook; Rabbi E. E. Dessler; Professor Sanford Aranoff, University of the Negev; Rabbi Simon Schwab; Rabbi Norman Lamm, Yeshiva University RK 15:20, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

 * No-one has challenged the Orthodox credentials of these people, or "accused" them of being Reform or Conservative. Please stop inventing straw-man arguments.  The issue is whether or not this is an inter-Orthodox debate, which is a different question. Jayjg 16:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Charges of really "not being Orthodox" and of "being Reform in disguise" have unfortunately been a common tactic in inter-orthodox disputes. However, those who wish to write on this subject should read some of the the many books and rabbinic journals written in the Orthodox community, when we do so we find a wide variety of views on these subjects. RK

 * Perhaps they have, but this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Please read my statements more carefully next time; they say exactly what they mean, no less, and certainly no more. Jayjg 16:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For RK's ears: halakha does not need the documentary hypothesis to arrive at justifiable conclusions. The tool that halakhists have employed for centuries is called ta'uth sofer (scribal error), and is not controversial at all. Yet, this tool is not used on the scriptures (at all), but it has been employed extensively in arriving at the present-day editions of the Talmud (e.g. by the Vilna Gaon and by Jacob Emden). JFW | T@lk  12:06, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I have no idea what you are talking about. Why would you believe that I think that we need the documentary hypothesis to arrive as justifiable conclusions? RK

 * I suspect JFW is referring to your earlier claim that despite a belief to the contrary, many Orthodox Jews have changed their minds on the documentary hypothsis, and now accept some form of it! Jayjg 16:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Again, I do not understand the charge made against me. Indeed, many Orthodox Jews have changed their mind (references and quotes available on requst.) That is an inter-Orthodox dispute. Currently, any Orthodox Jew who accepts the DH, however, is considered mistaken, or even heretical. Acceptance of the DH is, as a sociological reality, not an Orthodox position. (Whether or not it should be, however, is a different issue.) RK 00:31, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

 * Again, your use of the word "dispute" implies that Orthodoxy is fighting about this in some significant way. It's simply not an inter-Orthodox issue; some believe one thing, some believe another, and they don't much care to argue about it.  Now if you were to bring up the issue of, say, the value of secular learning, that indeed is an inter-Orthodox dispute.  However, for whatever reason, "Science vs. Torah" debates simply don't happen within Orthodoxy; each individual believes what he wants, and thats the end of it. Jayjg 02:17, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * You are arguing against a point that I never made. You seem to be agreeing that all the points I made are factually correct, but take offense at the idea that there is some sort of angry "conflict" going on within Orthodoxy. I am not claiming that Orthodoxy is fighting about this in some significant way. You are reading confrontational things into my words that are not there. RK 03:01, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

 * You have again added the word "angry", which I neither stated nor implied. I disagree that there is even a "debate" about it in Orthodox Judaism.  Orthodox Jews have different beliefs on this, and Orthodoxy accomodates both. Jayjg 15:29, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And, RK: since modern science and history, many Jews really did change their minds (your quote) does not affect Judaism. Many Christians, lehavdil, claim to be Christians but are in doubt whether their deity was in fact resurrected. Does that change anything in the "official" Christian stance on this?? JFW | T@lk  12:06, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Here you are now attacking many Orthodox Jews, including Orthodox rabbis. Maybe you do not think that Judaism has changed, but it has. Many Orthodox Jews have views that have changed in the last 150 years, due to advances in science. The same is true for nearly all non-Orthodox Jews. It is thus a historical, indisputable fact that Judaism has changed. Only a small group of ultra-Orthodox Jews, angry at their co-religions, deny otherwise. They claim that Judaism has not changed at all, and that anyone who believes differently from them is a heretic who rejects Judaism. RK

 * JFW is not "attacking" anyone; please tone down this kind of immoderate rhetoric. As for the rest, if you think an Orthodox responsa on the use of electricity means that Judaism has "changed", or an Orthodox view attempting to reconcile modern cosmology with Bereishis means that Judaism has "changed", then I understand your position.  However, most Orthodox Jews would not view either of these things as "change" at all, but rather standard parts of the Orthodox process.  As for the aspersions you cast on "angry" "ultra-Orthodox" Jews, they display a bias which all too often creeps into the Wikipedia articles as well. Jayjg 01:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * What are you talking about? Why do you and JFW keep changing subjects, and talking about halakha? I never spoke about that subject at all. I was specifically talking about theology. RK 15:04, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, you weren't specific at all; you said that "Judaism has changed", but did not indicate what part of Judaism you meant. Thank you for clarifying that you meant Jewish theology. Jayjg 16:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can you give a good example where science has changed the interpretations of halakha? I can't think of one. Do you mean exact sciences or the humanities? Judaism has changed - absolutely. But I am not sure if it's that science that's doing it. My comment was aimed at your claim that "many Jews did change their minds". This does not, as a rule, dictate halakha. Just that many people speak leshon ha-ra does not mean the laws do not apply anymore! As for the documentary hypothesis bit, I'm eagerly awaiting your response. I might have been ranting against a nicely dressed-up strawman in my statement above. JFW | T@lk  16:56, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * You are refuting a claim I did not make. I was not talking about halakha (practical law); I was specifically talking about beliefs (theology). As far as I can tell, we are in agreement on this issue. Scientific discovery, in of itself, can not change halakha. Halakha is a legal system, not physics. Sure, rabbis can use discoveries in science as one factor, among many, to clarify or change halakha, should they wish. But (for Jews who consider halakha normative, like Orthodox and even Conservative) changes in halakha have to follow the halakhic process. RK

 * Orthodox Judaism has very few fundamental beliefs; Maimonides thought there were 13, and this is widely accepted, though there have been other counts. If a non-fundamental belief that many Orthodox Jews hold changes, how does this mean Jewish beliefs or theology has changed? Jayjg 01:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I never claimed anything of the sort. You seem to believe that Judaism has no theology at all, except for Maimondies 13 principes of faith. Traditional Jewish theology covers many topics, not just those 13 propositions. Look, if you are saying that on the tiny number of core points of Jewish theology, no changes have occured, I could, in some form. agree with you. But then again, I never said otherwise. Jewish theology has always included hundreds of points on many issues. By the way, many Orthodox Jews strongly disagree with us; they hold that accepting a 4.5 billion year old world is rejecting the words of the Torah, and thus hold that such Orthodox Jews are heretics. RK 15:31, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure what you're saying any more. If you're not talking about halakha, and you're not talking about fundamental principles of faith, then exactly what "Jewish theology" is it that you think has changed? Jayjg 16:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Jayjg, if you want to discuss this issue, you have to do some serious reading on it first. The vast majority of Jewish theology has had little to do with Maimonides' 13 principles of faith! For well over 1,000 years works on Jewish theology have included issues regarding the creation of the universe, the creation of Earth, the nature of the soul and the human body, the creation of life on Earth, and in some rabbinic works even speculation on the existence of life outside of Earth. Thus, as I said above, the changes that Orthodox Jews today have on the following issues are - by definition - changes in Jewish theology. I cannot understand where you were told that Jewish theology covered such a tiny array of issues. Just read the works of Saadya Gaon, Gersonides or Maimonides, and see the vast array of Jewish theology topics that they discuss. RK

 * I've read these works, RK. But if you imagine that Maimonides and Saadiah differ on issues of the age of the Universe, you would be mistaken.  In fact, they don't discuss it. Nor did they discuss life on other planets (though Maimonides spent quite a bit of time discussing the Aristotelean cosmology, and considered spheres to be life-forms (probably intelligent)).  And all the ancient Jewish writers agree that G-d created the Universe. But it's still not clear why you think the particular issues you have listed below are issues of Jewish theology; the only one I can see that possibly counts it (e), Documentary hypothesis, which does contradict Orthodox theology.  Possibly (c) as well, depending on what you mean by it.  Jayjg 02:17, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * (A) The world is 4.5 billion years old; not 6000 years old.
 * (B) The universe is over 10 billion years old; not 6000 years old.
 * (C) All life on Earth today was not created by God. Rather, life on Earth has evolved over time.
 * (D) Life, possibly intelligent life, may exist on other planets.
 * (E) The documentary hypothesis is a valid way of describing the history of how the Torah came to its current form.

Jayjg, Maimondies most certainly does discuss the age of the universe, and in fact this is one of the most controversial parts of his Guide of the Perplexed. He goes on at great lengths over the idea that the universe has a set age, versus the idea that it is literally eternal (i.e. has always existed and will always exist.) Further, it doesn't matter whether you personally have somehow decided that these issues are not a part of Jewish theology. They always were, and are still recognized as such by many Orthodox Jews. Your persona; disagreement with them is none of my business. In any case, we can discuss this point via private e-mail, if you wish, but this has nothing to do with WikiProject Judaism. RK 03:01, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

 * Maimonides disagrees with the Greek idea that the Universe that the Universe has always existed, and so agrees with modern cosmology. As for what I "personally decide" is part of Jewish theology, I am not making those decisions; rather, I am challenging your attempts to make those unilateral decisions. Jayjg 15:29, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not jokinh, Jayjg: I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. You are continually imputing positions and beliefs to me that I do not have, and the attacking me for them. No one is making a unilateral attempt to force Orthodox Jews to say or believe anything. You are just getting angrier and angrier about things no one is doing. What has come over you? Until last week, you and I got along fine. Now you are angry, making accusations, refuting positions I do not have, etc. Calm down. RK 19:42, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

 * Please stop trying to impute emotions to me; I'm not interested in personal discussions. We are "getting along" as "fine" as we ever did, no better, no worse.  More importantly, how we are "getting along" is completely irrelevant; the topic at hand is Orthodox theology, and what you consider to be part of it. Please proceed. Jayjg 21:05, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * BTW, what do you think of the section on The Halakhic process in the halakha article? As far as I can tell, this represents a mainstream view of the halakhic process. RK

 * I have not read that section, and won't (as I'm about to break my fast). But: could you state other "theological" issues that have changed due to scientific findings? JFW | T@lk  20:51, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here are some huge changes in Jewish theology that were driven by religious Jews accepting scientific findings as factual. As you note, of course, not every Jew has changed their theology; these changes occured in much of Modern Orthodox, and all of Conservative Reform and Recon. Judaism. Also, note that many of the below positions are not only the Conservative point of view. The following is also from a Modern Orthodox point of view; I will add Orthodox references. Also, note that until recently such claims were considered to be a denial of the mesorah (Jewish tradition), and thus were seen as heretical. Today, most religious Jews see such views as compatible with Jewish theology.

(A) The world is 4.5 billion years old; not 6000 years old. (B) The universe is over 10 billion years old; not 6000 years old. (C) All life on Earth today was not created by God. Rather, life on Earth has evolved over time. (D) Life, possibly intelligent life, may exist on other planets. (E) The documentary hypothesis is a valid way of describing the history of how the Torah came to its current form.

Orthodox Jewish sources on how Jewish theology has been changed by science

Aviezer, Nathan. In the Beginning: Biblical Creation and Science. Ktav Publishing House; 1990. Hardcover. ISBN 0-881253-28-6.

Branover, Herman (ed.); Attia, Ilana Coven (ed.). Science in the Light of Torah: A B'or Ha'Torah Reader. Jason Aronson; 1994. Hardcover. ISBN 1-568210-34-5.

Carmell, Aryeh and Domb, Cyril, eds. Challenge: Torah Views on Science. New York: Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists/Feldheim Publishers, 1976. ISBN 0-873061-74-8.

Kaplan, Aryeh. Immortality, Resurrection and the Age of the Universe: A Kabbalistic View. Ktav Publishing House; 1993. Hardcover. ISBN 0-881253-45-6.

Schroeder, Gerald L. The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom. Broadway Books; 1998. Paperback. ISBN 0-767903-03-X

Non-Orthodox Jewish sources on how Jewish theology has been changed by science

Genesis, Science, and "Scientific Creationism" Jeffrey H. Tigay, Conservative Judaism, Vol. 40(2), Winter 1987/1988, p.20-27

The Effects of Science on Jewish Law Elliot Dorff, Conservative Judaism, Vol.40(2) Winter 1987/1988 p.52-60

In A Beginning...Quantum Cosmology and Kabbalah Joel R. Primack and Nancy Ellen Abrams, Tikkun, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 66-73

 * 1. Please give specific references for specific beliefs.
 * 2. Please explain in what way these authors represent Orthodox theology.
 * 3. Please explain which of these "new" beliefs contradict fundamental Orthodox theology.

--Jayjg 01:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I just did give you specific references. They are listed above. I have some in my own personal library. But why do you seem to be questioning the credentials of these people? You didn't even look at the contents of these references yet. RK 15:31, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

 * No, those are general references, names of books and articles, not specific references to specific issues. In fact, I also own a number of those references, so I have indeed looked at their contents.  As for the Strawman argument suggesting that I have questioned the credentials of all of these people, please cut it out already. Jayjg 16:34, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I will not reduce myself to playing your word games. Until recently you have been a nice guy, but now you are just insulting me. Every one of these books and aricles are specific references to specific issues; the problem is that you are refusing to read them. Are you actually demanding that I type in the contents of all these books and articles? Stop the childish games and read the books; stop denying that they examine specific issues. This is not funny any longer. RK 00:20, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

 * RK, you're over-reacting again. Please calm down and return to the discussion. Jayjg 02:17, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Science on homosexuality effecting Halakha
Question:Is this how science should shape and influence Halakha or should one avoid it if one can?:

As an example, it may be interesting to see RK's "A Teshuva on Homosexuality" at http://members.tripod.com/~djs28/kaiser.html which states that "In recent decades scientists have discovered that in addition to obvious physical variations, there are different sexes based on one's sex chromosomes...Studies have shown that most homosexuals do not choose their sexual orientation; they are born with it in exactly the same way that heterosexuals are...As Rabbi Elliot [Dorff] notes in his teshuva on homosexuality...homosexuality should no longer be considered an abomination, for that implies that the person could choose to do otherwise... Along these lines, the CCAR [Reform] Responsa On Homosexual Marriage (5756.8) reads: The rule is ones rachmana petarei, "one is legally exempt for acts committed under duress";...This can be said to apply to our case, where homosexual behavior results from an orientation which, whatever its cause, is beyond the control of the will of the individual...Some people are indeed bisexual; these people do have a choice in whether they want to be with a man or a woman. For all such cases, the prohibition against homosexuality is valid and binding. However, the revolutionary idea presented here is that Jews who take the Written and Oral Torah seriously are indeed forbidden from applying this law to any homosexual person who is inherently gay by nature. The ramifications of such an understanding are enormous. (1) Rabbinical seminaries should allow innate homosexuals to obtain smicha (rabbinical ordination). (2) The traditional view is that God created man in his own image, and yet the text of the Written Torah implies that God considers many of his own creations as abominations...''I feel compelled to remark that I did not come to these conclusions lightly, or as a result of deliberately trying to find a way to allow homosexuals to become rabbis. Indeed, for many years I looked upon such ideas as outside the bounds of legitimate Jewish thought. However, as I began to learn more both about Jewish law and about human physiology, it became more and more clear to me that the traditional Jewish view on homosexuality was both halakhically as well as scientifically indefensible.''....Note: GayJews.Org does not endorse this teshuva or any other non-orthodox teshuvot per se. We provide it as a public service only." This is a very interesting example pertinent to the discussion/s. IZAK 03:16, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * For some time I have been unable to contant the editors of that website. That old essay does not explain my current views on the subject. My original essay has been reviewed by some rabbis since then, and it has been expanded and clarified in many areas. No one should base their understanding of my views on this earlier version of my essay. RK

 * In any case, why are my personal ideas pertinent to the discussion? Wikipedia is not for personal research; that is a long-standing Wikipedia policy. Our articles only discuss theories and positions already extant in the community. Thus, we should discuss the published positions of rabbis and rabbinical organizations, but not our own beliefs (no matter how tempting it may be!) RK

Any discussion of this subject should take place in Talk:Jewish views of homosexuality.

Archiving and deleting discussions
Jayjg writes "RK, you can't keep archiving or deleting discussions you find discomfiting. If you want to archive something, archive the older inactive parts of this Talk"

 * Jajyjg, stop your personal attacks. I never once did any such thing. Rather, as is standard Wikipedia practice in all of our articles and Talk pages, I spun off a large topic into its own article. Wikipedians have been doing this on many Talk pages for years, long before you arrived. This accusation against me was terrible; stop assuming that I am an evil and deceitful person. I never deleted or hid any material. Your claims to the contrary require an apology. RK 03:08, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

 * No, RK, it is standard Wikipedia practice in Talk: pages to spin off older material into archives. It is not standard practice to leave old material in the live Talk: page, and archive the on-going discussions.

 * Yes, it is standard Wikipedia practice. In fact, people generally automatically move text once it hits 40 kb. This article was over 70Kb long. Current disussion then continues on the main page. Archiving text does not mean that discussion is over. This happens on many other articles as well. Anyone who told you otherwise is misleading you, in order to start a fight between us. RK

 * Again, this is simply not the case. Older or inactive material is often archived from Talk: pages, but current conversations are not.  If you have examples of where current conversations are being archived, I'd love to see them.  And please avoid all this extraneous personal commentary and conspiracy theory promulgation ("in order to start a fight etc."). Jayjg 20:58, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * As for deleting and hiding material, while I never claimed you hid any material, you did indeed delete 153.90.199.52's comments, which I had to restore; you then "archived" that on-going discussion while it was still in progress. This is also what you said you were going to do with our on-going discussion about science and Orthodoxy, and you were indeed successful in removing the material, but you somehow never managed to actually place it in the Archive.  In any event, to claim that archiving on-going Talk: discussions is standard Wikipedia practice is disingenuous at best. Jayjg 16:01, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Huh? I am not aware of any material that was moved and left out of the archive. If out of the four archives that were created recently, some material was left out, then it was a simple accident and very easy to fix. However, instead of merely mentioning this, you publicly attacked me as a dishonest person trying to hide a conversation that I was uncomfortable with. And now again you are making this insinuation again. For the past month everything has been fine between this, but now you are insulting me. Please stop, and get back to the business that we are both here for. RK

 * The entire Science and Torah talk that was removed was not put in the archive. And I did indeed merely mention it, I made no attacks.  As for 153.90.199.52's comments, you said you were going to delete them, and then proceeded to do so.  Deleting comments from Talk: pages is very WikiNaughty.  As for the rest, please stop making everything personal here; you are seeing insinuations and attacks where none exist. Jayjg 20:58, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


text:
Pah Rah Range

The Pah Rah Range is a mountain range located in western Nevada in Washoe County just to the northeast of Reno. It is a hook shaped range with the main eastern portion oriented northwest–southeast, approximately 20 mi long. The northwest flowing Cottonwood Creek in Warm Springs Valley is bounded on three sides by the range. To the south and east the Truckee River forms the boundary and Pyramid Lake is at the northeast. Spanish Springs Valley north of Reno forms the southwest margin. To the north, the narrow Mullen Pass separates the Pah Rah Range from the Virginia Mountains.

The highest peaks (in order from south to north) are Pond Peak (elevation 8035 ft), Virginia Peak (elevation 8357 ft) and Pah Rah Peak (elevation 8249 ft). In the southwest portion Spanish Springs Peak (elevation 7404 ft) is the highest. Both Pond Peak and Virginia Peak host several radio towers. Virginia Peak is also the site of a doppler radar station.

Interstate 80 follows the Truckee River basin to the south of the range. Nevada State Route 445 follows the Spanish Springs Valley to the west of the range, Nevada State Route 446 crosses through Mullen Pass to the north and Nevada State Route 447 follows the lakeshore and the Truckee Valley on the east side of the range.

The Pyramid Lake Indian Reservation occupies the eastern portion of the range.

"Pah Rah" is a Paiute term which translates roughly to "Lake Mountain" in reference to Pyramid Lake adjacent to the northeast margin of the range. This term applies to the Virginia Mountains better. This apparent mix-up is likely due to confusion on the part of the early surveyors of the region.

Olinghouse mining district
The former community and historic mining district of Olinghouse is located in the southeastern foothills of the Pah Rah Range about 8 mi WNW of Wadsworth, Nevada and 2 mi east of Pond Peak. The mines of the district produced gold from placer deposits and veins associated with granite porphyry dikes in a faulted basaltic to andesitic volcanic terrain of Oligocene to Miocene age. Mining for gold as collector's specimens occurred during the late 1990s and early 2000s.

The area had four names: White Horse, McLanesville, Ora and finally Olinghouse. The district and the former town that served it were named for Elias Olinghouse, who settled there and ran a mule team transport service.

The Olinghouse post office was in operation from October 1903 until July 1923.

Fauna of Pah Rah Range
Wildlife of the range include pronghorn antelope, bighorn sheep, coyote, mountain lion and the wild horse. The bighorn was seen wandering in the foothills of the range in Sparks(Wingfield Springs). It is thought to be from a group of bighorns transplanted to the nearby Virginia Range. Bird species include golden eagles, prairie falcons and red-tailed hawks.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Pah Rah Range


text:
Harold Jeffreys

Sir Harold Jeffreys, FRS (22 April 1891 – 18 March 1989) was a British geophysicist who made significant contributions to mathematics and statistics. His book, Theory of Probability, which was first published in 1939, played an important role in the revival of the objective Bayesian view of probability.

Education
Jeffreys was born in Fatfield, County Durham, England, the son of Robert Hal Jeffreys, headmaster of Fatfield Church School, and his wife, Elizabeth Mary Sharpe, a school teacher. He was educated at his father's school and at Rutherford Technical College, then studied at Armstrong College in Newcastle upon Tyne (at that time part of the University of Durham) and with the University of London External Programme.

Jeffreys subsequently won a scholarship to study the Mathematical Tripos at St John's College, Cambridge, where he established a reputation as an excellent student: obtaining first-class marks for his papers in Part One of the Tripos, he was a Wrangler in Part Two, and in 1915 he was awarded the prestigious Smith's Prize.

Career
Jeffreys became a fellow of St John's College in 1914, retaining his fellowship until his death 75 years later. At the University of Cambridge he taught mathematics, then geophysics and finally became the Plumian Professor of Astronomy.

In 1940, he married fellow mathematician and physicist, Bertha Swirles (1903–1999), and together they wrote Methods of Mathematical Physics.

One of his major contributions was on the Bayesian approach to probability (also see Jeffreys prior), as well as the idea that the Earth's planetary core was liquid.

By 1924 Jeffreys had developed a general method of approximating solutions to linear, second-order differential equations, including the Schrödinger equation. Although the Schrödinger equation was developed two years later, Wentzel, Kramers, and Brillouin were apparently unaware of this earlier work, so Jeffreys is often neglected when credit is given for the WKB approximation.

Jeffreys received the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1937, the Royal Society's Copley Medal in 1960, and the Royal Statistical Society's Guy Medal in Gold in 1962. In 1948, he received the Charles Lagrange Prize from the Académie royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique. He was knighted in 1953.

From 1939 to 1952 he was established as Director of the International Seismological Summary further known as International Seismological Centre.

The textbook Probability Theory: The Logic of Science, written by the physicist and probability theorist Edwin T. Jaynes, is dedicated to Jeffreys. The dedication reads, "Dedicated to the memory of Sir Harold Jeffreys, who saw the truth and preserved it."

It is only through an appendix to the third edition of Jeffreys' book Scientific Inference that we know about Mary Cartwright's method of proving that the number $\pi$ is irrational.

Opposition to continental drift and plate tectonics
Jeffreys, like many of his peers, staunchly opposed the concept of continental drift as put forth by Alfred Wegener and Arthur Holmes. This opposition persisted even into the 1960s among his colleagues at Cambridge. For him, continental drift was "out of the question" because no force even remotely strong enough to move the continents across the Earth's surface was evident. As geological and geophysical evidence for continental drift and plate tectonics mounted in the 1960s and after, to the point where it became the unifying concept of modern geology, Jeffreys remained a stubborn opponent of the theory to his death.

Honours and awards

 * Fellow, Royal Society, 1925
 * Adams Prize, 1927 (Constitution of the Earth)
 * Gold Medal, Royal Astronomical Society, 1937
 * Buchan Prize, Royal Meteorological Society, 1929
 * Murchison Medal of Geological Society (Great Britain) 1939
 * Victoria Medal, Royal Geographical Society, 1941
 * Charles Lagrange Prize, Brussels Academy, 1948
 * Royal Medal, 1948
 * William Bowie Medal, American Geophysical Union, 1952
 * Knighted, 1953
 * Copley Medal, Royal Society, 1961
 * Vetlesen Prize, 1962

title: Harold Jeffreys


text: Category:Bulgarian politicians

title: Category:Bulgarian politicians


text: Category:Politics of Bulgaria

title: Category:Politics of Bulgaria


text:
User:Jengod/McDougall

James Alexander McDougall (November 19, 1817–September 3, 1867) was an American politician.

Born in Bethlehem, New York, he was educated in the common schools, studied law, and settled in Pike County, Illinois in 1837. He practiced law in Cook County, Illinois.

In 1842 and 1844 he was elected Illinois Attorney General. He then entered the field of engineering and in 1849 originated and accompanied an exploring expedition to Rio del Norte, Gila and Colorado Rivers. After his adventures came to an end, he settled in San Francisco to practice of law.

He was elected California Attorney General in 1850, served several terms in the California state legislature, and in 1852 was sent to the 33rd Congress as a Democrat. (He declined renomination in 1853.)

McDougall was elected to the United States Senate in 1860 and served until 1867. During his time in the Senate he served as chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Pacific Railroads.

McDougall was known as a "War Democrat," and was a delegate to the Chicago convention that nominated General George B. McClellan for president. On the expiration of his senatorial term he retired to Albany, New York. He was an eloquent and effective speaker.

He was originally buried in Lone Mountain Cemetery in San Francisco, that cemetery was renamed Calvary; his remains were reinterred at Holy Cross Cemetery in Colma, California in 1942.

title: User:Jengod/McDougall


text:
Mike Boddicker

Michael James Boddicker (born August 23, 1957) is an American right-handed former Major League Baseball pitcher for the Baltimore Orioles (1980–1988), Boston Red Sox (1988–1990), Kansas City Royals (1991–1992), and Milwaukee Brewers (1993). He was the ALCS MVP in 1983 and was an American League All-Star in 1984.

Early years
Boddicker was born in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on August 23, 1957. His ancestors (Johan & Elisabeth (Jacobi) Boddicker) emigrated in 1861 from the village of Brilon, Province of Westphalia, which was situated in current-day Germany, and were among the original settlers of Norway, Iowa, where he was raised. He was the youngest of five children to Harold and Dolly. His father, who was commonly known as Bus, operated a travelling hammermill for grain milling before becoming a custodian at the local elementary school. He is a distant cousin of the musician Michael Boddicker.

He was drafted by the Montreal Expos in 1975, but decided to attend the University of Iowa. He was a First-team All-Big Ten pitcher in 1978 and third-team All-Big Ten as an infielder in 1976. In 1978, he led the NCAA with an average 11.5 strikeouts per game. He held school records with six career shutouts and 0.79 ERA in a season. He led the team in innings and strikeouts in 1978 and 1979 and led the team in batting average in 1978 (.350) and doubles in 1978 (9) and 1976 (9). He finished his career with 189 strikeouts, ranking in the top 10 in school history.

Baseball career
Boddicker's pitching repertoire, once called "Little League slop" by Rod Carew, featured off-speed pitches and deception to compensate for a lack of power. He was able to throw from three different arm angles. He had a fastball that never came close to reaching 90 miles per hour. The one pitch that made him famous was the fosh, which he called "a glorified changeup." Another one he used with success was the slurve. Tony Phillips once commented, "What I noticed about him is that he lets you get yourself out. I find myself sometimes actually jumping at his pitches, being overanxious because he doesn't throw very fast, and I wind up popping the ball up."

Boddicker had a win–loss record of 134–116 with a 3.80 ERA during his career. In his rookie season, 1983, he went 16–8 with a 2.77 ERA and led the majors with five shutouts. Perhaps his best season was 1984, when he went 20–11 with a 2.79 ERA (leading the American League in both wins and ERA). He also won the Gold Glove Award in 1990.

Boddicker had a notable performance in the 1983 postseason. With his team down 1–0 in both the ALCS and World Series, Boddicker pitched his team out of the hole by winning Game 2 of the ALCS 4–0 against the Chicago White Sox (complete game shutout) and Game 2 of the World Series 4–1 against the Philadelphia Phillies en route to a world championship. After going 0–8 with a 5.83 ERA to begin the 1988 campaign, Boddicker rebounded with a 6–4 record and a 2.95 ERA in his last 13 starts with the Orioles. On a team that lost its first 21 games of the season and was never in postseason contention, he was traded to the Boston Red Sox for Brady Anderson and Curt Schilling on July 29, 1988, two days prior to the non-waivers trade deadline. Contending for the American League East title, the Red Sox outbid the Minnesota Twins and Oakland Athletics to land him. Boddicker went 7–3 down the stretch for the Sox, helping them win the AL East crown that year. He went 15–11 in 1989 and in 1990 went 17–8 with a 3.36 ERA while helping the Red Sox win another division title.

After signing with the Royals, he finished 12–12 with a 4.08 ERA in 1991, his last full season (30 games). After his contract was purchased by the Brewers, he pitched 54 innings for them in 1993, his final year. He finished 3–5 with a 5.67 ERA that year.

title: Mike Boddicker


text:
The Waitresses

The Waitresses were an American new wave band from Akron, Ohio, best known for their singles "I Know What Boys Like" and "Christmas Wrapping." They released two albums, Wasn't Tomorrow Wonderful? and Bruiseology, and one EP, I Could Rule the World If I Could Only Get the Parts.

The group was led by guitarist-songwriter Chris Butler with lead vocals performed by Patty Donahue.

History
The Waitresses were formed by Butler (formerly of the Numbers Band) in 1978 as a side project while he was still a member of Tin Huey. He wrote and recorded "I Know What Boys Like" that year, with guest vocals by friend Donahue (as "Patty Darling") and saxophone from Tin Huey member Ralph Carney, although the song remained unreleased at the time. A debut single, In "Short Stack" (featuring the songs "Slide" and "Clones"), recorded solely by Butler, was issued by Clone Records in 1978. Both tracks from the single, plus another early song, "The Comb", appeared that year on The Akron Compilation, issued by Stiff Records.

Butler moved to New York City and shopped "I Know What Boys Like". The song landed him a deal with ZE Records (an affiliate of Antilles Records), who released the single in 1980. It was an underground hit, but did not chart. With the deal in place, Butler put together an actual band lineup for the Waitresses, featuring lead vocalist Donahue, jazz saxophonist Mars Williams, former Television drummer Billy Ficca, keyboardist Dan Klayman, bassist Dave Hofstra and backing vocalist Ariel Warner. The Waitresses played their debut concert on New Year's Eve 1980.

1981 saw the band record its first and most successful album and its most enduring hit. During the recording sessions for the album, Wasn't Tomorrow Wonderful?, Warner resigned from the band due to stage fright. Later that year, Hofstra quit. He was replaced by Tracy Wormworth, who would supply the bass line for "Christmas Wrapping", a Christmas song written by Butler in August at ZE's insistence.

The Waitresses released Wasn't Tomorrow Wonderful? on January 11, 1982, on the Polydor label, licensed from ZE. It peaked at No. 41 in the Billboard 200 chart. The album included "I Know What Boys Like", which was re-released as a single later in the year and peaked at No. 62 on the Billboard Hot 100, No. 23 on Billboard's Top Tracks chart, No. 14 on the Australian Singles Chart (Kent Music Report), and also charted in the UK. "Christmas Wrapping", originally released on the ZE Records album A Christmas Record in 1981, became a No. 45 hit in the United Kingdom in 1982.

The Waitresses recorded the theme song to the television program Square Pegs, starring Sarah Jessica Parker and Amy Linker, which aired during the 1982–1983 season, and the band appeared as themselves in the pilot episode. Polydor issued the song as a single in 1982, and included it (along with "Christmas Wrapping") on the 1982 EP I Could Rule the World If I Could Only Get the Parts.

The band's second album, Bruiseology, was released by Polydor in May 1983. In the summer of 1983, Donahue left the band and was replaced by Holly Beth Vincent, formerly of Holly and the Italians, but Vincent herself left after just two weeks and Donahue returned.

The Waitresses split up later in 1983.

Post-breakup and Legacy
Butler later worked as a producer, and played with numerous bands and artists including Half Cleveland, Purple K'nif and Richard Lloyd. Ficca played in Gods and Monsters and returned to his former group Television when they reunited in 1991. Williams played with the Psychedelic Furs, NRG Ensemble, Liquid Soul, Hal Russell and Ken Vandermark. Williams died of ampullary cancer at the age of 68 on November 20, 2023. Wormworth has played bass for the B-52's since 1992.

Donahue died of lung cancer at the age of 40 on December 9, 1996. King Biscuit Flower Hour Presents the Waitresses, a live album recorded in 1982 at My Father's Place in Roslyn, New York, was issued in 1997 by King Biscuit Flower Hour. Polydor issued two compilation albums, The Best of the Waitresses (1990) and 20th Century Masters – The Millennium Collection: The Best of The Waitresses (2003). In 2013, Omnivore Recordings released the compilation Just Desserts: The Complete Waitresses, collecting virtually all of the band's recordings for Polydor, while ZE Records issued a digital collection of their ZE releases, Deluxe Special: Ze Complete Recordings.

"Christmas Wrapping" was covered by the Spice Girls in 1998, as the B-side of their single "Goodbye", which peaked at number 1 in the UK. A version of "I Know What Boys Like" recorded by English female pop duo Shampoo reached No. 42 on the UK Singles Chart in September 1996. The first line in the debut single by American recording artist Chris Brown, "Run It!" references "I Know What Boys Like". "Run It!" topped the charts in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. VH1 named the song the 82nd greatest one-hit wonder of all-time in 2002 as well as the 34th greatest one-hit wonder of the 1980s in 2009.

Personnel

 * Chris Butler – guitar, backing vocals (1978–1983)
 * Patty Donahue – lead vocals (1980–1983, 1983, died 1996)
 * David Hofstra – bass guitar (1980–1982)
 * Billy Ficca – drums (1980–1983)
 * Dan Klayman – keyboards, organ (1980–1983)
 * Ariel Warner – backing vocals (1980–1982)
 * Mars Williams – saxophone, reed instruments (1980–1983, died 2023)
 * Tracy Wormworth – bass guitar, backing vocals (1982–1983)
 * Holly Beth Vincent – lead vocals (1983)

title: The Waitresses


text:
Mustafa Osman Ismail

Mustafa Osman Ismail (born 1955 in Dongola, Sudan) was the head of the National Congress Party, the ruling party in Sudan. Ismail was the Foreign Minister of Sudan from 18 February 1998 to 18 September 2005.

His main job as foreign minister was to be the government's main spokesman in diplomatic efforts to solve the Sudanese civil wars. He was the longest-serving foreign minister in Sudanese history. He was replaced by southerner Lam Akol when the national unity government took office. Ismail was appointed Presidential Advisor after stepping down as Foreign Minister. He has been on many official trips abroad and has been criticized as being an active shadow Foreign Minister for the National Congress Party. His tireless efforts at unsuccessfully mediating crises outside of Sudan, roles in the domestic politics of the National Congress Party and his long tenure in public office have drawn the scorn and criticism of certain sections of the Sudanese media.

title: Mustafa Osman Ismail


text:
Tommy Farr

Thomas George Farr (12 March 1913 – 1 March 1986) was a Welsh boxer from Clydach Vale, Rhondda, nicknamed "The Tonypandy Terror". Prior to 1936, Farr boxed in the light heavyweight division, in which he was the Welsh champion. He became British and Empire heavyweight champion on 15 March 1937. Farr is considered to be one of the greatest British heavyweight fighters ever, and was inducted into the Welsh Sports Hall of Fame in 1997.

In the United States, Farr is remembered for his 1937 world title challenge against Joe Louis. Considered one of Louis' toughest ever fights, the bout lasted the full 15 rounds and the large crowd saw Farr hurt Louis on numerous occasions. However the final result was controversial, being a wide unanimous decision in favour of Louis, with the referee awarding him the fight thirteen rounds to one, while the judges scored the fight eight to five and nine to six, both in Louis's favour. The announcement of the decision was roundly booed by the spectators. The bout was named The Ring magazine Fighter of the Year for 1937.

Early career
In his early career he didn't have much success. He garnered some wins but losses specked his record every two or three wins. Most of his losses were against unknowns. He soon started improving, with a win over top contender Tommy Loughran in 1936. In 1937 he bested ex-champion Max Baer and earned a title shot against Joe Louis.

World title fight vs Joe Louis
On 30 August 1937, Farr fought world heavyweight champion Joe Louis at the height of his career at Yankee Stadium, New York City. He earned respect despite losing a controversial points decision after 15 rounds. Louis had knocked out eight of his previous nine opponents and proceeded to knock out his next seven, but was attacked and hurt by Farr. The 50,000 crowd booed when Louis won. Referee Arthur Donovan, Sr. had seemingly raised Farr's glove in victory, causing controversy. Seven years later, in his published account of the fight, Donovan apologised for the 'mistake', claiming he had meant to shake Farr's hand to congratulate him for what he saw as an impressive fight. "Mistakes" hardly ended there, however. Donovan's own scorecard, had 13 rounds going to Louis.

Though mixed accounts say Louis deserved the nod, 13 frames out of 15 prompted these words from a British sportswriter: "The verdict is that of a man either blindly partisan or afflicted with astigmatism. It is a verdict that justifies the beliefs that nothing short of the annihilation of Louis would have given Farr victory. That Louis won may not be disputed, but as I read the fight, there was only a fractional difference in his favour at the finish." However, In Donovan's account, he stands by his scoring of the fight, claiming that while Farr's punches may have appeared to have done more damage than Louis's from the crowd's point of view, from his perspective and that of the ringside judges the opposite was true.

Contrary views of the fight's result continued for many years. In The Encyclopedia of Boxing, as compiled by Gilbert Odd in the 1980s, Tommy's listing concludes its thumbnail on the championship bout with "...Louis came back strongly and clinched a narrow points verdict." The actual ferocity of the battle and its level of competition, seldom contested, may be summed up by Tommy Farr, later on in life: "When I talk about that fight, my nose still bleeds."

Later career
After the Louis fight, Farr was unsuccessful in several contests at Madison Square Garden, New York. These included a ten-round fight on 21 January 1938, against former heavyweight champion James J. Braddock, "the Cinderella Man". He also lost to Max Baer the same year, even though he had defeated him before. Farr returned to the UK early in 1939, enjoying a run of victories that year. He retired in 1940, but personal tragedies saw him lose his fortune. He ended up bankrupt, having to return to the ring at the age of 36 to make a living, during this time, he was taken under the wing of businessman Lesie T.Salts, the owner of Gwrych Castle. Farr later ran a pub in Brighton, Sussex, in final retirement, and died on Saint David's Day, 1986, aged 72. He is buried at Trealaw Cemetery.

In popular culture
In 2007, Contender, a musical based on Farr's career, was composed by Mal Pope and premiered at the United Nations building in New York, followed by a season at Swansea's Grand Theatre. A theme of the musical is that Farr's lack of success in the US resulted wholly from his refusal to co-operate with fight-fixing mobsters and bookmakers.

Notable bouts

 * style="text-align:center;" colspan="7"|
 * - style="text-align:center; background:#e3e3e3;"
 * style="border-style:none none solid solid; "|Result
 * style="border-style:none none solid solid; "|Opponent
 * style="border-style:none none solid solid; "|Type
 * style="border-style:none none solid solid; "|Rd., Time
 * style="border-style:none none solid solid; "|Date
 * style="border-style:none none solid solid; "|Location
 * style="border-style:none none solid solid; "|Notes
 * - align=center
 * Loss
 * align=left| Don Cockell
 * TKO
 * 7 (12)
 * 1953-03-09
 * align=left|Ice Rink, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire
 * align=left|
 * - align=center
 * Loss
 * align=left| Lloyd Marshall
 * PTS
 * 10
 * 1950-12-04
 * align=left|Market Hall, Carmarthen
 * align=left|
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * align=left| Larry Gains
 * TKO
 * 6 (10)
 * 1939-05-17
 * align=left|Ninian Park, Cardiff
 * align=left|
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * align=left| Red Burman
 * PTS
 * 10
 * 1939-04-13
 * align=left|Harringay Arena, Harringay, London
 * align=left|
 * - align=center
 * Loss
 * align=left| Red Burman
 * PTS
 * 10
 * 1939-01-13
 * align=left|Madison Square Garden, New York, New York
 * align=left|
 * - align=center
 * Loss
 * align=left| Lou Nova
 * PTS
 * 15
 * 1938-12-16
 * align=left|Madison Square Garden, New York, New York
 * align=left|
 * - align=center
 * Loss
 * align=left| Max Baer
 * UD
 * 15
 * 1938-03-11
 * align=left|Madison Square Garden, New York, New York
 * align=left|
 * - align=center
 * Loss
 * align=left| James J. Braddock
 * SD
 * 10
 * 1938-01-21
 * align=left|Madison Square Garden, New York, New York
 * align=left|
 * - align=center
 * Loss
 * align=left| Joe Louis
 * UD
 * 15
 * 1937-08-30
 * align=left|Yankee Stadium, Bronx, New York
 * align=left|For World Heavyweight Title. 1937 Fight of the Year by The Ring Magazine.
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * align=left| Walter Neusel
 * KO
 * 3 (12)
 * 1937-06-15
 * align=left|Harringay Arena, Harringay, London
 * align=left|
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * align=left| Max Baer
 * PTS
 * 12
 * 1937-04-15
 * align=left|Harringay Arena, Harringay, London
 * align=left|
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * align=left| Ben Foord
 * PTS
 * 15
 * 1937-03-15
 * align=left|Harringay Arena, Harringay, London
 * align=left|
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * align=left| Bob Olin
 * PTS
 * 10
 * 1936-04-02
 * align=left|Royal Albert Hall, Kensington, London
 * align=left|
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * align=left| Tommy Loughran
 * PTS
 * 10
 * 1936-01-15
 * align=left|Royal Albert Hall, Kensington, London
 * align=left|
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * align=left| Frank Moody
 * KO
 * 4 (12)
 * 1935-12-21
 * align=left|Greyfriars Hall, Cardiff
 * align=left|
 * - align=center
 * style="background:#abcdef;"|Draw
 * align=left| Frank Moody
 * PTS
 * 15
 * 1935-08-14
 * align=left|White City, Cardiff
 * align=left|
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * align=left| Del Fontaine
 * PTS
 * 12
 * 1934-09-03
 * align=left|Mannesmann Hall, Swansea
 * align=left|

title: Tommy Farr