text:
Alka-Seltzer

Alka-Seltzer is an effervescent antacid and pain reliever first marketed by the Dr. Miles Medicine Company of Elkhart, Indiana, United States. Alka-Seltzer contains three active ingredients: aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) (ASA), sodium bicarbonate, and anhydrous citric acid. The aspirin is a pain reliever and anti-inflammatory, the sodium bicarbonate is an antacid, and the citric acid reacts with the sodium bicarbonate and water to form effervescence.

It was developed by head chemist Maurice Treneer. Alka-Seltzer is marketed for relief of minor aches, pains, inflammation, fever, headache, heartburn, stomach ache, indigestion, acid reflux, and hangovers while neutralizing excess stomach acid. It was launched in 1931.

Its sister product, Alka-Seltzer Plus, treats cold and flu symptoms. A wide variety of formulae, many using acetaminophen (paracetamol) instead of aspirin, are available under the sister brand.

Product information
Alka-Seltzer is a combination of sodium bicarbonate, aspirin, and anhydrous citric acid used for the relief of heartburn, acid indigestion, and stomach aches. Alka-Seltzer is sold in foil packets, each containing two tablets. Prior to 1984, it was also available stacked in glass tubes. It is available in many different flavors.

It was once marketed as a cure-all; at one time, its ads even suggested taking it for "the blahs". Subsequent promotion has taken into consideration that aspirin is a drug that is not tolerated by everyone, and the product is no longer advertised in this fashion.

Alka-Seltzer marketed as an antacid no longer contains aspirin (ASA). The original effervescent formula has aspirin as its main active ingredient, and is marketed for pain relief.

Chemistry of the effervescence
Though important to the overall effect of the medication, the aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) is not required to produce the effervescent action of Alka-Seltzer; the effervescence is produced by the baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) and citric acid reacting to form sodium citrate and carbon dioxide gas.

Marketing
The product has been extensively advertised since its launch in the United States. It was originally marketed by Mikey Wiseman, a company scientist of Dr. Miles Medicine Company, who also helped direct its development.

History
Print advertising was used immediately, and in 1932 the radio show Alka-Seltzer Comedy Star of Hollywood began, with National Barn Dance following in 1933, along with many more. The radio sponsorships continued into the 1950s, with the Alka-Seltzer Time show airing from 1949 to 1957.

In his 1976 revival, American actor and radio performer Richard Beals proclaimed Alka-Seltzer's virtues and sang the "Plop, plop, fizz, fizz, oh what a relief it is" song in his iconic high, squeaky voice. In the early 1960s, a commercial showing two tablets dropping into a glass of water instead of the usual one caused sales to double.

Alka-Seltzer TV ads from the 1960s and 1970s in the US were among the most popular of the 20th century, ranking number 13, according to Advertising Age. To increase sales in a relatively flat business, Bayer revived several of the vintage spots.

During the race for space in the early 1960s before the Moon landing, there was a commercial with Speedy in a space suit and a jingle with the lyrics "On Man's first trip through space, I only hope that I'm aboard, securely strapped in place. They'll track our ship with radar and telescopes and soon, imagine seeing Speedy Alka-Seltzer on the moon!"

George Raft starred in the 1969 Alka-Seltzer commercial "The Unfinished Lunch". It consisted of Raft incarcerated in a prison lunchroom. He takes a bite of the prison food and recoils. Suddenly he bangs his cup on the steel table. It ripples throughout the room. He starts intoning "Alka-Seltzer, Alka-Seltzer..." Soon, the other hundreds of inmates do the same. (The commercial became so popular that several weeks later, Raft appeared as a guest on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson. Raft told Carson that it took more than 7 hours to tape the 30-second commercial. Raft was enraged by the end of the day, thus making his inmate portrayal that much more convincing for the final editing. The film crew gave Raft his crumpled tin cup, which he showed to Carson and the audience.

An animated mid-1960s commercial, animated by R. O. Blechman, shows a man and his own stomach sitting opposite each other in chairs, having an argument moderated by their therapist in a voiceover. The stomach (voiced by Gene Wilder) accuses the man of purposely trying to irritate it. The man accuses his stomach of complaining too much about the foods he likes. The therapist suggests Alka-Seltzer and that the two must take care of each other. The closing words are of the stomach saying to the man: "Well, I'll try — if you will."

Alka-Seltzer had a series of commercials during the mid-1960s that used a song called "No Matter What Shape (Your Stomach's In)". A different version was recorded by The T-Bones and was released as a single, which became a hit in 1966. The ads featured only the midsections (no faces) of people of all shapes and sizes. A clip of the ad can be seen briefly in the 1988 motion picture The In Crowd, immediately before the movie's first live broadcast of the fictitious "Perry Parker's Dance Party."

In an Alka-Seltzer commercial from 1969, an actor named "Jack" (played by Jack Somack) in a commercial for the fictional product "Magadini's Meatballs" has to eat a meatball and then say "Mamma mia, that's-a spicy meat-a ball-a!" in an ersatz Italian accent. Take after take is ruined by some comedic trial or another (comedian Ronny Graham dropping the clapperboard). By the commercial's end, Jack has eaten so many meatballs that it's "Alka-Seltzer to the rescue." With his stomach settled, Jack does a perfect take, except that the oven door falls off. The director (off-camera) sighs and says, "OK, let's break for lunch."

A 1970 commercial shows a newlywed couple in the bedroom after the woman (played by Alice Playten) has finished serving her husband (played by Terry Kiser) a giant dumpling; the implication is that her cooking skills are severely lacking, despite her husband's lament, "I can't believe I ate that whole thing!", the commercial's catchphrase. She lies on the bed in delusional triumph. She offers her beleaguered husband a heart-shaped meatloaf; he disappears to take some Alka-Seltzer. When she hears the fizzy noise coming from the bathroom, he quickly covers the glass of dissolving Alka-Seltzer as she wonders aloud if it is raining. Just when he has recovered his well-being, he hears her misreading recipes for dinner the next night: "Marshmallowed meatballs," "medium salad snails," and "pouched (actually poached) oysters". He returns to the bathroom for more Alka-Seltzer. The catchphrase, Howie Cohen told the Los Angeles Times, was inspired when he ate too much of the food at a London commercial shoot because "I am a nice Jewish kid from the Bronx, so I ate everything," and when he told his wife "I can't believe I ate the whole thing", she said, "There's your next Alka-Seltzer commercial."

A 1971 commercial featured another catch-phrase from Cohen (along with Bob Pasqualina), "Try it, you'll like it!" It was remade with Kathy Griffin in 2006. In 1972, an actor (Milt Moss) spent the commercial moaning, "I can't believe I ate that who-o-o-o-o-ole thing" while his wife (Lynn Whinic) made sarcastic comments and finally advised him to take some Alka-Seltzer. In 2005, this ad was also remade, featuring Peter Boyle and Doris Roberts from the 1996–2005 TV sitcom Everybody Loves Raymond.

In 2009, the brand was featured in television commercials supporting the United States Ski Team that included alpine skier Lindsey Vonn and Nordic combined skier Bill Demong. Miniature figures of the Speedy mascot were shown with each. Alka-Seltzer products are sold in nighttime and daytime, or nondrowsy, formulas. The non-drowsy claims have recently been questioned.

Speedy and "Plop, plop, fizz, fizz"
In 1951, the "Speedy" character was introduced. The character was conceived by creative director George Pal of the Wade Advertising agency and designed by illustrator Wally Wood. Originally named Sparky, the name was changed to Speedy by sales manager Perry L. Shupert to align with that year's promotional theme, "Speedy Relief". Speedy appeared in over 200 TV commercials between 1954 and 1964. His body was one Alka-Seltzer tablet, while he wore another as a hat.

Buster Keaton appeared along with the animated Speedy Alka-Seltzer figure in a series of 1950s commercials based on the product slogan, "Relief is just a swallow away." Speedy Alka-Seltzer was voiced by Dick Beals.

Paul Margulies (father of actress Julianna Margulies) created the famous "Plop, plop, fizz, fizz" ad campaign when he worked as a Madison Avenue ad executive. The ubiquitous jingle was composed by Tom Dawes, a former member of The Cyrkle. The slogan was altered to "Plink, plink, fizz" in the United Kingdom.

Speedy was revived for a "Plop, plop, fizz, fizz" song spot in 1976.

Sammy Davis, Jr., recorded two versions of the "Plop Plop Fizz Fizz" jingle in 1978, one of which (the "big band" version) was featured on a television commercial. Both the big band and rock versions had additional lyrics (with at least one verse unique to each song) written by Tom Dawes, former lead singer of The Cyrkle who wrote the original jingle.

Speedy was again revived in 2008 when Alka-Seltzer began a series of new commercials featuring him (using a CGI character created by animation director David Hulin to recreate the stop-motion puppetry of the 1950s and 1960s); in these ads, he was voiced by Debi Derryberry.

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

title: Alka-Seltzer


text:
Talk:The Winstons

Untitled
Saw the article on breaks and amen break and thought it unfair that the drummer wasn't mentioned in the article, did a search on the web and added the band members and the fact that it was a B-side Kevinb 22:45, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Winstons


text:
Carl Schurz Park

Carl Schurz Park is a 14.9 acre public park in the Yorkville neighborhood of Manhattan, New York City, named for German-born Secretary of the Interior Carl Schurz in 1910, at the edge of what was then the solidly German-American community of Yorkville. The park contains Gracie Mansion, the official residence of the Mayor of New York.

Description

Carl Schurz Park overlooks the waters of Hell Gate and Wards Island in the East River, and is the site of Gracie Mansion (built for Archibald Gracie, 1799, enlarged c. 1811), the official residence of the Mayor of New York since 1942. There are tours of the restored building every Wednesday. The park's waterfront promenade is a deck built over the Franklin D. Roosevelt East River Drive, enclosing the roadway except on the side facing the East River. The park is bordered on the west by East End Avenue and on the south by Gracie Square, the extension of East 84th Street to the river. The East River Greenway, part of the Manhattan Waterfront Greenway, passes along the promenade platform.

The park contains winding, shady paths, green lawns, waterfront views, basketball courts, a large playground for children, and two dog runs: one designated for larger dogs and one for smaller dogs. The park is maintained by Carl Schurz Park Conservancy, the oldest park conservancy in New York City, in partnership with the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation.

History
The bluff overlooking a curve in the East River at this point was named by an early owner, Siebert Classen, "Hoorn's Hook", for his native Hoorn on the Zuider Zee. The first house on the site was built for Jacob Walton, a few years before the Revolution, when the picturesque location suddenly gained tactical importance in the control of the East River. In February 1776, the house and grounds were commandeered for an American battery of nine guns on the site. This drew British fire on September 15, 1776, in a mopping-up operation to secure all of Manhattan Island following the Battle of Long Island; the bombardment demolished Walton's house and forced an American withdrawal. The British kept an encampment on the site until Evacuation Day, 1783. Archibald Gracie leveled the remains of the star fort and constructed his timber-framed villa Gracie Mansion in 1799.

The section of the park lying south of 86th Street (set aside as "East River Park" in 1876), where John Jacob Astor once had a villa, was used as a picnic ground when the northern section was acquired by the City of New York in 1891. The easternmost block of 86th Street was acquired subsequently, and the street de-mapped. A new landscape design by Calvert Vaux and Samuel Parsons was completed in 1902, several years after Vaux's death.

East River Park was renamed Carl Schurz Park in 1911. The park was reconstructed in 1935 by Robert Moses, due to the creation of the FDR Drive, with revised landscaping by Maud Sargent. The park's restoration from a neglected state in the early 1970s was due to the energies of a neighborhood group, the not-for-profit Carl Schurz Park Conservancy (incorporated 1974), formed originally to clean up the park's single playground.

Carl Schurz Park served as the location for the climactic fight scene in Spike Lee's 2002 film 25th Hour, starring Edward Norton and Philip Seymour Hoffman.

title: Carl Schurz Park


text:
User talk:Rochure

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:46, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Cebu.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Cebu.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Lapu-lapu City logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Lapu-lapu City logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Beyonce Experience
Thank you for putting a source from Wneedham02's unreferenced contribution. BritandBeyonce 12:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Santander Cebu.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Santander Cebu.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for all Philippine Government logo
'''Section 176. Works of the Government.''' - 176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit. Such agency or office may, among other things, impose as a condition the payment of royalties. No prior approval or conditions shall be required for the use of any purpose of statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in meetings of public character.

Rochure 20:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Danao-City logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Danao-City logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lapu-lapu City logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Lapu-lapu City logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rochure


text:
Killough massacre

The Killough massacre is believed to have been both the largest and last Native American attack on white settlers in East Texas. The massacre took place on October 5, 1838, near Larissa, Texas, in the northwestern part of Cherokee County. There were eighteen victims, including Isaac Killough, Sr., and his extended family (viz. the families of four sons and two daughters). They had immigrated to the Republic of Texas from Talladega County, Alabama, in 1837.

Context
Apparently unaware that the land made available to them was hotly disputed by the Cherokee Indians who lived in the area, Isaac Killough and his homesteaders began clearing land for crops and building homes. Only a year earlier, however, the area surrounding their settlement had been set aside for the Cherokee under a treaty negotiated and signed by Sam Houston and John Forbes. When the Republic of Texas Senate refused to ratify the treaty and then, in December 1838, formally nullified it, the Cherokee, who already thought they had conceded enough, became homicidal.

The influx of Anglo settlers into lands thought to have been theirs increased Cherokee resentment, and as there was also residual bitterness among some Hispanics still loyal to Mexico, the atmosphere in the region became tense in early 1838. By the summer of that year, there were rumblings of coming insurrection from either or both of those factions, and evidence existed for collusion between them.

Fearing this growing unrest, Killough with his relatives and friends fled to Nacogdoches for refuge. On condition they would leave the area after doing so, the Cherokee leaders agreed to their safe passage if they would return simply to harvest their crops. They did so. But on October 5, 1838, a band of Cherokee who had not been party to the agreement attacked the settlement. Most of the Killough group—a total of eighteen—were killed or abducted as they worked their fields. Those who survived fled for a time to Lacy's Fort on the San Antonio Road, just west of present-day Alto, Texas.

According to Tyler, Texas, newspaperman Charles Kilpatrick, several of the men walked into an ambush and the Native Americans then: "...shot down Allen and Samuel, George Wood, and Isaac Jr., then swept uphill into the little settlement. Isaac Sr. fell in his yard and Barakias Williams was shot before the eyes of his womenfolk.

Warriors seized two 17-year-old girls, Elizabeth Killough and Elizabeth Williams, Mrs. Allen Killough, Mrs. George Wood and all the small children. They were carried screaming into the forest, never to be seen again.

Nathaniel Killough and his wife escaped into a canebreak, as did Mrs. Samuel Killough, Mrs. Isaac Killough Sr., Mrs. Isaac Killough Jr., and the baby, William. Three perilous days later they staggered into Fort Lacy, near Alto." A stone obelisk commemorating the event was erected by the Work Progress Administration in the 1930s, and a historical marker was dedicated in 1965.

title: Killough massacre


text: Category:Locusts

title: Category:Locusts


text:
User talk:Iisaphd

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:47, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

You have been warned about creating nonsense under anon IPs before this evening, please stop or you will be blocked from editing wikipedia. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:49, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Iisaphd I find that unpossible[sic]. I've never used wiki before today.

If you want I can find the IP under which the same nonsense stub was created containing exactly the same content as that which I deleted, created by this username. It was created earlier this evening.

 * At 22:39 on 30 Nov 2004, User:170.148.92.18 created Matthew McLaurine (speedily deleted as obvious vanity)
 * At 22:42 on 30 Nov 2004, the same user created Mclaurine (speedily deleted as obvious vanity)
 * At 22:46 on 30 Nov 2004, you recreated Mclaurine (speedily deleted as obvious vanity)
 * At 22:47 on 30 Nov 2004, you created McLaurine (speedily deleted as obvious vanity)
 * At 22:49 on 30 Nov 2004, you created Matt McLaurine (speedily deleted as obvious vanity)

Are you denying that any of these edits are yours? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, I was referring to your statement, "You have been warned about creating nonsense under anon IPs before this evening". I thought you were saying that I had been warned before (tonight) and was being a repeat offender. Sorry for taking your time. I did not realize that you could not create an entry for yourself. I was only trying to see the Wiki concept in action. Although I have used the encyclopedia before myself, I never knew what "Wiki" was until today. Iisaphd 01:50, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please excuse my bad grammar, there should have been a comma between before and this evening. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 11:42, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Iisaphd


text:
Keith Elliott

Keith Elliott, VC (25 April 1916 – 7 October 1989) was a New Zealand soldier who served with the New Zealand Military Forces during the Second World War. He was awarded the Victoria Cross, the highest award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces, for his actions in the First Battle of El Alamein.

Born in Āpiti, near Kimbolton, New Zealand in the Manawatū, Elliott was a farm manager when the Second World War began. He volunteered for service abroad with the Second New Zealand Expeditionary Force (2NZEF) and was posted to the 22nd Battalion. He saw action during the Battles of Greece and Crete and then in North Africa. By now a sergeant, during Operation Crusader in November 1941, he was one of 700 New Zealanders made prisoners of war when their position was overrun by the Germans. Freed two months later, he was serving as a platoon commander during the First Battle of El Alamein. After he was awarded his VC, he was promoted to second lieutenant, sent home to New Zealand and discharged from the 2NZEF.

Returning to civilian life, he resumed his farming career, but in 1948 became a priest. He shifted around the lower half of the North Island for the next several years, serving in a number of churches. He was also a chaplain in the Territorial Force. He retired from the priesthood in 1981 and died eight years later at the age of 73.

Early life
Keith Elliott was born on 25 April 1916 in Āpiti, New Zealand, one of nine children of a farmer and his wife. He was educated in nearby Feilding, firstly at Lytton Street School and then at Feilding Agricultural High School. He was unable to complete his formal schooling because in 1933, he had to drop out to work on the family farm. Two years later, he began managing a large farm at Marima.

Second World War
Elliott tried to enlist in the New Zealand Military Forces on hearing of the outbreak of the Second World War but was initially declined due to the poor state of his teeth. He was successful on a later attempt and in January 1940 he joined the Second New Zealand Expeditionary Force (2NZEF) that was raised for service overseas. He was posted to 22nd Battalion, commanded by a Victoria Cross winner of the First World War, Lieutenant Colonel Leslie Andrew. The battalion embarked for the Middle East as part of the Second Echelon of the 2NZEF but was diverted to England during transit. It arrived in England in June 1940, where it remained for the rest of the year on garrison duty. While in England, Elliott was promoted to lance corporal.

In early 1941, the Second Echelon was redesignated the 5th Infantry Brigade, 2nd New Zealand Division, and was sent to Greece as part of an Allied contingent set to counter a likely invasion by the Germans. His battalion was positioned at the Olympus Pass, and shortly after the invasion commenced, engaged advancing German tanks. The New Zealanders withdrew after a day, beginning a gradual retreat from the country. Evacuated to Crete on 25 April, 22nd Battalion was defending Maleme airfield when German paratroopers attacked on 20 May. The airfield was abandoned that evening much to Elliott's displeasure as his platoon was holding their positions. The Allies were eventually evacuated to Egypt a week later, but not before Elliott was wounded in the arm in a skirmish with enemy paratroopers.

North Africa
While the division was refitting and rearming following the fighting in Greece and Crete, Elliott was promoted to lance sergeant, then platoon sergeant. In November 1941, during Operation Crusader, his platoon was attached to the headquarters of the 5th Infantry Brigade for security. On 27 November, he, along with 700 other men, were captured when the headquarters was overrun by elements of Generalleutnant (Lieutenant General) Erwin Rommel's Afrika Corps, which had outflanked the Allies. He spent two months under harsh conditions in captivity before being liberated by South African troops. He lost a considerable amount of weight during his time as a prisoner of war. He rejoined the 2nd New Zealand Division which was refitting in Syria, but then contracted malaria and missed out on its hasty recall to Egypt and the subsequent fighting at Minqar Qaim.

On his recovery, Elliott rejoined the 22nd Battalion on 13 July 1942, in time for the First Battle of Alamein. The battalion was short of commissioned officers, and he found himself acting platoon commander for the forthcoming operation to capture Ruweisat Ridge. After commencing the attack early in the morning of 15 July, the battalion reached the ridge and began digging in. At daybreak, it was discovered that the New Zealanders had passed several German tanks during their advance the previous evening. Elliott spotted the tanks when they began advancing towards the 22nd Battalion's position at dawn and notified the commanders of nearby platoons. However, they believed the tanks to be British and disregarded Elliott's warning until the German tanks began attacking the battalion's positions. It was then that Elliott performed the actions that led to the award of the Victoria Cross (VC). The citation for his VC read:

"At dawn on 15 July 1942 the battalion to which Sergeant Elliot belonged was attacked on three flanks by tanks. Under heavy tank, machine-gun and shell fire, Sergeant Elliott led the platoon he was commanding to the cover of a ridge three hundred yards away, during which he sustained a chest wound. Here he re-formed his men and led them to a dominating ridge a further five hundred yards away, where they came under heavy enemy machine-gun and mortar fire. He located enemy machine-gun posts to his front and right flank, and while one section attacked on the right flank, Sergeant Elliott led seven men in a bayonet charge across five hundred yards of open ground in the face of heavy fire and captured four enemy machine-gun posts and an anti-tank gun, killing a number of the enemy and taking fifty prisoners. His section then came under fire from a machine-gun post on the left flank. He immediately charged this post single-handed and succeeded in capturing it, killing several of the enemy and taking fifteen prisoners. During these two assaults he sustained three more wounds in the back and legs. Although badly wounded in four places, Sergeant Elliott refused to leave his men until he had reformed them, handed over his prisoners, which were now increased to one hundred and thirty, and arranged for his men to rejoin the battalion. Owing to Sergeant Elliott's quick grasp of the situation, great personal courage and leadership, nineteen men, who were the only survivors of B Company of his battalion, captured and destroyed five machine-guns, one anti-tank gun, killed a great number of the enemy and captured one hundred and thirty prisoners. Sergeant Elliott sustained only one casualty amongst his men, and brought him back to the nearest advanced dressing station."

All of the 22nd Battalion, bar Elliott's platoon, were killed or captured during the fighting at Ruweisat Ridge. Some of the other battalions that participated in the battle also incurred heavy losses. Elliott managed to link up with elements of the 21st Battalion, the commander of which recommended him for the VC. Elliott was evacuated to hospital where he spent three months recovering from his various wounds before he returned to his battalion in September.

His VC was gazetted on 24 September 1942, but Elliott had learnt of his award the previous day. His divisional commander, Major General Bernard Freyberg, commissioned Elliott in the field as a second lieutenant shortly afterwards. He was presented with his VC ribbon by Lieutenant General Bernard Montgomery and was ordered to return to New Zealand. It is likely that this was due to the desire of military authorities to keep him out of harm's way following the recent capture of the division's other VC winner, Charles Upham, at Ruweisat. Elliott was unhappy at being sent home while his friends remained in the field. He was also uncomfortable with the attention he received from the public when he arrived back in New Zealand and remained modest about his achievements. He was discharged from the 2NZEF in December 1943 and resumed farming.

Later life
In February 1944, Elliott married Margaret Rachel Markham. The couple had first met before the war and would go on to have five children. Although he continued farming, he became interested in a career in the Anglican Church. Encouraged by a friend who had been a chaplain in the military, he began training for the priesthood in February 1946. He became a priest in 1948 and took up a curacy in Palmerston North, before becoming chaplain at the nearby Linton Military Camp. This entailed him joining the New Zealand Territorial Force with the rank of chaplain, 4th class.

For the next several years, Elliott moved around a number of parishes in the lower North Island. He also spent periods of time at the City Mission in Wellington. He was present at the unveiling of the Alamein Memorial in Egypt in 1954, and two years later attended VC centenary celebrations in London. In 1967, he co-authored a book of his life, From Cowshed to Dog Collar. He retired from the priesthood in April 1981 and moved to Raumati.

In 1953, Elliott was awarded the Queen Elizabeth II Coronation Medal, and in 1977 he received the Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal.

He died of cancer on 7 October 1989, survived by his wife and five children. He was buried with full military honours at Paraparaumu Cemetery.

Elliott donated his Victoria Cross to his former school, Feilding Agricultural High School, in 1972. It was later loaned to the QEII Army Memorial Museum in Waiouru for display. It was one of nine Victoria Crosses among 96 medals stolen from the museum on 2 December 2007. On 16 February 2008, the New Zealand Police announced all the medals had been recovered as a result of a NZ$300,000 reward offered by Michael Ashcroft and Tom Sturgess.

title: Keith Elliott


text:
Talk:Jingle Bells

Upsot?
The article says, "The double-meaning of 'upsot' was thought humorous ...."

What is the other meaning? It's explained that "'Upsot' is an alternative poetic version of 'upset'" but that's only one meaning. Perhaps this was meant to indicate that the use of "upsot" rather than the standard word "upset" was thought humorous? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

 * Upset means both being unhappy and being knocked over 2.24.5.3 (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Original and current chorus differ markedly - since when?
One can see that the original chorus had a different melody, and even different chords. Is there anything available about when, and by whom, the current melody was written? User:Haraldmmueller 19:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This matter is discussed in the archive. Kostaki mou (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! User:Haraldmmueller 11:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Any reason not to include Kyna Hamill's research on the song?
Article title is “The story I must tell”: “Jingle Bells” in the Minstrel Repertoire. Available here for example. Includes lots of detailed research as to the probably origins of the song, its use in mistrel performances, the culture around sleighing at the time, etc. 210.166.55.242 (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * At a quick look -- I heven't read the piece yet -- the source looks fine and the author's credentials seem good. I wouldn't overwhelm this article with a lot of incidental stuff about "the culture of sleighing at the time" or minstrelsy, just enough to give context.  Take a look at Sleighing and Minstrel show as other good articles to add to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

First paragraph in history section.
The first paragraph in the 'history' section is littered with typo's, grammatical errors and uncited information. It needs addressing. 84.65.251.138 (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's littered with "typo's", is it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

What about you won’t mind the cold?
I know for sure there is another incredibly common verse, but I didn’t want to edit the lyrics in case someone disagreed. The verse goes as follows:

You won’t mind the cold;

The robe is thick and warm,

Snow falls on the road

Silvering every form.

The woods are dark and still,

The horse is trotting fast;

He’ll pull the sleigh around the hill

And home again at last!

Note: I've also heard versions where line 5 is sang as “the night is dark and still” rather than the woods, and the horse’s pronouns seem to vary he/she from whoever sings.

Please let me know if you can think of a reason why this shouldn’t be added! I have been able to find one source by searching through old books of mine. It’s a collection of traditional stories, songs and poems called “The Christmas Treasury” published by Kingfisher Books in 1986. There may be more evidence, this is just one source I found (other than people actually singing it in real life.) CitrusSoEpic (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 * If our earliest source for it is 1986, then we have a problem that those lyrics may be under copyright and should not be included. Searching Google Books for "The robe is thick and warm" finds no results before 1991. (In contrast, searching for a line from the original lyrics -- "What fun it is to ride and sing" -- gets me sources back to 1895.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Aussie lyrics
Are the parody Aussie lyrics somehow not copyrighted? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 17:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

GA
Greetings, everyone. Meghan Trainor's version of "Jingle Bells" is currently charting at number four on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 singles chart in the US. It is expected to enter the main Billboard Hot 100 within the next two weeks, which will make it a needed addition to this topic. I would appreciate the help of major contributors to this article (ping Beyond My Ken) in improving this to good article status.--NØ 14:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jingle Bells


text:
Talk:Historical background of the New Testament/Archive 6

Untitled
What happened to Archive 1? As of this writing it seems to be a broken link... Wesley 23:30, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) It appears to be deleted. I have gone back well before my archive edits and the link is still broken. I did not find it on the deletion logs, however. So I dunno - Amgine 01:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Discussion of Summary
This page, at the time of writing is pushing 131K

This is despite the fact that 5 sections of the page are simply summaries.

In order to reduce the page size, and improve readability, this section summarises the summaries themselves.

In addition it summarises a further summary of summaries and the disputes made of that, and the disputes about the disputes, together with an off-topic discussion.

The original text this summary replaces can be viewed at archive 6. Archive 6 contains the summaries that this replaces NOT the text that the summaries themselves replace, these can be viewed at archives 2-5.

It is not in chronological order, but instead ordered by topic for ease of viewing

This summary was made by CheeseDreams, who asserts that in their opinion it is NPOV. This undoubtably will be disputed.

Any disputed paragraphs or sentences, or locations where others demand additions into the summary are marked (0) where this marking corresponds to the section about the dispute which follows after the summary.

Dispute of summary
CheeseDream's version of the disputed area of the summary
 * (1) -

??????'s version of the disputed area of the summary
 * (1) -

Original text (as per archive 6) of the disputed area of the summary
 * (1) -

Jesus and the Article(s)

 * The title should not be changed into The historical Jesus (4 votes against 1)

 * "the article, is neither about Christianity nor religion ...(it)... is about the culture and events..." (5 votes against 2)

Unopposed statement by Pedant
 * This article is about what its title says it is. ... It is only about the history and culture of the region as it bears on the (real or imaginary) person: Jesus, the central figure in Christian Theology. Anything that conflicts ... does not belong in THIS article.

 * This article should mention Jesus at least a non-zero amount (1st vote - 5 votes against 2) (2nd vote - 2 votes against 2)

 * This article is more background to 1st Century Roman Palestine than cross-referenced summary of Jesus' life (1st vote - 2 votes against 1) (2nd vote - 2 votes against 3)
 * Is this article the background to 1st Century Roman Palestine with asides if something is needed to understand Jesus' life
 * Is this article summarising Jesus' life, and cross referencing it to historical and cultural information about 1st Century Roman Palestine

 * Mild support for specific asides about things that happened to Jesus (vote-1:3 votes against 2) (vote-2:3 votes against 3) (vote-3: 4 votes against 1 (+1 both sides))
 * Should the article be split to make this a non-issue

 * The article should not be split into "background" and "Jesus in it" (general consensus against 1 vote)

 * is it better to have 2 articles
 * one mainly avoiding Jesus in 1st century Palestine and discussing background instead (keeping the title)
 * one predominantly about Jesus in 1st century Palestine and mildly the background (The historical Jesus )

 * or a single article including both

Introductary Paragraphs

 * "According to most Christians, Jesus lived in the first century in Judea" is POV not NPOV (3 votes against 1)

Should the article (as its starting point)
 * Introduction should comment that some dispute historicity (5 votes against 1)
 * The article should assume Jesus exists as its starting point
 * The article should not make assumption of historicity or non-historicity

 * Agreement that the basis for the first paragraph should be (5 votes to 2 (proposal A) to 1 (proposal B))
 * "Jesus is [traditionally/usually] held to have lived in the first century in Judea. Without addressing Jesus existence as an actual historic figure, this article discusses the cultural and political forces active at that time. see: Historicity of Jesus for information relating to the existence of Jesus as a historical figure."

 * The intro mentioned above makes clear that the existence of Jesus is not being asserted (8 votes against 1 digression)

 * The 1st and 2nd introductory sentences should be recast (input from 6 persons)
 * The main record of the life of Jesus are the Gospels, in the Christian New Testament. These sources place Jesus in what became Roman Palestine (modern Israel and Palestine) during the early 1st century.

 * The 3rd sentence should become (2 votes against 1)
 * The article Historicity of Jesus covers debates regarding the existence of Jesus, but if so then it is agreed by most Christians and academics who hold this view that it is necessary to understand the cultural and historical background in which Jesus is thought to have lived.

 * The 4th sentence should become (general consensus)
 * This was a volatile period marked by cultural and political dilemmas. Out of the Roman occupation of Palestine sprang two of the modern world's religions: Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism.

Terminology

 * The area should be called "Palestine" or something similar (4 votes against 2)
 * is it more important that Roman Palestine did not exist at the time in question
 * or is it more important that Palestine is the only term covering the whole area

 * The area should be referred to as "Roman Palestine" (7 votes against 1)

 * "pharisees were considered living saints" is either not accurate or inapropriate best wording (4 votes)

 * "at the time of Christ" is an inappropriate phrase (1 vote against 1)
 * "at this time" is an acceptable phrase to replace "at the time of Christ" (7 votes against none)

Other Messiahs
One (and only one) speaker opposed detailed listing of the known movements in this section
 * Other groups who believed in different Messiah figures should be mentioned (8 votes)

 * Contemporary understanding of the meaning of messiah should be included (general uncontested consensus)

Uncontested statement
 * In Judaism, "Messiah" means "annointed". It was the symbol of high office. There were two officers routinely annointed this way - a priest messiah, and a king messiah. The hope of a "messiah" to save them would usually have meant simply, some king or priest who would stand up to the romans or whoever was felt oppressing them at the time. The meaning of "Messiah" in christianity, that of a godhead, a unique being who would save them in the sense of salvation, was not part of Judaism, though it may have formed part of the hopes or mystic beliefs of some cults or splinter groups.

Undisputed statement by User:FT2
 * The phrase "Son of Man" is not always apocalyptic (1 vote (+3 informal) no other votes)
 * Many historians claim that Jesus himself did not claim to be a "messiah" in any way unlike other messiahs.

 * dispute over the meaning of "saviour of Israel"
 * there is no evidence anyone thought that a messiah would be a saviour of Israel
 * many expected to be saved from the judgement of God
 * the expectation of a messiah was the expectation of a saviour of Israel
 * many considered the Romans to be the judgement of God
 * the articles Mosiach and Messiah explain the understanding of the term

 * discussion of the paragraph on other messiahs
 * A compromise text was developed
 * One user (user X) produced an alternative proposal
 * A new compromise text is proposed taking into account elements of User X's proposal
 * User X disputes elements of the compromise text
 * User X proposes a 2nd alternative text
 * Some users dispute the willingness of User X to collaborate
 * A new compromise text is proposed taking into account discussions around User X's 2nd proposal
 * User X disputes elements of the compromise text and considers their own proposal superior
 * A new compromise text is proposed taking into account discussions around User X's comments
 * User X disputes elements of the compromise text
 * A new compromise text is proposed taking into account discussions around User X's comments
 * User X restates their intolerance of elements of the compromise text
 * User X restates their 2nd alternative text
 * A new compromise text is proposed taking into account suggestions from User X and others
 * The new text is voted on after "packing the house" has occurred.
 * The result of the vote is (2 supporting the compromise text, 5 against it)

 * dispute on Mandaeans and John the baptist
 * Mandaeans first came into existance in the 2nd/3rd centuries BC
 * There is no evidence that Mandaeans were followers of John the baptist
 * Mandaeans considered John the baptist a messiah
 * Mandaeans first came into existance in the 2nd/3rd centuries AD
 * Mandaeans were followers of John the baptist
 * John the baptist was Nazorean
 * Mandaean was a dialaect at this time
 * Mandaean is a modern synonym for Nazorean
 * Modern Mandaeans refer to themselves as Nazorean

 * dispute on divinity and the existance of other messiah's
 * first century messiahs and prophets never claimed they were divine
 * Josephus is not acceptable to cite
 * some first century messiahs and prophets claimed they were divine
 * Jesus did not claim he was divine
 * Josephus is acceptable to cite
 * Jesus did claim he was divine
 * Josephus states that the persons supposedly "messiah"s were actually thought to be prophets
 * the Jews had considerable law on false prophets
 * Josephus supports the idea that there were people claiming to be and thought to be "messiah"s

Structure of the article

 * This article should not just be a historical narrative (majority consensus, though with a large minority disputing it)
 * The article should be an historical narrative with asides

 * The article should be structured into topics such as Political situation (regional rulers, high priests, notable militaristic action), Religious organizations (major schools, prophets, messianic groups), Later developments (political control, emergence of more modern Judaism and Christianity)

Development of later religion

 * This article should describe who followed the Pharisees (4 votes against 1, 1 abstention)
 * "Later forms of Judaism" followed the Pharisees rather than "Rabbinic Judaism" (1st vote-unresolved) (2nd vote - 3 votes against 1)

 * Discussion of the subsequent development of Christianity and how it connected to the gentiles belongs elsewhere not here (4 votes against 1 (+1 for a brief mention))

 * FT2s version of the paragraph discussing how christianity emerged is preferred (general consensus)
 * Originally the intent was to preach to the Jews. Some but not all requirements were removed, as it was felt that the new emphasis was on faith and not detailed laws. Thus there were 'Jewish Christians', Jews who believed in Christ Messiah. When the Jews as a community rejected this, the Christian message was taken to the gentiles instead. To make it palatable, and draw a line separating them from the Jews (who were by now becoming politically dangerous associates) many more of the restrictive laws were removed and the emphasis was shifted. The message that reached the gentiles was therefore a more universal one, in the sense that it was easier to digest, its appeal was more emotional than legalistic, and it did not contain many of the practices beliefs and rituals by which the Jews kept themselves separate from others.

 * Anything later than bar Kochba is irrelevant
 * Is it important that the manner in which christianity emerged indicates the historiography of the Gospels

Consensus

 * early discussions
 * Early discussions focused on achieving consensus, and included voting
 * A visible solution was reached on most of the issues
 * A version for discussion was drafted at a user talk page
 * Discussions were had
 * Submissions were made with regard to compromise
 * The article was unlocked
 * A draft of the changes was made on the article
 * A request for 48 hours non-editing to discuss the article was made
 * Most users respected the request

 * reversion war
 * User Y violated the request, rewriting the article substantially
 * User Y's version predominantly went against the consensus and the voting
 * User Z reverted user Y's version to the version about which a 48 hour non-edit was requested
 * User Y reverted it back to their version
 * User Z insisted on the concensus version being restored
 * User Y reverted it back
 * User Z reverted it once more
 * User Y's associates reverted it to User Y's version
 * User Z restored the discussion version
 * The revert war continued
 * The article was locked in the User Y state.

 * disputed behaviour
 * it is acceptable to make some changes
 * it is unacceptable to make large changes for this article in that state
 * it is fundamentally important to ask for a pause in editing to prevent edit wars
 * it is acceptable to make major changes to the article when it is so contested
 * Slrubenstein has the right to revert from FT2s version although the opposite is not true
 * if a page is not protected, editors have a right to work on it
 * the way forward is discussion on talk pages
 * it is inappropriate to ask for a pause in editing for the purpose of discussion
 * respect and decency demand that though one has rights, one should sometimes abstain from them
 * Saying one editor can revert, but the other editor cannot, is hypocrisy

 * the resulting 2 versions
 * The people User X invited to this page all support his version
 * 3 users (none of whom invited the other) do not support User X's version
 * The value of a split depends on the nature of the articles
 * User X sarcastically suggests splitting the article
 * Splitting the versions into two articles will solve this problem
 * User X's version is NPOV
 * User X refuses not to edit both articles to how they think it should be
 * User X admits User X will never tolerate the other version
 * User X's version is POV not NPOV
 * The not-User-X version is complicated
 * The not-User-X version complies more than satisfies journalistic standards for readability
 * User X's version is appallingly unreadable
 * User X's version is exquisite

Issues with users on this talk page

 * "Packing the house" occurred between the sets of voting
 * It is a more important fact that Gerrymandering is unethical
 * It is a more important fact that Gerrymandering is currently allowed

 * Mediation was formally requested
 * It became apparant that Slrubenstein, Amgine, and CheeseDreams should formally request mediation between them (which has is now occurring)

 * FT2 as a mediator
 * At an early stage FT2 arrived and behaved in the manner of a mediator
 * Slrubenstein disputes that FT2 was ever treated as a mediator
 * Slrubenstein and JDG think that FT2 is agenda driven
 * Wesley, Amgine, CheeseDreams, think that FT2 is fair

 * Worth of scholarship
 * Amgine has secured access to ATLA.

- -

Slrubenstein stated about FT2 that
 * Mud-slinging occurred
 * FT2 is not acting in good faith
 * FT2 is a nut
 * FT2 is masturbating Slrubenstein
 * FT2 uses silly argument
 * FT2 is ignorant
 * FT2 has no business working on this article because he thinks Slrubenstein's arguments suspect.
 * FT2s reasoning is specious and ignorant.

FT2 states about Slrubenstein
 * Some people think Slrubenstein is not acting in good faith
 * Slrubenstein is disrespectful

Slrubenstein implied about CheeseDreams
 * CheeseDreams is a racist

CheeseDreams stated about Slrubenstein that
 * Slrubenstein is uncivil
 * Slrubenstein uses personal attacks
 * Slrubenstein is a hypocrit
 * Slrubenstein has no interest in consensus
 * Slrubenstein is vain and arrogant
 * Slrubenstein's case is so weak that he feels the need to round up supporters from elsewhere in order to win discussions

JDG implied about CheeseDreams
 * CheeseDreams is rude
 * CheeseDreams starts revert wars
 * CheeseDreams is a gay atheist
 * CheeseDreams should be banned

CheeseDreams implied about JDG that
 * JDG threatened a revert war
 * JDG was referred to as Darling
 * JDG is neither neutral nor reasonable
 * JDG is crassly aggressive
 * JDG stated he would ignore the result of this discussion and revert the article to Slrubenstein's version

 * Priesthood
 * Discussion regarding the role of priests in the context being more administrative than all-powerful. Disagreement over generalization of their antecedents.

 * Saducees vs. Pharisees
 * A discussion regarding some of the relative differences, especially as seen by the culture at large, between these two groups in the context. A question regarding the nominal control of synagogues degenerated into irrelevancy, which colored many further sections. The net discussion found no disagreement with the concepts that Saducess had more political power, while Pharisees were more popular, and there was probably more than a little overlap between the two groups.
 * Further comments disputing the above paragraph's summary and supporting it devolved again to a digression irrelevant to the article.

 * CheeseDreams objected to only two religions.

 * General discussion
 * Consisting entirely of Slrubenstein's addition of merging tags for Jesus and textual evidence and Historicity of Jesus, and the unanimous disagreement with same (1).

 * Less wordy please

Slrubenstein thinks that when we define the word "messiah," of course, we should say that kings and priests were anointed, but annointed king and annointed priest is not acceptable and is meaningless.

Wesley asks
 * That the article not contain "original research"

To which CheeseDreams responds that
 * Slrubenstein has admitted in the mediation request that he has not cited his sources, and only has 5/6 books, implying he is committing personal research

 * Trust

CheeseDreams wonders whether Slrubenstein's claims to extensive and valid research should be trusted based on his claim elsewhere that Hinduism dates from the 18th century (as he claims is the majority opinion amongst historians)

Jayjg states To which CheeseDreams responds that that is an unbalanced opinion in bad faith.
 * Slrubenstein's knowledge of scholarship of Jesus seems entirely accurate
 * Slrubenstein's opponents knowledge on the subject seems entirely ignorant

Wesley thinks that his past experience with Slrubenstein (of 3 years) has given him trust in him.

 * EDITS: Please read

The article was unprotected at this point, and FT2 tried to adjust it so as to take on board the votes, suggestions, and neutrality. A request was made that editors should, with regards to his changes,
 * review the article systematically
 * not make major edits to it

 * new round of revisions

 * Version #1 of rewrite

FT2 states
 * SIrubenstein - 1st temple era - I like, its neutral enough to stand, and informative.
 * SIrubenstein - persian era onwards - I worry if we have too much detail here. Its really needing to be an overview of history as background, rather than a full history. Some like the sanhedrin is relevant.
 * SIrubenstein - Jesus and after jesus - Some may be relevant. for example, sedition.  But overall this is not really key to the article, and can be made more NPOV.

Wesley states:
 * He likes FT2s introduction as it seems to cover nearly all the points mentioned in the joint discussion.
 * (5) He has exception to the sentence by Slrubenstein which states The meaning of "Messiah" in Christianity, that of a godhead, a unique being who would save them in the sense of salvation, was not part of Judaism, though it may have formed part of the hopes or mystic beliefs of some cults or splinter groups. as he doesnt think this represents any version of Christianity very well.

 * Appropriate sources (r.e. other messiahs)

Wesley thinks that sources should be cited as it should be the consensus of historians, not the consensus of wikipedians. FT2 states that he has also documented over 125,000 hits on Google supporting in some way his case. Slrubenstein disputes the accuracy of Google (10).

 * Uh...

 * FT2's Ultimate Version

Criticism of FT2s version by Slrubenstein:
 * FT2 cut important historical contexts

 * it is a mess
 * the way to write a good article is not to accomodate all discussants;
 * the intro is a mess
 * Slrubensteins version is concise, accurate, and NPOV
 * Mentioning the Gospels as prime historic source is NPOV
 * the statement "law of the land was Jewish religious law, which was for the most part legislative and not harsh," is poorly written and unclear
 * "third, it caused religious and cultural difference to escalate into conflicts with the secular authority" is either dumb or really POV
 * if you think the Greek or Roman authorities were "secular" and had not religious and cultural agenda, you are ingorant.
 * The notion that the middle east is a "powderkeg" in which religious difference has to be contained by secular leadership just mimics the view most people today take towards the middle east.
 * Why focus on the Jewish notion that nakedness is an abomination?
 * The the real issue was that the Greeks thought circumcision was an abomination.
 * The statement "Politically as time passed, the foreign powers often came to view the wish of some Jews not to become integrated as a divisive and therefore political wish, and often considered it a personal affront to the emperor" might be true, but why not summarize Bickerman and Tcherikover's views
 * The Pearlman quote is inappropriate in in encyclopedia. He was not a scholar, he was a former Israeli army officer.
 * The view that there was a split between hellinized and "traditional" Jews is anachronistic and simplistic.
 * "Culturally the Jews were for the most part hard-working, God-fearing, deeply religious farming villagers," is tripe, how do we know what they did?
 * It is a little confusing to me to call the Hasmonean kingdom the second kingdom.
 * The statement "By 1 CE, the Roman Empire was somewhat more corrupt than it had been" is POV and unnecessary.
 * In the section "Jewish Revolt and aftermath," FT2 replaced an essential account for the background of Jesus, with a series of questions that were answered in the passages he deleted.
 * There is no evidence that the Mandeans were a messianic group in Judea (or the Galilee or Samaria) at that time -- why are they mentioned?
 * "The early Christians were often in conflict with groups they considered heretical" completely distorts the situation, and is utterly at odds with recent work by historians.
 * the sentence implies that "heretics" were not "early Christians" and that "early Christians" were not "heretics." What is really going on is that there were several groups with competing visions of Christianity.
 * To suggest that because ancient Israelites had a Temple and priests, and a Torah and scribes, and a King who ruled by divine right, that they therefore had a "dual core" consisting of a political and spiritual authority is another anachronism that ignores all current scholarship on Jewish history.
 * To say that the "Children of Israel" had the Mishnah is at best misleading, at worst very confused and sloppy. The Mishnah wasn't edited until 200 CE. The "Children of Israel" were long gone.
 * In the section on struggles with Hellenism you cut the stuff dealing with the implications of a universal God, and Greek interest in Judaism.
 * The word "apocalypse" was not borrowed from Hebrew or the Jews, it is a Greek word.
 * In judiasm the priesthood is more of an administrative role than anintermediary between Jews and God?  nonesense!
 * The paragraph on the zealots makes it seem as if the sicarii were a subset of zealots, which is of course wrong.
 * To claim that Christianity is "more aeasier to digest" is just the worst kind of POV editorializing.
 * the sentence "It is hypothesised that to make it palatable, and draw a line separating them from the Jews (who were by now becoming politically dangerous associates due to their rebellion against Rome) many more of the restrictive laws were removed and the emphasis was shifted." is a poor one for an encyclopedia. Jews never believed non-Jews should obey Jewish law.
 * I have no idea what scholarship the section on Jewish reactions to cults and messianism is based on, it all seems speculative.
 * Ditto the section on the Jewish rejection of Christianity.
 * "Yohanan" is not Hebrew for Jonathan; the Baptist's name was "John" (or it's Hebrew equivalent, Yohanan).
 * The organization is an utter mess.

Slrubenstein thinks the above criticism makes things a lot easier to return to my version than to edit this version.

 * SIrubenstein edits

Slrubenstein responds
 * Scholars do not dispute Slrubenstein's text
 * FT2s version is full of inaccuracies, oversimplifications, anachronisms, sloppy scholarship, and lack of NPOV.

Slrubenstein thinks the nature of the Pharisees changed over time

With respect to Slrubenstein's version, Amgine raises points
 * Disputed NPOV

In the opening paragraph, biblical and western historians exclusively are cited.
 * Slrubenstein justifies this apparant POV by stating that there are only three points of view: Christians, sceptics, and critical scholars (6).

The vast majority of the text in the First Temple Era and Second Temple Era sections deals with the millenia prior to Jesus, and is not specifically relevant.
 * Slrubenstein justifies this as FT2s version goes back further, in addition, Slrubenstein thinks there needs to be detailed historical introduction to the background of the Saducees, Pharisees, Temple, Monarcy, and Torah.

The First Temple Era section discusses "ancient land of Israel" exclusively as a land of the Jews for the entirety of its history, and is simplistic and generalized as POV, followed by paragraphs of unsupported conjecture.
 * Slrubenstein states that the area is not originally or exclusively Israelite, but disagrees with the assessment of the paragraph.

The article has continuous use of Judea, etc. as regional terms which are historically inaccurate and on which consensus votes had determined Roman Palestine as the most relevant compromise term.
 * Slrubenstein states he used Judea when speaking specifically of Judea, that David was king of Judea before he was king of Israel, that Israel and Judea later became separate kingdoms, and that Galilee is not the same thing as Judea.

The statement "In most ancient societies sacrifice was the only form of worship" is totally disputed and thought to be factually inaccurate and lacking NPOV.
 * Slrubenstein says that the article says "most ancient Near Eastern societies" which is accurate.

Exclusively discussing the Sadducees and Pharisees continues the misapprehension that there were only 2 primary religious groups when in fact it appears to have been a multi-party system with 4 or more larger "schools of thought".
 * Slrubenstein states that the other parties (Essenes, Zealots, etc) developed at a different time.

The use of sections such as The Hellenistic Period to discuss the Hasmonean Period, and the The Hasmonean Period to discuss merely a lineage, etc., is both misleading and non-encyclopedic.
 * Slrubenstein does not comprehend the accusation, and thinks it is not the case

--- Slrubenstein requests that Amgine sums up in a sentence or short paragraph what he believes the point of this article should be. And states that since this is about "historical" background he organized it historically.

Slrubenstein
 * is not satisfied that earlier discussions were resolved adequately
 * does not see why "political situation" should be seperate to "religious organizations?"
 * does not see why "notable uprisings" and "messiahs" are in two different sections
 * does not comprehend why "major schools" and "prophets" are in a different section from "political situation"

Amgine thinks it amusing that, having discarded wiki process Slrubenstein now complains he is not receiving collaborative support. In addition
 * Political Situation in this usage he meant who was actually in charge
 * The use of force to put down uprisings is inherently an element of governance
 * popular figures might be opposed for other reasons
 * The separation of political and religious is a modern one, and one which our modern audience insists upon

Maureen arrives from RfC, Maureen also thinks the constancy of "some people...and some people..." is unpleasent.
 * RfC

Slrubenstein then states
 * Process Fetishization
 * CheeseDreams and Amgine were asked several times what their sources were and they either could not, or would not, answer him
 * he has always provided reasons and sources

Mpolo states
 * Amgine and CheeseDreams have lost good faith in Slrubenstein

Slrubenstein responds
 * Voting is irrelevant (13)

Amgine responds (to Mpolo)
 * Slrubenstein has consistently failed to collaborate
 * Slrubenstein appears unable or unwilling to follow process
 * Slrubenstein has refuted prior votes

In consequence, Amgine thinks of Slrubenstein's version
 * is fatally flawed
 * a personal essay

Mpolo thinks
 * Slrubenstein's version has better structure as it has an historical arc
 * FT2's version seems like an incoherent random collection of themes

 * Counterproductive disputes

JDG arrives, and states
 * CheeseDreams' stance is unreasonable
 * CheeseDreams' stance is obstructing Slrubenstein
 * CheeseDreams is unscholarly and fringe unlike Slrubenstein

Cheesedreams claims that (by virtue of reading User Talk pages) JDG is clearly Slrubenstein's mate and therefore highly biased. Slrubenstein states this is not the case as they "fought in the past".

Many people prefer FT2s intro as the more balanced, neutral, and appropriate one, Slrubenstein thinks others prefer his, and that they should be merged.

FT2 thinks the article is written from the POV of what interests Christians, which is not appropriate, Wesley doesn't think Slrubenstein is pushing such a thing, and Slrubenstein wants proof of this FT2s claim.

FT2 thinks that to understand how Jews react to Rome and Messiahs, it is necessary to go back as far as the Macabees. He also thinks that there should be mention of the commonality of child prodigies to show that Jesus' ability to converse on the law in the temple wasn't that special, just a bit cleverer than many. Slrubenstein thinks that FT2s evidence that Jesus' ability was fairly standard, and indeed partly expected, is rubbish, and 100 years too late. Wesley point out to Slrubenstein what the context is.

FT2 thinks that it is accurate to state that the lack of desire to integrate was seen as an affront. Slrubenstein states that Tcherikover claims this is not true, further, that the Romans were tolerant of beliefs but annoyed them with taxes. FT2 asks what situations did the authorities only get involved later in conflicts that jews had with non-jews. Slrubenstein replies that he doesn't know the exact details (1).

FT2 thinks it is necessary to include a quote from someone to present how jews felt rather than thought at the time. Slrubenstein thinks the quote does not reflect jews at the time, and a quote from Cohen (which does not express emotion, but does support Slrubenstein's view of the interaction between Judaism and Hellenism) should be used instead.

FT2 thinks that "X% lived in towns, Y% in villages" is demographic, and that most Jews at the time were hard working, God fearing, in villages. Slrubenstein asks for evidence. FT2 points out that in such circumstances there arent many "slackers", and that village people tended to be less hellenised than city people. Slrubenstein thinks FT2 is showing ignorance.

FT2 thinks that since early emporers thrived, but later ones tended to be murdered and were crueler, there was more corruption. Slrubenstein thinks this is not true. (2)

FT2 state that there was always 2 sides to Judaism - temple and halakhah/prayer. Slrubenstein thinks this is thick and ignorant, as prayer is a form of temple worship, and halakhah contains ritual. FT2 states that the temple worship (though not the temple) goes back to 1500-1300BC and Halakha went back almost as far orally. Slrubenstein claims most historians dispute that.

Slrubenstein thinks that the "Jewish rejection" statement is poorly written and made up, wheras FT2 thinks it is a general cultural description of factors which would have inclined the Jews to reject a variety of cults, groups and beliefs.

Slrubenstein disputes translating "Yohanan" as "Jonathan" rather than "John". FT2 points out how David's associate "Jonathan" is "Yohanan" in Hebrew, to which Wesley states that the New Testament is Greek. Slrubenstein states that "Yonatan" is "Jonathan" and "Yohanan" is "John"

FT2 thinks that purely an historical narrative is inappropriate, and difficult to understand. Slrubenstein states that history and culture are intertwined (though not so elegantly). Wesley thinks that a pure historical narrative is less interpretive and therefore easier to be NPOV.

Slrubenstein thinks that Jews never believed non-Jews should obey Jewish law, and that as many Gentiles turned to other religions with restrictive practices, there is no reason to think that these were in the way of appealing to gentiles. He asks for what he would see as valid evidence.

FT2 states that Early Christians had not made headway with what they felt their natural audience should be, namely the Jews, so they a) felt rejected and b) turned more to spread the Gospels amongst the Gentiles, so they seperated from the Jews, by throwing away many customs and beliefs the jewish-christians had perpetuated. Slrubenstein states that FT2 is being silly (6).

FT2 states that as a clear side effect, dropping more Jewish traditions made their beliefs more palatable. Slrubenstein says that the notion is illogical.

FT2 states that this separated them more from the Jews who had mostly rejected them, who were becoming seen as a 'problem' by Rome (it was politically useful not to in fact be Jews). Slrubenstein states that this is not true, and that even after Bar Kohba, Romans treated Jews better than Christians.

FT2 states that the replacement of halakhah by pure faith alone, simultaneously made them more accessible to gentiles. Slrubenstein counters that it is offensive, as an Orthodox teacher observing halacha does not mean that students will reject lessons in algebra.

FT2 refers to Sabbattai Lev in the 1400's, to show how Jews reacted to "other messiahs". Slrubenstein asks if he means Shabbatai Tzvi from the 1600s. Slrubenstein states that consequently FT2 has no business working on this article (7).

FT2 asks that given that Jews were under intense pressure from Rome (and we know what pressure does to Jewish sense of Identity from the Macabbes, all the way through to 1948), what would opinions be of people preaching non-mainstream beliefs. Slrubenstein says to have some evidence from the first century CE. Slrubenstein says that the above questions above are irrelevant.

FT2 states that the Jews as a group tend to be protective of their national identity and polarise under pressure. Slrubenstein states that FT2 is ignorant (8).

FT2 states that jews as a group back then tended to be conservative (confirmed in gospels and history books), sceptical of radical new interpretations, disinterested in afterlife/salvation stories (mainstream judaism, but variable), and political tensions, and since jews in this period were making all sorts of original claims, what Slrubenstein calls "the mainstream" did not clearly exist back then. Slrubenstein replies that FT2s reasoning is specious and ignorant (9).

FT2 asks to be reminded why Slrubenstein rejects his statements of reasons Jews rejected many cults. Slrubenstein states that this runs counter to the diversity of beliefs and practices that characterized the Jews in pre-Temple, first Temple, and Second Temple periods. Slrubenstein claims that FT2 is "making stuff up". Slrubenstein does not think FT2s responses are satisfactory or have valid evidence.

 * Comments on Slr's version

John Kenney thinks that Slrubensteins version
 * Takes too long to get to the time period of Jesus.
 * The emphasis should be on the general historical and cultural context.
 * Thinks that emphasising the context is odd because this was a daughter of Jesus.
 * The Hasmonaeans claiming first the high priesthood (under Jonathan) and then the kingship (under Aristobulus I) should be mentioned
 * Antipater the Idumaean ought to be mentioned, no?
 * There should be a discussion of Herod's reign
 * There are too many citations
 * Although Slrubenstein states that bias and inaccuracy in the gospels is demonstrated by the way Christianity and later forms of Judaism emerged, there is too much detail on the subject

 * Suggestions for next set of revisions

Slrubenstein thinks --
 * 2.4.1 is misnamed.
 * It should be "Kings, Procurators, and the Sanhedron" OR "Local Governance under Roman Occupation"
 * 2.5, on the Sicarii etc, should be made 2.4.4
 * 2.5.1, on Jesus in this context, should be simply 2.5
 * FT2's intro is poorly written, but the content is good.
 * We must state that the Gospels are the major textual source for information about Jesus to demonstrate NPOV.
 * We must explain how historiography works.
 * He shares concerns about excess of historical info
 * There could be a better transition between the 1st and 2nd temple periods,
 * which must stess that in both, the Temple and the Law were important.
 * which must stress discontinuity in "legitimacy"
 * There can be more discussion of Herod's reign
 * especially how Herod was an Idumean but also Jewish.
 * We can be clearer that the Pharisees developed under the Hasmoneans period.
 * We need to add more information about the Sicarii.
 * The major conflict was not Jews seeking political and religious freedom vs. Romans.
 * The Great Revolt was about poverty in the peasentry vs. the elite.
 * The primary target of the Sicarii were Jewish elites, not Romans.
 * The Sicarii rejected Roman rule but also rejected Jewish government.
 * There should be a section about economy and class inequality
 * There should be more (rather than less) views of historians about Jesus.

Response to FT2s Account
FT2 is partisan and resents criticism. These votes were not about style but about substance, and my objections were based on the historical record.

FT2, Amgrine, and CheeseDreams have done little or no research on this topic and are mistaken and ignorant about many things. In the meantime, FT2, Amgine, and CheeseDream continue to rely on a version riddled with the most ignorant errors. But FT2, Amgine, and CheeseDream add material that has no basis in fact.Slrubenstein

 * Just so that you're aware, theres a few inaccuracies up there. I haven't "resented" criticism.   FT2 10:37, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Response to the Response to FT2s account

 * You have no right or reason to exclude or dismiss ANY wikipedian from commenting on this article -- for ANY reason. No matter what the reason, all editors have a right to comment and edit.  Slrubenstein

 * I think CheeseDreams, FT2 and Amgine actually need mentoring on how to work in Wikipedia, but I don't think any of the old-timers want to get involved with them. I am  not sure what to od. Above, I started a section on what kinds of changes are needed in the article.  This talk page should be for talk on improving the article.  Yet that hasn't happened at all.  C, F, and A don't want to talk about content (I am not surprised as they don't know much 1st cntury history), all they want to do is repeat accusations.  Slrubenstein

 * And Vanity. CheeseDreams 19:20, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contested points

 * NPOV (in this context) is representing the view that the majority think is neutral
 * This article is about Jesus in a historical context
 * Everything should be cite-d
 * NPOV (in this context) is representing equally all major views found in academia
 * Slrubenstein's version should be The historical Jesus not this article
 * Most things should be cite-able
 * This article is about what the background to Jesus was like
 * NPOV (in this context) is representing equally all views held by participating Wikipedians

Uncontested points

 * Herod should be mentioned