text:
Talk:Antwaan Randle El

Duplicate
this is a duplicate page(mispelled antwan as antwaan)(unsigned)
 * First, sign your comments. Secondly, no, his name is spelled "Antwaan". Thirdly, the bit about him being drafted by the Chicago Bears is simply wrong. He was drafted in the 14th round of the MLB Amateur Draft in 1997 by the Chicago Cubs (424th overall) coming out of high school. He entered the NFL as a second round draft pick by the Pittsburgh Steelers in 2002, from Indiana University.Murphyr 23:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Name?
What is the origin of his unusual last name? --Jfruh 19:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

 * From the article: As might be surmised from his name, Randle El is descended from a family with connections to the Black Muslims, although Antwaan is said personally to be a Christian. That's the best of Wikipedia's knowledge, but other than that, can't help you.--Alhutch 20:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * D'oh, missed that, sorry. It's not exactly a genuine Middle Eastern name, though, is it? --Jfruh 20:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked on the his official steelers bio and it doesn't seem to have any more information on the name. nothing much turned up by google searching either, i'm afraid.--Alhutch 20:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Found it, information on his surname "Randle El" http://media3.steelers.com/article/42086/ and here Moorish_science_temple. Judging by this, I do believe his family obtained their surname through association with the Moorish Science Temple, a precursor to the Nation of Islam. And yes Randle El states in the interview that he is not a Muslim although some of his family members are. Hope that helps. Abstrakt 22:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Position
The article says he's an occasional quarterback for the Steelers, but anything I can find online says he's only played wide receiver for them. The later part of the article also suggests he's only thrown passes as a wide receiver. Can anyone clarify this? John FitzGerald 17:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * He was a college quarterback, and they use him as a quarterback on trick plays every so often. He never actually starts at QB or anything like that. An example would be the touchdown pass he threw to Hines Ward in the Super Bowl. You're right, he pretty much only throws passes as a wide receiver.--Alhutch 17:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll make a slight change to the article, then. Strictly speaking, if there's already a quarterback on the field, he's not a quarterback. That could be nitpicking on my part, but the sentence did confuse me. Thanks. John FitzGerald 01:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, he's never really a QB, since the starting QB is always on the field at the same time as him. He's just a receiver who throws passes.--Alhutch 07:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

However, he has always been an emergency option in the case of multiple QB injuries for the Steelers. So, in a sense he is a backup QB. I don't have a problem with his position being listed as WR/PR/QB KRay 21:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree.--Alhutch 06:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge he has never been used as a backup quarterback. He is also not listed on the official Steelers'depth chart at QB. He is only a reciever who occsionaly throws passes. http://news.steelers.com/team/depthcharts/
 * I think he was technically the backup QB when Rothelisburger (Or however his name is spelt) and Batch were both injured. (He threw a 51-yard TD in that game by the way.) Cryomaniac 13:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, while the Steelers were down to only one QB (Tommy Maddox) since Ben Roethlisberger and Charlie Batch were out with injuries during the middle of the 2005 season, he did come into their game against the Baltimore Ravens and lined up as the quarterback for a few plays so he could get a few throws incase Maddox got injured as well. He completed 2/2 passes in that game (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/live/NFL_20051120_PIT@BAL). However, you are correct in that he has never started an NFL game as a QB, and that was the only game he's ever played the QB position in, so saying that he is an "occasional quarterback for the Steelers" is incorrect. And Cryomaniac, you are right about him being the backup QB in that one game against the Ravens, and that was the only game where he was in the position. - [Unregistered user] 1:14, 7 August 2006

YouTube links
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 06:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Antwaan Randle El. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140413125639/http://bleacherreport.com/articles/226156-antwaan-randel-el-the-freshman-that-changed-a-program to http://bleacherreport.com/articles/226156-antwaan-randel-el-the-freshman-that-changed-a-program
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121229013326/https://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=89561 to http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=89561&comview=1&sc=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Heisman top ten
Is the fact that he was in the top ten for the Heisman Trophy his senior year notable enough to be included here? 2600:1004:B11F:926C:453B:C244:CAF2:FB3 (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Antwaan Randle El. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029204117/http://www.nationalunderclassmen.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=23100&ATCLID=205014759 to http://www.nationalunderclassmen.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=23100&ATCLID=205014759
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2011010203/2010/REG17/steelers%40browns

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Antwaan Randle El


text:
Providence Equity

Providence Equity Partners L.L.C. is a specialist private equity investment firm focused on media, communications, education, and technology investments across North America and Europe. The firm specializes in growth-oriented private equity investments and has invested in more than 170 companies globally since its inception in 1989.

The firm manages funds with over $31 billion in aggregate private equity capital commitments, making it a large global player in the private equity industry. Providence was one of the principal pioneers of a sector-based approach to private equity investing. The firm's eighth fund, Providence Equity Partners VIII, closed on $6 billion in 2019, above its $5 billion target. The prior fund, Providence VII, closed with $5 billion in 2013.

Providence is headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island with additional offices in New York, Boston, London and Atlanta.

Operations
The firm raises investment funds from a broad array of institutional investors, including pension funds, endowments, sovereign wealth funds, financial institutions, insurance companies, fund of funds, and high-net-worth individuals.

Providence partners with companies at various stages of development, from growth capital and complex recapitalizations of family-owned businesses to large buyouts and take-privates. The firm targets equity investments of $150 million to $500 million and can employ a variety of financing structures. Providence prefers to lead its investments, serve on company boards, and work collaboratively with company management.

History
In 2008, Providence hired Thomas Gahan as president of the firm's new capital markets group and its affiliate, Benefit Street Partners. Prior to joining Providence, Gahan was head of Deutsche Bank's corporate and investment banking in the Americas and chief executive officer of Deutsche Bank Securities. Benefit Street Partners closed on a $1.75 billion middle market direct lending fund in April 2014. The credit platform was sold to Franklin Templeton Investments in October 2018.

In 2014, Providence established Providence Strategic Growth (PSG), its growth equity affiliate focused on investments in lower middle market software and technology-enabled service companies. PSG is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, with offices in London and Kansas City.

Providence's investments have included AutoTrader.com Group, Blackboard Inc., Conversica, eircom, Hulu, Kabel Deutschland, MLS Media, NEW Asurion, Bluestone Television, Newport Television, Univision, VoiceStream (now T-Mobile US), Warner Music Group, Western Wireless, and World Triathlon Corporation (Ironman), YES Network and TopGolf. Since 2013, significant investments by the firm include 365 Retail Markets, Ambassador Theatre Group, DoubleVerify, Learfield Communications, GlobalTranz, Groupe La Centrale, MásMóvil Group, n2y, Node4, Smartly.io, TAIT, Tenstreet, and TCP.

Providence's recent exits include TES, Galileo Global Education, EdgeConneX, OEConnection, PADI, Ascend Learning, Vector Solutions and ZeniMax Media.

In March 2013, Providence and the National Football League formed a global partnership to invest primarily in sports and entertainment related media assets.

In September 2012, Providence sold a less than 10% stake in the firm to Florida's state pension system and a sovereign wealth fund.

In February 2015, Providence's $800 million stake in security screener Altegrity was wiped out when the security company was accused of fraud and filed for bankruptcy. This followed a series of other expensive losses that Providence blamed on investments outside of its expertise made during the peak of the 2007 and 2008 private equity boom.

In February 2017, Providence expanded its education business by buying NACE Schools, a Spain-based operator of for-profit schools. , the schools portfolio branded as Globeducate has 55 schools in nine countries.

In October 2017, Modern Times Group sold its telecommunication businesses in the Baltic states to Providence Equity Partners. The newly acquired companies were united and operate under the All Media Baltics company name (currently TV3 Group).

In April 2019, MasMovil agreed to repurchase its convertible bond from Providence Equity. Providence remains a shareholder in the company.

In September 2019, Providence Strategic Growth collected $2 billion for its fourth fund.

In August 2021, it was announced that Providence Equity had purchased a majority share of Sweetwater Sound, a major musical equipment retailer based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

In April 2022, it was announced Providence had acquired the cloud-based managed Wi-Fi solutions provider, Airties.

Key people
In September 2020, Providence announced a leadership transition plan, under which founder and CEO Jonathan M. Nelson would become Executive Chairman in January 2021. As part of this planned transition, Providence appointed Davis Noell and David Phillips senior managing directors and co-heads of North America, and Karim Tabet and Andrew Tisdale senior managing directors and co-heads of Europe. Managing Director Michael Dominguez was appointed Chief Investment Officer.

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

title: Providence Equity


text: User talk:70.186.48.72

title: User talk:70.186.48.72


text:
Talk:Walter Kaufmann (philosopher)

hmmm...
I'm Thinking about changing the article so that Kaufmann's philosophical interests are stressed slightly more so that it is made clear that his works of philosophy are just as important, or perhaps moreso, than his translations. What I'm hoping to accomplish in this is making it so that the reader doesn't see that Kaufmann is, seemingly, "just a translator."

hmmm...Why don't we argue about whether we should crack eggs on the top half of bottom half of the shell? Like any other artist, WK's philosophy is one thing and his translation of Friedirech Nietzsche should be viewed entirely separately. WK's opinions on Nietzsche's writing only serve to limit the infinite perspective expreessed in Nietzsche's philosophies (or philologies, oftentimes). The power of his work was coopted by various nationalist movements and they succeeded in bastardizing his philosophy, to the point where the only translation at all was done by someone with what I view to be an insufficiently stubborn mind to appreciate Nietsche's true points. F.N.'s used a hegelian dialectic to hold conflicting ideas in concert with one another and then developed pragmatic solutions. WK will be remember for the translations, if anything. DavoudMSA (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I'd like to read at least one example of Nietzsche's use of "Hegelian Dialectic" to hold conflicting ideas in concert with one another and then develop pragmatic solutions. As far as I know, Nietzsche did not use any such "Dialectic," hold any such ideas, or develop any such solutions.Lestrade (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Kaufmann discusses the influence with regard to Nietzsche's development of the concepts: sublimation and self-overcoming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.120.43 (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's easy to provide citations, if they exist.Lestrade (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

makes sense
I notice that the Princeton website says: "Kaufmann was a philosopher, teacher, translator, poet, and photographer." In other words, they put "philosopher" first. His philosophical book on Nietzsche seems to have been hugely influential. (Quote is from: http://philosophy.princeton.edu/walter_kaufmann.html )

Kaufmann and Judaism
Saying that Kaufmann "rejected" Judaism is stretching things a bit I think. In fact, a reading his later works of the 1970's, especially Religions in Four Dimensions and the Man's Lot trilogy shows pretty much the opposite. I think its safe to say that he was an atheist (though that itself may be up for debate), but he clearly had a great deal of respect and affection for Jewish thought, from the prophets to the 20th century.

--rl

It appears we differ on the use of "rejected." I think it fits perfectly, if Kaufmann was an atheist. I have a lot of respect for a number of religions, but I reject them all as a basis for my beliefs. Alan Nicoll 01:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * Kaufmann would disagree with the idea that disbelief in god is incompatible with Judaism. In this way, Judaism is different from Catholicism and Protestantism (for example). Rituals, folkways, customs, and social groups form a large part of Judaism and do not require belief in god. --goethean ॐ 15:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Did Kaufmann practice the rituals, follow the folkways and customs, and participate in the social groups? Also, can you support your claim that Kaufmann would disagree? Alan Nicoll 14:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't know the extent to which Kaufmann participated in Jewish ritual, because he never wrote about that. Yes, I can document my claim with references to his books, but that will take some time. And I'm not sure why I'm supposed to prove something that anyone who has read Kaufmann would know. Have you read Kaufmann? Or are you just talking out of your ass? --goethean ॐ 15:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * If you can push Kaufmann as a believing Jew, then I have to wonder how much of his work you've read. I've read his Faith of a Heretic and Critique of Religion and Philosophy multiple times, and other of his books as well.  I agree that he had "a great deal of respect and affection for Jewish thought"--he clearly has great respect for the prophets; I do also.  But given his strong criticism of Judaism and Christianity in the books I mention, it seems to me very misleading to suggest that he was a believing Jew.  I've never heard of a kind of Judaism without God.  I have not, however, read the books you mention.  I see no reason to put this discussion on a personal basis--surely we can disagree like gentlemen? Alan Nicoll 02:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

 * You've mentioned only his earliest works from the 50s. Kaufmann was invariably an atheist, but if you read his last works (Man's Lot and Religions in Four Dimensions), it is clear how deeply he felt that the Hebrew prophets were extraordinary human beings. I would claim that there is a definite "turn" in WK's thought from the purely anti-religious writings of the early years (for example, inFaith of a Heretic), to his understanding of the different "dimensions" of religion beyond simple belief. --rl

 * Our areas of agreement are large. We're disagreeing very little here, over a question of emphasis and choice of words.Alan Nicoll 16:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Having read much of Kaufmann, I would suggest that his affection for the Jewish faith has more to do with its sympathies and cultural leanings, than with any metaphysical beliefs. While Kaufmann did reject much of the metaphysical truths of traditional Judaism (e.g. divine authorship of the Hebrew Scriptures, binding force of the Commandments, etc.), he found in the Jewish faith a way of looking at life with which he was in great sympathy: A tragic view of man, without the anti-humanistic elements of the Christian faith, or the abstractness of faiths such as Buddhism. I believe that Kaufmann was deeply affected by the spirit of the Jews and their faith, more than by any specific dicta therein. 66.108.4.183 16:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Maybe this will help the perplexed
In 1973, I bought a used copy of WK's Critique of Religion and Philosophy, and it changed my life. In it, Kauffman makes clear that Judaism is not centered on "faith," on "salvation," on correctness of beliefs about the supernatural. It is very difficult to become a Jewish "heretic." In this respect, Judaism differs fundamentally from Christianity and Islam. Judaism is more focussed on rituals and traditions, on loyalty to a historical human community that happens to have become very accomplished in recent centuries, on moral reflection, on debate and discussion. It does not claim to be applicableé to all peoples at all times. Judaism is very tolerant of metaphysical doubt even unto atheism, of the notion that the Tanakh is literary and mythical. I have been repeatedly impressed by the way in which Jews write that Jews are not Biblical literalists. Note how a large majority of Israelis do not belong to a synagogue and yet think of themselves as fully Jewish. It is also clear that for millions of Jews in the 20th century, being Jewish meant struggling to make the human society around them a better place than they found it. In practice, this all too often meant a tragic commitment to some form of Marxism or socialism. Kauffmann wrote very little on Marx and political philosophy; did he see those subjects as lightning rods? I note that Kauffmann intellectually came of age during the McCarthy era, and did not become an American citizen until 1960.

Kauffmann was a German Jew by ancestry, whose powerful secular education made it impossible for him to take Judaism literally. Nevertheless, he was strongly attracted to Leo Baeck, Martin Buber, the tragic themes in existentialism, and to a philosophical approach to literature (now curiously out of fashion). I gather from remarks above that Kauffman near the end of his life became powerfully drawn to the Old Testament prophets. Kauffmann splendidly embodied the Socratic dictum "the unexamined life is not worth living."

I know of no obituary essay in the academic literature devoted to Kauffmann's life and work, and am surprised that this entry cites no such essay. This lacuna raises the distinct possibility that no such essay exists.

Final remark: Kauffmann's translation of Goethe's Faust has not attracted the attention it deserves.202.36.179.65 15:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Let us become perplexed again... *shall we open our eyes? I note that I should read Kauffmann, and his English translation of Goethe (might well not be a bad idea!) For the rest of it, let us be careful about religion, and about "tragic commitment to some form of Marxism of socialism". This is not a billboard, although sometimes it does look like one. Cheers 202.36 (thirty-six!thirty-six! ) (eh! how's in Greek "the unexamined life is not worth living." ?) Lapaz

A stupid question: on Judaism
Sorry in advance for my ignorance. But is it really possible to "become a Jew" ? I understand one would want to convert himself to Judaism, but I thought (my ignorance) that one was born Jewish, and from a Jewish mother. I didn't know one could convert himself to Judaism. Please correct me if I'm wrong — Lapaz 03:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're wrong :) It is certainly possible to convert (see, for example, Wikipedia's Conversion to Judaism article), and regardless, WK was Jewish by heredity anyway, which as it turns out, is what mattered to the Nazis anyway. RobLinwood 04:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The essence of jewishness is the law, the Torah. Following the Torah is what truly makes one a Jew. It has nothing to do with any specific eschatological belief, at all. I find WK's translation to be good but his interpretation of the material is obviously from a perspective the Nietzsche himself would characterize as being based in 'slave morality'. I believe WK did as well to translate WK's works as well as he did, considering the situation from which he came. Unfortunately, the result of the Shoah was to timidify German culture and I find WK's analysis to lack the perpsective of a Master. I remember one of WK's laments was Nietzsche's position on women. I don't think WK and others ever stop to think that feminism is just a construct of the military-industrial complex to get womens' productivity into the scam banking system and take more of their wealth through price inflation. Nietzsche understood how easy it was for women to be corrupted and its fairly obvious his positions on women are not violent, merely natural.

At any rate, I believe that the first edits of Nietzsche's work were distorted by the anti-semitism of his sister, whom he despised precisely for her Anti-Semitism. Nietzsche realized that Anti-Semitism and violent Jewish Nationalism reinforce each other by relying on chaos amongst harmonious individuals.

The title of 'Also Sprach Zarathustra', when translated as 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra', strikes me as a deliberate red herring. It simply should be translated, 'Zoroaster Also Spoke'. The fact that 'Zarathustra' is never translated into 'Zoroaster' is simply POOR SCHOLARSHIP. The manner in which the academic community chooses to collectively ignore this obvious fact is an indictment of modern scholarship with regards to Nietzsche's works. It is unfortunate that everything Nietzsche wrote was coopted and we are only left with tertiary edits designed to produce intentional distortion throughout the work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavoudMSA (talk • contribs) 10:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Unsigned. The German word "also" means, in English, "thus" or "so." You can't translate the title as Zoroaster Also Spoke. If you want to say the English word "also" in German, say "auch."Lestrade (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Old Comments
Is anyone else interested in this subject? --RobLinwood 01:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am interested; why do you ask? Also, I question some parts of the article. I see no reason for the "so-called" in reference to existentialism. And the talk of his conversion leaves the impression that he continued an adherence to Judaism. At least in 1959 (the Harpers article) he explicitly rejects Judaism. Alan Nicoll 21:21, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'm interested in Kaufmann, too. I assume that by "so-called" existentialism, the author means that many question whether some of the authors (Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Rilke) are in fact best described as existentialists. --Goethean 21:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In reference to the 'so-called' description preceding the word existentialism, you may wish to refer to http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/cree/kaufmann.htm

 * RobLinwood's question is the dumbest that I've ever read on Wikipedia. Everything about Kaufmann and his writings is interesting to certain people. I advise RobLinwood to return to his can of Bud, his football game, and his copy of People magazine.205.188.116.68 13:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)TetchySmurf
 * Thanks for your obnoxious and useless remarks. My question (which has obviously been answered) was owing to the fact that WK is not the most well-known or mainstream figure in philosophy. I've certainly added as much to this entry as anyone else, and this discussion page, in which you've felt free to advertise your phenomonal lack of civility, did not exist until I created it.  Enjoy. --rl
 * Hello. Kaufmann was indeed an extremely prominent philosopher during his career; he was one of the most important--if not the most influential--expositors of the Continental tradition in Modern Philosophy in the United States. From his esteemed position on the Princeton faculty, he wrote a series of books unique in American thought. Tragedy and Philosophy, The Faith of a Heretic, and Critique of Religion and Philosophy are still wonderful books, well worth your time. They tie in disparate strands of culture, from Greek tragedy, to European Philosophy, Religion, Jesus, Shakespeare, Freud, in a way which profits the reader immensely, with not only erudition, but great human insight, and a style of expression that is so affecting. I have read some of them three or four times, with continued learning and appreciation. He was much more important than you are aware. Try any of those books some time. You won't be able to put it down. 66.108.4.183 16:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth
 * I would like to kill this discussion by stating that I do not and never have questioned Kaufmann's revelevance or talent. My question, ill-stated though it was, was just meant to find other people interested in him, not to express skepticism as to the value of his works.  I am an enormous fan of WK, and have read all of his writings -- I would not have contributed to this article otherwise. When I posted that comment, there were no other comments on this talk page, and I was keen to find others who shared my interest of Kaufmann's works.  Please take note of dates when posting and reading comments.  I am moving this to the bottom of the page to reflect both its age and general lack of relevance. Thanks. RobLinwood 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect item in bibliography
I don't have time to investigate it, but the entry

“Some Typical Misconceptions of Nietzsche's Critique of Christianity,” Philosophical Review v. 63, no. 1 (January 1954), pp. 3-18

is incorrect. That citation should be for “Hegel's Early Antitheological Phase,” which appears earlier. I don't know where the 'misconceptions' article is, or if it even exists.
 * I think what User:droptone found at Resource Exchange must be it. trespassers william (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Nietzsche criticism
Thanks to User:Danny lost for supplying the page number for the quote criticizing Nietzsche. Now that I've been able to look it up though, I see that it needs to be removed. Immediately after the part quoted in the article he goes on to say: "...because he had no system. Yet this argument is hardly cogent." Thus I will remove it. It also throws into question the other criticism supposed to be from the intro to his translation of Zarathustra. Does anyone have access to this? Someone who could also verify? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I checked the "Editor's Preface" at The Portable Nietzsche, 103-111 (It ends with the quoted conclusion, but doesn't open with ). There are some sentences to the proposed effect:
 * "We might wish that he had taken out his histrionics on Paneth and spared us some of the melodrama in Zarathustra...But often painfully adolescent emotions distract our attention from ideas that we cannot dismiss as immature at all."
 * "After all has been said, Zarathustra still cries out to be blue-penciled; and if it were more compact, it would be more lucid too...What distinguishes Zarathustra is the profusion of 'sapphires in the mud." But what the book loses artistically and philosophically by never having been critically edited by its author, it gains as a uniquely personal record."
 * "This overflowing sense of humor, which prefers even a poor joke to no joke at all..."
 * "Nietzsche's writing, too, is occasionally downright bad, but at its best-superb."
 * Indeed, there is no philosophical criticism here, only stylistic one. See also Thus_Spoke_Zarathustra, which suggests that Kaufmann tried to fix details in the book. trespassers william (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've removed the verification template as, per your entry, the stylistic criticism seems valid. At some point though I think this topic needs to be expanded and balanced with more specifics. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In Nietzsche, Kaufmann pegs one of Nietzsche's arguments against hedonism as fallacious. You can find less direct criticisms throughout this work as Kaufmann's interpretive method seems to depend identifying the problems Nietzsche encountered in his early work and only later resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.120.43 (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

So the full quotation is exactly the following? (Please edit my below text if necessary.) Bo99 (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

 * "it also seems that as a philosopher [Nietzsche] represents a very sharp decline [from Kant and Hegel]
 * because he had no system
 * [such first part of this whole Kaufmann comment is on the internet somewhere -- where?, i can no longer find it -- and it misled me and is misleading anyone who comes across such fragment].
 * Yet this argument is hardly cogent."
 * (I don't have such book and am trying to piece the quotation together from what others have posted.) Bo99 (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (I don't have such book and am trying to piece the quotation together from what others have posted.) Bo99 (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"It is evident at once that Nietzsche is far superior to Kant and Hegel as a stylist; but it also seems that as a philosopher he represents a very sharp decline—and men have not been lacking who have not considered him a philosopher at all—because he has no 'system.' Yet this argument is hardly cogent. Schelling and Hegel, Spinoza and Aquinas had their systems; in Kant and Plato's case the word is far less applicable; and of the many important philosophers who very definitely did not have systems one need only mention Socrates and many of the pre-Socratics. Not only can one defend Nietzsche on this score—how many philosopher today have systems?—but one must add that he had strong philosophic reasons for not having a system." ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Thank you for e.g. finding, typing, and posting the above quotation. To correct the partial and effectively untruthful quotation of Professor Kaufmann that i'm 95% sure i saw somewhere on the Internet, i propose simply to graft into or near the end of the article's biography-section's penultimate paragraph something roughly like the following paragraph:  (Bo99 (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC))
 * "Aside from Nietzsche's style, regarding Nietzsche's substance, Professor Kaufmann wrote that superficially "it also seems that as a philosopher [Nietzsche] represents a very sharp decline [from Kant and Hegel] ... because [Nietzsche] has no 'system.' Yet this argument is hardly cogent. ... Not only can one defend Nietzsche on this score ... but one must add that he had strong philosophic reasons for not having a system."" Bo99 (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please post-below any objections. Thanks.  If there are none after a reasonable interval then i will do such proposed grafting/drafting.  Bo99 (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I made the above-contemplated additions to the article. Bo99 (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Heidegger the seducer - Oh, come on...
The proposition "Kaufmann was also immune to the seductions of Heidegger" is non-objective and pejorative. Therefore it should be altered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.109.142 (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I made the above-contemplated style-change to the article's cited sentence. Bo99 (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Bias
Kaufmann never mentioned Schopenhauer in a positive manner. He always tried to show that Hegel had a greater influence on Nietzsche, despite Nietzsche's own admission of Schopenhauer's extremely strong influence and Nietzsche's meager mentioning of Hegel. It is very possible that Kaufmann was reacting to the few passages in Schopenhauer's works in which he criticized or flouted Jews. After what happened in Europe 65 years ago, any such remarks now appear to be ominous. It could also have been possible that Kaufmann, as a professional philosopher, was joining his colleagues' practice of ignoring Schopenhauer, who vehemently castigated professional philosophers. However, Karl Jaspers also criticized philosophy professors and he was not ignored by Kaufmann. Objectively, however, Kaufmann's dismissal of Schopenhauer seems to be in opposition to factual reality. Lestrade (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
 * Kaufmann was no naive defender of professional philosophers --- on the contrary, he was more often an outspoken critic of the profession. More likely (if you simply take Kaufmann at his word) he simply found Schopenhauer's lengthy resentful diatribes against Hegel to be embarrassing and undignified (who wouldn't?).

 * this edit is quite funny. There are people who think that Heidegger's writing is clear?! — goethean ॐ 14:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

 * I made the change in accord with WP:NPOV. It is the purpose of this article to describe Kaufmann's views, not to issue verdicts about Heidegger. UserVOBO (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Enlightenment
Is it true that WK realized his descent after his aunt presented him with a Spiegel from Wertheim's?Lestrade (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

Cause of Death
Kaufmann died ahead of time, 59.

Here is information on the likely cause of death: http://faculty.gvsu.edu/speara/Walter_Kaufmann_Web_Project/Biographical_Information.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.150.118.208 (talk) 04:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Michael Tanner quotation
Tom baldwin has tried to remove the following from the article: "Michael Tanner called Kaufmann's commentaries on Nietzsche "obtrusive, self-referential, and lacking insight". The user has alleged the existence of a copyright violation, stating, "Please provide evidence that publisher or author has approved the citation. This is a copyright violation". I would like to note that Tom baldwin has failed to provide evidence that any publisher or any author has approved any citation in the article, and appears focused exclusively on that single quotation from Michael Tanner. As such, his position is illogical and inconsistent. What valid reason could there possibly be for removing only the Tanner quotation when there is no evidence anything cited in the article has approval from a publisher or author? Tom baldwin, you may wish to see WP:CFAQ, which notes that, "Under certain conditions, you may copy a copyrighted work without a license from the original author" and that, "Quotations are a very well known and widely used form of fair use and fair dealing and are explicitly allowed under the Berne convention." If you have some other reason besides copyright for wanting to remove the Tanner quotation, perhaps you had better say what it is? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

 * to Tom Baldwin and anyone else who would like to vitiate Tanner’s vitriol against Kaufmann: Tanner’s criticism conflicts with everything i’ve ever heard or read about Kaufmann and by Kaufmann.  I don’t know who Tanner is, and he has no Wikipedia page.  In the past i for one tolerated leaving the Tanner quotation in the article because Tanner’s view appears erroneous even according to the other quotations in the same paragraph.  But if you want to go further and to find justification to delete the Tanner quotation, to demote it to a footnote, to downplay it using paraphrasing rather than quotation, etc, then here’s a possible way, if you have a bit more time than i do:  do a search to confirm whether or not Tanner’s view of Kaufmann-on-Nietzsche is a tiny-minority view, small-minority view, or whatever, and whether or not the large majority view is longstanding worldwide admiration or whatever.  Then, we and Wikipedia are required to ‘Ensure that the reporting of ... a tiny minority view ...’ is tiny, ensure that the reporting of a small-minority view is small, and so on.  Bo99 (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Arguing about the accuracy or lack of it of Tanner's comment is completely pointless. That simply isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to work. WP:TRUTH is a useful essay that points out that, "Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue." You provided a partial quotation from a paragraph of WP:NPOV; the whole paragraph reads,

 * "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field."

 * Are you suggesting that Tanner's suggestion that Kaufmann's commentaries in his translations of Nietzsche are not very good is such a fringe view that it can be compared to Holocaust denial? If so, that is in no sense a reasonable comparison. There is no evidence that a majority of scholars disagrees with Tanner's comment, let alone that it is a fringe view comparable to Holocaust denial. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

 * , this posting is to draw your attention, and that of anyone else who wants to further vitiate Tanner’s vitriol against Kaufmann. For that goal, my posting a bit above describes a valid approach.  Bo99 (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

 * No it doesn't. You selectively quoted WP:NPOV and unconvincingly tried to argue that it would justify removal of the quotation from Tanner. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Reading precisely and thinking precisely, multiple times, are good. And don’t fear, because probably no one is going to do the work right now to delete or demote Tanner’s unusual view.  Bo99 (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If all you can do is to insult me, there is no point in your commenting here at all. There is no evidence that Tanner's view of Kaufmann's commentaries in his editions of Nietzsche's books is a fringe view, as you suggested. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Pls read more carefully. But pls consider dropping the topic, because probably no one is going to do the work right now to delete or demote Tanner’s unusual view.  Bo99 (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Telling other people to re-read your comments does not make your comments any more accurate or compelling. If you cannot make a convincing case, it serves no purpose for you to comment here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

 * No; i did make a convincing case but you need to read more carefully. It’s unpleasant that your conduct generates work for me and others.  But you should stop fighting, because until someone gathers all the evidence contra Tanner and in accord with Tanner, no one is now deleting or demoting Tanner’s unusual vitriol that you champion.  Bo99 (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

 * If all you can do is to reassert that you think you are right without explaining why that deserves no response. Ponyo, Tom baldwin is continuing to edit war at this article to remove content and make unsupported accusations in edit summaries. Something really needs to be done about this. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Comment Whether to include the sourced snippet in relation to possible WP:NPOV concerns is up to editorial discretion and consensus can be determined through discussion here. I have no opinion as to whether the quote should be in the article, but edit warring to blank the sourced content claiming, only in edit summaries with zero article talk page participation, that Wikipedia requires the author's permission for it to be included is just disruptive. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Tom baldwin has kept up a constant stream of accusations against other editors, visible in edit summaries like this one. That's disruptive as well. User needs to be told to discontinue this. If an editor thinks it's appropriate to make one accusation after another instead of discussing issues respectfully, that's a problem. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

 * [The following deals only with the posting two paragraphs above, dated 22:46, 9 October 2018:]

 * No; i did explain why, in my first posting above, but you need to read more carefully. It’s unpleasant that you don't read that text carefully, yet you demand still more text.  But you should stop fighting, because until someone gathers all the evidence contra Tanner and in accord with Tanner, no one is now justifiably deleting/demoting/downplaying Tanner’s unusual vitriol that you champion.  Bo99 (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

 * In other words, all you have to say is more "I am right because I say so" nonsense. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Of course not; my first posting above contains an explanation, with citation to the Wikipedia neutrality rule, but you need to read more carefully. No one else has questioned that posting.  You don't read that text carefully, yet you demand more text.  But you could stop fighting now, because until someone gathers all the authors divergent from and in accord with that Tanner person, no one is now justifiably deleting/demoting/downplaying Tanner’s unusual vitriol.  On the other hand, do keep running up your posting tally, so that you might unwittingly draw the attention of people who might deal with the vitriol that you champion.  Bo99 (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

 * "Of course not; my first posting above contains an explanation" is an example of what I mean by "I am right because I say so" nonsense. Per WP:UNDUE, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". There is no evidence that Tanner's book is not a reliable source, no evidence that Tanner's viewpoint is not significant or the view of a tiny minority. What I am seeing from certain editors here is a demand that the article portray Kaufmann and his work in only the most flattering light. That isn't at all in accord with WP:NPOV. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Grossly illogical. My first posting above is right not because i say so but because it contains an explanation comprised of Wikipedia rule and citation. The Wikipedia rule of neutral or proportional presentation of authors must be applied to the vitriol of the Tanner person.  So there is nothing to be discussed until someone gathers the evidence on all relevant authors, to see if the Tanner person is in a one-person minority, a tiny minority, a small minority, or whatever.  But do keep running up your posting tally, so that you might unwillingly draw the attention of someone who has the time to deal with the vitriol that you champion.  Bo99 (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

 * If you want to exclude Tanner's view because you claim it is a tiny minority or fringe view it is up to you to show that that's what it is. You haven't done that, and I assume cannot. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Illogical; the investigation into the Tanner person's vitriol has not even begun. People will have to gather the evidence on all relevant authors, to see, as required by Wikipedia rule, if the Tanner person is in a one-person minority, a tiny minority, a small minority, etc.  Bo99 (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

 * No, it's your comment that is illogical, because you are attempting to shift the burden of proof, as you have done throughout this discussion, and you are singling out Tanner's comment while ignoring all other views of Kaufmann's work mentioned in the article and refusing to apply the same standard to them. If you claim that Tanner's view is somehow fringe, it is up to you to show that. Otherwise, since his view appeared in a book published by a respectable publisher, there is no reason it should not be referenced in the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Grossly illogical; the Tanner person's negative view can stay in, in some form, until people gather the evidence on all relevant authors, to see if the Tanner person is in a one-person minority, a tiny minority, a small minority, etc. All quoted authors are subject to that Wikipedia rule.  Bo99 (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

 * No. That is not how Wikipedia's policies work. Nowhere do we have a policy that says that we have to "gather the evidence on all relevant authors". You are making this up as you go along. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

 * (refutation exdented to left margin)

Grossly illogical; the Wikipedia rule of neutral or proportional presentation of authors requires knowing the proportions, e.g. knowing if an alleged author such as the Tanner person is in a one-person minority, a tiny minority, a small minority, and so on. That tautologically requires evidence on all relevant authors. Until people gather that evidence, the Tanner person's negative view can stay in, in some form. Bo99 (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Nothing in WP:NPOV says that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

 * It was already explained to you, in my first posting above, that such rule of neutral/proportional presentation of authors requires that articles ‘Ensure that the reporting of ... a tiny minority view ...’ is tiny, ensure that the reporting of a small-minority view is small, and so on. Bo99 (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

 * I'm familiar with WP:NPOV and do not need you to explain it to me. What you said above, "the Wikipedia rule of neutral or proportional presentation of authors requires knowing the proportions, e.g. knowing if an alleged author such as the Tanner person is in a one-person minority, a tiny minority, a small minority, and so on. That tautologically requires evidence on all relevant authors", isn't in NPOV, as I noted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Obviously the 4 lines in your paragraph immediately above are not verbatim in the rule of neutral/proportional presentation. The 4 lines are a paraphrasing.  Bo99 (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

 * to all: Please state your agreement or disagreement with the following narrow, square-bracketed proposal:  [The article's New Yorker plaudits and Jones plaudits should be deleted from the article.]
 * reasons for such deletion, in my view:
 * - The criticism by Tanner is out of the article, so the plaudits should be out too, based on that same rule of neutral presentation.
 * - Such plaudits (and criticism) are too micro, and such micro things are generally excluded from the professional bio of this same professor at the Encyclopedia Of Philosophy.
 * - ‘A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge ... .’ That is  the general inclusion/exclusion criterion, and is an express statement of an ‘accepted knowledge’ criterion, and an implied statement of a ‘macroscopy’ criterion i.e. the omission of micro matters.  Arguably both such criteria would exclude both the plaudits and the criticism.
 * - Thank you in advance.
 * - Bo99 (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

improvement guide
Someday, this bio would benefit enormously by using a professional bio as a guide, e.g. the bio of this same professor at the Encyclopedia Of Philosophy. Bo99 (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Walter Kaufmann (philosopher)


text:
Lawrence West station

Lawrence West is a subway station on Line 1 Yonge–University in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. It is located in the median of William R. Allen Road at Lawrence Avenue West. The station serves the local communities of Lawrence Heights, Lawrence Manor and Glen Park, and nearby destinations such as the Columbus Centre, Lawrence Heights Community Recreation Centre and Lawrence Allen Centre. Wi-Fi service is available at this station. The station has a Gateway Newstands in the paid area of the north side area.

History
The station opened in 1978, as part of the subway line extension from to Wilson station.

In 2008, the Toronto Star reported this station, along with Lansdowne, Kennedy, and Warden to be a "known problem area" in terms of crime in the subway system.

In 2014 an elevator, automatic sliding doors and an accessible fare gate were installed in the main part of the station on the south side of Lawrence Avenue, to make the station wheelchair accessible. In addition, repairs were made to the sawtooth bus platforms and the roadway was repaved for low floor buses. The northside entrance remains inaccessible due to space restrictions and generally used as drop off point by car.

On 6 January 2019, this station discontinued sales of legacy TTC fare media (tokens and tickets), previously available at a fare collector booth. Presto vending machines were available to sell Presto cards and to load funds or a monthly Metropass onto them.

On 5 April 2019, Lawrence West and stations became the first two locations to sell single-use Presto tickets, which are sold from the stations' Presto fare vending machines.

Architecture and art
Dunlop Farrow Aitken was the firm responsible for the station's architecture. The structure is composed of an enclosed train platform area in the median of Allen Road, which is bridged by a bus loop and waiting area on the south side of the Lawrence Avenue bridge. Staffed entrances on both sides of the street connect to a transfer area which links the train platform and the bus area.

Upon entrance from the Lawrence Avenue bridge over Allen Road, the bus waiting area and the train platform are apparent. This openness is achieved through glazed walls and a large stairwell. The glass is framed with distinctive orange-painted metal. The platform level features exposed concrete walls, with a long strip of skylights above the tracks with the same orange framing used throughout the station. Rectangular prism benches with rectangular tiles of yellow, orange, and brown hues are unique to the station. Similar tiles are used on the floors and centre pillars.

Spacing... Aerial Highways, a large 300 foot ceramic tile mural designed by Claude Breeze, spreads across the north face of the main station building above the bus platform.

Surface connections
When the subway is closed, buses use stops outside of the terminal along Lawrence Avenue West. TTC routes serving the station include:

title: Lawrence West station


text:
Edward Salomon

Edward Salomon (August 11, 1828 – April 21, 1909) was a Jewish American politician and the 8th governor of Wisconsin, having ascended to office from the lieutenant governorship after the accidental drowning of his predecessor, Louis P. Harvey. He was the first Jewish governor of Wisconsin.

Early life
Salomon was born in Ströbeck, in the Province of Saxony, in what was then the Kingdom of Prussia. He was the son of Dorothea (Klussman) and Christoph Salomon. He attended the University of Berlin, but as a sympathizer with the contemporary German revolution, fled the country in 1849. He immigrated to the United States and settled in Manitowoc, Wisconsin, where he was a schoolteacher, a surveyor, and served as deputy circuit court clerk. In 1852 he moved to Milwaukee, where he read law, was admitted to the bar in 1855, and set up a law practice with Winfield Smith. Salomon was Jewish and a cousin of Edward S. Salomon, the future governor of the Washington Territory who was considered to be one of the highest-ranking Jewish heroes in the American Civil War.

Career
In 1860, to support Abraham Lincoln for the presidency, Salomon changed his party affiliation from Democratic to Republican. In 1861 he was nominated by the Republican Party on their Union Party ticket as candidate for lieutenant governor. He ultimately won the election by a narrow margin. In 1862, when Governor Louis P. Harvey drowned, Salomon became Wisconsin's first German-born and first Jewish governor.

In 1862 Governor Salomon responded to a request from the War Department for more troops by asking for volunteers and setting up a draft. He was able to raise 14 regiments. Salomon had to call up federal troops to quell the Port Washington Draft Riot. Suppression of the rioters with use of federal troops cost him the 1864 Republican nomination.

In 1864, Salomon resumed his law practice in Milwaukee. In 1869 he moved to New York City, where he continued his law practice for a number of years as legal representative for various important German interests. When he retired in 1894, he returned to Germany and lived there until his death.

Death
Salomon died April 21, 1909, in Germany at Frankfurt am Main. He was buried at Frankfurt's Old Jewish Cemetery.

Family
Salomon married a woman named Elise Nebel. He had three brothers, Charles Eberhard Salomon, Frederich Salomon, and Herman Salomon, all of whom were involved in the American Civil War.

Salomon's brothers, Frederick Salomon and Charles Eberhard Salomon, served as officers in the Union Army. On July 18, 1862, Frederick was appointed by President Abraham Lincoln as a brigadier general of volunteers to rank from July 16, 1862. President Lincoln submitted the nomination to the U.S. Senate on May 17, 1862, and the Senate confirmed the appointment on July 16, 1862. Charles served as colonel of the 5th Missouri Volunteer Infantry (3 months, 1861) and on September 26, 1862, rejoined the army and succeeded Frederick as colonel of the 9th Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry Regiment. On March 13, 1865, his cousin Edward S. Salomon was made a brigadier general for his "distinguished gallantry and meritorious service." On January 13, 1866, President Andrew Johnson nominated Charles Eberhard Salomon for appointment to the grade of brevet brigadier general of volunteers to rank from March 13, 1865, and the Senate confirmed the appointment on March 12, 1866.

title: Edward Salomon


text: Category:1963 singles

title: Category:1963 singles


text:
Glencairn station

Glencairn is a subway station on Line 1 Yonge–University in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. It is located in the median of William R. Allen Road at Glencairn Avenue. Wi-Fi service is available at this station.

The station is in the Glen Park neighbourhood of the city, a lower-density residential area, and despite being near a cluster of high-density residential buildings to the south and a small commercial strip, Marlee Village, to the west, it is one of the least-used stations.

History
The station opened in 1978 in what was then the Borough of North York. It was part of the subway line extension from St. George to Wilson station.

A station at Glencairn and Yonge was considered for the North Yonge extension in the late 1960s and early 1970s. However, this was dropped (along with Glen Echo Station at Yonge Boulevard) because of budgetary concerns. If built, it would have been placed between Eglinton and Lawrence stations on the Yonge line.

Station description
Glencairn station was constructed at ground level within the median of Allen Road, between the Glencairn Avenue and Viewmount Avenue bridges.

Glencairn Avenue, at the north end of the station, has entrances on the north and south side of the street. Here there are both up and down escalators and stairs between the centre train platform, the intermediate concourse where there is a collectors booth and turnstiles, and street level. Viewmount Avenue, at the south end of the station, only has stairs to an automatic entrance on the north side of the street.

As part of the Easier Access program, construction began in 2022 to add elevators to the centre platform; they will connect to the street-level concourse. Construction is scheduled for completion in 2024.

Architecture and art
Glencairn was designed by Adamson Associates. A central vaulted glass roof spans the length of the station, allowing the penetration of natural light to all areas of the station during the day and to be seen at night as a long illuminated strip of light.

The glass roof is directly above the single centre platform. This is similarly to Yorkdale station, where the interior walls of the station at platform level are unfinished concrete, with curved sections over the tracks to form a lower ceiling. Unlike Yorkdale, the curve is less sudden making the walls more rounded in appearance and they are clad with white horizontal panels between vertical concrete "ribs", along with a wider orange panel strip displaying the station name. Platform level seating is sheltered within glass walls. Wayfinding signage is backlit. Floors and some of the walls are clad with red-brown tiles.

Glencairn features an artistic skylight entitled Joy designed by Rita Letendre. It existed in two versions, both by the same artist. The first version was installed in 1977 and consisted of painted translucent glazed act panels; it was removed in the early 1990s at the artist's request after leakage damaged the art panels below the skylight, and was replaced with a lighter weight-supported glazing system. The second version, installed in 2020, is a reinterpretation of the original work. It consists of art colours inserted between two glass panels.

Surface connections
TTC routes serving the station include:

Transfers to buses occur at curbside stops outside this station. 109 Ranee runs along Marlee Avenue one block west of Glencairn station.

title: Glencairn station


text:
Talk:Line 1 Yonge–University

Name in main section
Hello,

Just wanted to get some thoughts on re-adding the Yonge-University-Spadina name into the lead section.

I know we can't add all of the former names into it, but considering the name is still commonly used by the news (See  ) as well the TTC itself on its online infrastructure (note the URL https://www.ttc.ca/Subway/Yonge_University_Spadina.jsp) and when staff make announcements. I think it's worth keeping in.

Especially with the new Spadina subway extension, it can be confusing, since people may think it is another line.

Thanks,

WildComet (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

 * I was wondering if you were going to note the URL. I don't find a non-updated URL a good argument because renames are often done without touching the underlying web infrastructure, but your other points are convincing—I was probably a bit quick on the draw. I think we need slightly better wording, though. I don't think we need a citation to "prove that", though, as there's already a few too many citations in that lead if we consider WP:CITELEAD. Probably only the claim that it's one of the busiest subway systems in the world is likely to be challenged and so require a cite. Anyway, I'll give it a go. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

YNSE March 2021
Re: Metrolinx changes to YNSE. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Metrolinx appears to have definitively changed its plans for the northern end of the YNSE as per its project page as well a March 2021 article and an April 2021 article. Should we change the schema and delete the external reference to the Metolinx map? Also, User:Blaixx objected the use of the "Bridge Station" name to refer to the Highway 7 station; however, Metrolinx is using that name liberally. Should we lift the ban on that tentative name? The Ontario Line article uses tentative names, so why not the YNSE? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with using the name Bridge Station in the article, I just didn't think it looked right in that specific spot (maybe "referred to as" would be better than "to be called"). I also agree that it's time to update the Routemap. I'll do it soon unless someone beats me to it or if someone objects here. BLAIXX 01:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I updated the template. I stored a copy of the old template on the template's talk page for reference, or in case Metrolinx changes its mind. TheTrolleyPole (talk)
 * Thanks. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Route Description needs to be fixed ASAP
Look at title SteelersDiclonious (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Split proposal
The sections on the Toronto-York Spadina Subway Extension and Yonge North Subway Extension currently make up over 40% of the article's prose size, which feels rather undue especially given the section on the line's construction is less than half the length of either section. Given the amount of content dedicated to both extensions, I think a split is warranted. Both articles will be well beyond stub length so they will not need to be merged. ~ UN6892  tc 15:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

 * I think this is a good idea - a paragraph or so summary of the extensions is more than enough for this article. Turini2 (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour too. For reference, 7 Subway Extension and D Line Extension are some other articles about subway line extensions. BLAIXX 17:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are many articles on transit projects - another is Northern line extension to Battersea Turini2 (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not entirely certain I like the idea of a separate article for every single extension, but I appreciate that the proposed new article titles are properly capitalized! I.e. not in title caps. 🙂 —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think in terms of scale - the TYSSE and YNSE would be fine, but a whole article for the Downsview extension would be OTT. Obviously New York managed to get an article for a one station extension, but that's NYC! Turini2 (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am strongly in favour of the split. It helps that there is precedence, especially with there being separate articles for line extensions of the New York City subway, the LA Metro, and the London Underground. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree this article is way too long, but how about cutting a lot of the cruft first? These sections are bloated with dated material, quotes and every tedious movement of the boring machines. Just cherry-picking here, but does this paragraph really need to be on wikipedia:
 * "In March 2016, York Region officials said that SmartTrack, electrified GO service, the Spadina subway extension and automatic train control will be implemented within a decade, and that these would be sufficient to support the extra ridership of an extension to Richmond Hill. Thus, the deputy mayor of Richmond Hill wanted to start construction of the extension by 2019. Vaughan politicians and officials are basing their case on a Metrolinx report from June 2015. The report indicates the Yonge line would have a capacity of 36,000 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd) in 2021 with automatic train control. Demand is 31,200 pphpd in 2015 plus 6,600 growth by 2031 plus 2,400 for the extension north of Steeles giving a total demand of 40,200 pphpd. The TYSSE would divert 1,300 pphpd and Regional Express Rail would divert another 4,200 leaving a demand of 34,700 pphpd and 1,300 pphpd in excess capacity. (However, as of April 2016, Metrolinx has no immediate plans to provide electrified GO service on the Richmond Hill line.) Toronto transit advocate Steve Munro says that, given the Metrolinx analysis, the line would be at 96 percent capacity in the peak hour and, because this is the peak hour average, there would be some overcrowding due to variations over the hour."

Like, holy cow, all this repeated use of "pphpd" belongs on transit forums - Steve Munro's excellent blog, for example - but this is way too much minutiae for wikipedia if you ask me. Echoedmyron (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 * This seems to be a major issue for the YNSE, but much less so for the TYSSE and I think it is fine in its current state (maybe with some trimming of the ridership numbers part). I still think that removal of the cruft would not result in a split not being warranted and I think the paragraphs before the subheaders would be a good length for the section in this page. There is a good amount of usable content in those subheaders though they certainly need to be condensed. ~ UN6892  tc 02:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed the obvious cruft from the YNSE section. I left the old info in for "capacity constraints" without the ppdhd data since it was mainly brought up when the timing of the extension has not be solidified (vs. now when construction is starting) and was an important argument for delaying the extension's construction back then. I know there is still more fix in that section but the remaining material is solid enough for a split. ~ UN6892  tc 16:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Line 1 Yonge–University


text:
Rhineland massacres

The Rhineland massacres, also known as the German Crusade of 1096 or Gzerot Tatnó (גזרות תתנ"ו, "Edicts of 4856"), were a series of mass murders of Jews perpetrated by mobs of French and German Christians of the People's Crusade in the year 1096, or 4856 according to the Hebrew calendar. These massacres are often seen as the first in a sequence of antisemitic events in Europe which culminated in the Holocaust.

Prominent leaders of crusaders involved in the massacres included Peter the Hermit and especially Count Emicho. As part of this persecution, the destruction of Jewish communities in Speyer, Worms and Mainz was noted as the Hurban Shum (Destruction of Shum). These were new persecutions of the Jews in which peasant crusaders from France and Germany attacked Jewish communities. A number of historians have referred to the violence as "pogroms". Sources describing these attacks as pogroms include:
 * Richard S. Levy. Antisemitism: A Historical Encyclopedia Of Prejudice And Persecution, ABC-CLIO, 2005, ISBN 978-1851094394, p. 153.
 * Christopher Tyerman. God's War: A New History of the Crusades, Harvard University Press, 2006, ISBN 978-0674023871, p. 100.
 * Israel Jacob Yuval. Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, University of California Press, 2008, ISBN 978-0520258181, p. 186.
 * Nikolas Jaspert. The Crusades, Taylor & Francis, 2006, ISBN 978-0415359672, p. 39.
 * Louis Arthur Berman. The Akedah: The Binding of Isaac, Jason Aronson, 1997, ISBN 978-1568218991, p. 92.
 * Anna Sapir Abulafia, "Crusades", in Edward Kessler, Neil Wenborn. A Dictionary of Jewish-Christian Relations, Cambridge University Press, 2005, ISBN 978-0521826921, p. 116.
 * Ian Davies. Teaching the Holocaust: Educational Dimensions, Principles and Practice, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2000, ISBN 978-0826448514, p. 17.
 * Avner Falk. A Psychoanalytic History of the Jews, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1996, ISBN 978-0838636602, p. 410.
 * Hugo Slim. Killing Civilians: Method, Madness, and Morality in War, Columbia University Press, 2010, ISBN 978-0231700375, p. 47.
 * Richard A. Fletcher. The Barbarian Conversion: From Paganism to Christianity, University of California Press, 1999, ISBN 978-0520218598, p. 318.
 * David Biale. Power & Powerlessness in Jewish History. Random House, 2010, ISBN 978-0307772534, p. 65.
 * I. S. Robinson. Henry IV of Germany 1056–1106, Cambridge University Press, 2003, ISBN 978-0521545907, p. 318.
 * Will Durant. The Age of Faith. The Story of Civilization Vol. 4, Simon & Schuster, 1950, p. 391.

Background

Though no Crusades explicitly targeted Jews, the fervor for holy war sometimes turned into an outbreak of anti-jewish violence in Europe, even though both ecclesiastical and secular authorities condemned it. The focus on crucifixion story and violence against enemies of the Christian faith during the Crusades, as exemplified by the preaching of Pope Urban II in 1095-96 and Bernard of Clairvaux in 1146-47, needed little misconceptions to be translated into animosity towards Jews. In parts of France and Germany, Jews were perceived as just as much of an enemy as Muslims: they were held responsible for the crucifixion, and they were more immediately visible than the distant Muslims. Many people wondered why they should travel thousands of miles to fight "non-believers" when there were already "non-believers" closer to home.

It is also likely that the crusaders were motivated by their need for money. The Rhineland communities were relatively wealthy, both due to their isolation, and because they were not restricted as Catholics were against moneylending. Many crusaders had to go into debt in order to purchase weaponry and equipment for the expedition; as the Catholic Church strictly forbade usury, many crusaders inevitably found themselves indebted to Jewish moneylenders. Having armed themselves by assuming the debt, the crusaders rationalized the killing of Jews as an extension of their Catholic mission.

There had not been so broad a movement against Jews by Catholics since the seventh century's mass expulsions and forced conversions. While there had been a number of regional persecutions of Jews by Catholics, such as the one in Metz in 888, a plot against Jews in Limoges in 992, a wave of anti-Jewish persecution by Christian millenarian movements (which believed that Jesus was immediately to descend from Heaven) in the year 1000, and the threat of expulsion from Trier in 1066; these are all viewed "in the traditional terms of governmental outlawry rather than unbridled popular attacks." Also many movements against Jews (such as forced conversions by King Robert the Pious of France, Richard II, Duke of Normandy, and Henry II, Holy Roman Emperor around 1007–1012) had been suppressed by various popes and bishops. The passions that were aroused within the Catholic community by Pope Urban II's call for the first crusade had moved the persecution of Jews into a new chapter in history where previous constraints no longer held.

A relevant perspective on the extent of the era's antisemitism was recorded 40 years afterward by Jewish historian Solomon bar Simson. He stated that Godfrey of Bouillon swore:

"to go on this journey only after avenging the blood of the crucified one by shedding Jewish blood and completely eradicating any trace of those bearing the name 'Jew', thus assuaging his own burning wrath."

Emperor Henry IV (after being notified of the pledge by Kalonymus Ben Meshullam, the Jewish leader in Mainz) issued an order prohibiting such an action. Godfrey claimed that he never really intended to kill Jews, but the community in Mainz and Cologne sent him a collected bribe of 500 silver marks.

Sigebert of Gembloux wrote that before "a war in behalf of the Lord" could be fought, it was essential that the Jews convert; those who resisted were "deprived of their goods, massacred, and expelled from the cities."

The first outbreaks of violence occurred in France. According to a contemporary chronicle of events written by an anonymous author in Mainz:

"There first arose the officers, nobles, and common people who were in the land of France [Sarefat] who took counsel together and plotted...to make clear the way to go toward Jerusalem."

Richard of Poitiers wrote that Jewish persecution was widespread in France at the beginning of the expeditions to the east. The anonymous chronicler of Mainz admired the Jews:

"At the time, the [Jewish] communities in France heard [about these things], trembling...seized them. They wrote letters and sent messengers to all the communities around about the River Rhine, [to the effect] that they should fast...and seek mercy from Him who dwells on high, that He might save them from their hands. When the letter reached the holy ones in the land [of the Rhine], namely the men of renown ... in Mainz, they responded [to their brethren in] France as follows: 'The communities have decreed a fast. We have done that which was ours [to do]. May the Lord save us and may He save you from all sorrow and oppression [which might come] upon you. We are in great fear.'"

In June and July 1095, Jewish communities in the Rhineland (north of the main departure areas at Neuss, Wevelinghoven, Altenahr, Xanten and Moers) were attacked, but the leadership and membership of these crusader groups was not chronicled. Some Jews dispersed eastward to escape the persecution.

On top of the general Catholic suspicion of Jews at the time, when the thousands of French members of the People's Crusade arrived at the Rhine, they had run out of provisions. To restock their supplies, they began to plunder Jewish food and property while attempting to force them to convert to Catholicism.

Not all crusaders who had run out of supplies resorted to murder; some, like Peter the Hermit, used extortion instead. While no sources claim he preached against the Jews, he carried a letter with him from the Jews of France to the community at Trier. The letter urged them to supply provisions to Peter and his men. The Solomon bar Simson Chronicle records that they were so terrified by Peter's appearance at the gates that they readily agreed to supply his needs. Whatever Peter's own position on the Jews was, men claiming to follow after him felt free to massacre Jews on their own initiative, to pillage their possessions. Sometimes Jews survived by being subjected to involuntary baptism, such as in Regensburg, where a crusading mob rounded up the Jewish community, forced them into the Danube, and performed a mass baptism. After the crusaders had left the region, these Jews returned to practicing Judaism.

According to David Nirenberg, the events of 1096 in the Rhineland "occupy a significant place in modern Jewish historiography and are often presented as the first instance of an antisemitism that would henceforth never be forgotten and whose climax was the Holocaust."

Folkmar and Gottschalk

In the spring of 1096, a number of small bands of knights and peasants, inspired by the preaching of the Crusade, set off from various parts of France and Germany (Worms and Cologne). The crusade of the priest Folkmar, beginning in Saxony, persecuted Jews in Magdeburg and later, on May 30, 1096, in Prague in Bohemia. The Catholic Bishop Cosmas attempted to prevent forced conversions, and the entire Catholic hierarchy in Bohemia preached against such acts. Duke Bretislaus II was out of the country and the Catholic Church's officials' protests were unable to stop the mob of crusaders.

The hierarchy of the Catholic Church as a whole condemned the persecution of the Jews in the regions affected (though their protests had little effect). Especially vocal were the parish priests (only one monk, named Gottschalk, is recorded as joining and encouraging the mob). Chronicler Hugo of Flavigny recorded how these religious appeals were ignored, writing:

"It certainly seems amazing that on a single day in many different places, moved in unison by a violent inspiration, such massacres should have taken place, despite their widespread disapproval and their condemnation as contrary to religion. But we know that they could not have been avoided since they occurred in the face of excommunication imposed by numerous clergymen, and of the threat of punishment on the part of many princes."

In general, the crusader mobs did not fear any retribution, as the local courts did not have the jurisdiction to pursue them past their locality nor did they have the ability to identify and prosecute individuals out of the mob. The pleas of the clergy were ignored on similar grounds (no cases against individuals were brought forward for excommunication) and the mob believed that anyone preaching mercy to the Jews was doing so only because they had succumbed to Jewish bribery.

Gottschalk the monk went on to lead a crusade from the Rhineland and Lorraine into Hungary, occasionally attacking Jewish communities along the way. In late June 1096, the crusader mob of Gottschalk was welcomed by King Coloman of Hungary, but they soon began plundering the countryside and causing drunken disorder. The King then demanded they disarm. Once their weapons had been secured, the enraged Hungarians fell upon them and "the whole plain was covered with corpses and blood."

The priest Folkmar and his Saxons also met a similar fate from the Hungarians when they began pillaging villages there because "sedition was incited".

Emicho

The largest of these crusades, and the most involved in attacking Jews, was that led by Count Emicho. Setting off in the early summer of 1096, an army of around 10,000 men, women and children proceeded through the Rhine valley, towards the Main River and then to the Danube. Emicho was joined by William the Carpenter and Drogo of Nesle, among others from the Rhineland, eastern France, Lorraine, Flanders and even England.

Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV, absent in southern Italy, ordered the Jews to be protected when he learned of Emicho's intent. After some Jews were killed at Metz in May, John, Bishop of Speyer gave shelter to the Jewish inhabitants. Still, 12 Jews of Speyer were slain by crusaders on May 3. The Bishop of Worms also attempted to shelter Jews, but the crusaders broke into his episcopal palace and killed the Jews inside on May 18. At least 800 Jews were massacred in Worms when they refused Catholic baptism.

News of Emicho's crusade spread quickly, and he was prevented from entering Mainz on May 25 by Bishop Ruthard. Emicho also took an offering of gold raised by the Jews of Mainz in hope to gain his favor and their safety. Bishop Ruthard tried to protect the Jews by hiding them in his lightly fortified palace. Nevertheless, Emicho did not prevent his followers from entering the city on May 27 and a massacre followed. Many among the Christian business class (the burghers) in Mainz, had working ties with Jews and gave them shelter from the mobs (as the burghers in Prague had done). The Mainz burghers joined with the militia of the bishop and the burgrave (the town's military governor) in fighting off the first waves of crusaders. This stand had to be abandoned when crusaders continued to arrive in ever greater numbers, and the militia of the bishop together with the bishop himself fled and left the Jews to be slaughtered by the crusaders. Despite the example of the burghers, many ordinary citizens in Mainz and other the towns were caught up in the frenzy and joined in the persecution and pillaging. Mainz was the site of the greatest violence, with at least 1,100 Jews (and possibly more) being killed by troops under Clarambaud and Thomas. Given the choice between flight, death, and conversion, some Jews opted for a desperate fourth alternative: active martyrdom, that is, killing their family and themselves. One man, named Isaac, was forcefully converted, but wracked with guilt, later killed his family and burned himself alive in his house. Another woman, Rachel, murdered her four children with her own hands so that they would not be kidnapped and "raised in the way of error" as Christians. Chronicler Solomon bar Simpson compared Rachel to the martyrdom of the woman and her seven sons in an attempt to make sense of her desperate act.

Eliezer ben Nathan, a Jewish chronicler at the times, paraphrased Habakkuk 1:6 and wrote of

"cruel foreigners, fierce and swift, Frenchmen and Germans...[who] put crosses on their clothing and were more plentiful than locusts on the face of the earth."

On May 29 Emicho arrived at Cologne, where most Jews had already left or were hiding in Christian houses. In Cologne, other smaller bands of crusaders met Emicho, and they left with quite a lot of money taken from the Jews there. Emicho continued towards Hungary, soon joined by some Swabians. Coloman of Hungary refused to allow them through Hungary. Count Emicho and his warriors besieged Moson (or Wieselburg), on the Leitha. This led Coloman to prepare to flee into Russia, but the morale of the crusader mob began to fail, which inspired the Hungarians, and most of the mob was slaughtered or drowned in the river. Count Emicho and a few of the leaders escaped into Italy or back to their own homes. William the Carpenter and other survivors eventually joined Hugh of Vermandois and the main body of crusader knights. Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV overruled Church law and permitted forcibly converted Jews to return to Judaism.

Later attacks on Jews

Later in 1096, Godfrey of Bouillon also collected tribute from the Jews in Mainz and Cologne, and would have participated in pogroms himself if he had not been ordered by Henry IV not to do so. Saint Louis University Professor Thomas F. Madden, author of A Concise History of the Crusades, claims the Jewish defenders of Jerusalem retreated to their synagogue to "prepare for death" once the Crusaders had breached the outer walls of the city during the siege of 1099. The chronicle of Ibn al-Qalanisi mentions the building was set on fire while the Jews were still inside. The Crusaders were supposedly reported as hoisting up their shields and singing "Christ We Adore Thee!" while they circled the fiery complex." However, a contemporary Jewish letter written shortly after the siege does not mention the burning synagogue. But playing on the religious schism between the two sects of Judaism, Arabist S.D. Goitein speculates the reason the incident is missing from the letter is because it was written by Karaite Jews and the synagogue belonged to Rabbinic Jews.

Following the siege, Jews captured from the Dome of the Rock, along with native Christians, were made to clean the city of the slain. Tancred took some Jews as prisoners of war and deported them to Apuleia in southern Italy. Several of these Jews did not make it to their final destination as "Many of them were [...] thrown into the sea or beheaded on the way." Numerous Jews and their holy books (including the Aleppo Codex) were held ransom by Raymond of Toulouse. The Karaite Jewish community of Ashkelon (Ascalon) reached out to their coreligionists in Alexandria to first pay for the holy books and then rescued pockets of Jews over several months. All that could be ransomed were liberated by the summer of 1100. The few who could not be rescued were either converted to Catholicism or murdered. The First Crusade ignited a long tradition of organized violence against Jews in European culture. Jewish money was also used in France for financing the Second Crusade; the Jews were also attacked in many instances, but not on the scale of the attacks of 1096. In England, the Third Crusade was the pretext for the expulsion of the Jews and the confiscation of their money. The two Shepherds' Crusades, in 1251 and 1320, also saw attacks on Jews in France; the second in 1320 also attacked and killed Jews in Aragon.

Catholic Church response
The massacre of the Rhineland Jews by the People's Crusade and other associated persecutions were condemned by the leaders and officials of the Catholic Church. The Church and its members had previously carried out policies to protect the presence of Jews in Christian culture. For example, the twenty-five letters regarding the Jews of Pope Gregory I from the late sixth century became the primary texts for the canons, or Church laws, which were implanted to not only regulate Jewish life in Europe but also to protect it. These policies did have limits to them; the Jews were granted protection and the right to their faith if they did not threaten Christianity and remained entirely submissive to Christian rule. These regulations were enacted in a letter by Pope Alexander II in 1063. Their goal was to define the place of the Jews in Christian society. The Dispar nimirum of 1060, was the late eleventh-century papal policy concerning the Jews. It rejected acts of violence and punishments of the Jews, and it enforced the idea of protecting the Jews because they were not the enemy of the Christians. This papal policy aimed at creating a balance of privilege and restrictions on Jews so that the Christians did not see their presence as a threat. Sixty years after the Dispar nimirum, inspired by the atrocities of the First Crusade, the Sicut Judaeis was issued. It was a more detailed and organized text of the position of the papacy concerning the treatment of Jews. This text was enacted by Pope Calixtus II in 1120. It defined the limits of the Jews' eternal servitude and continued the reinforcement of the Jews' right to their faith.

The bishops of Mainz, Speyer, and Worms had attempted to protect the Jews of those towns within the walls of their palaces. In 1084 Rüdiger Huzmann (1073–1090), bishop of Speyer, established an area for the Jews to live, to protect them from potential violence. Rüdiger's successor, Bishop John, continued the protection of Jews during the First Crusade. During the attack on Speyer, John saved many of the Jews, providing them protection in his castle. Bishop John had the hands of many attackers cut off. Archbishop Ruthard of Mainz tried to save the Jews by gathering them in his courtyard; this was unsuccessful as Emicho and his troops stormed the palace. Ruthard managed to save a small number of Jews by putting them on boats in the Rhine. The Archbishop of Cologne, Hermann III, sent many of the Jews to outlying villages, so that they would be safe from Crusaders. The archbishop of Trier was less effective; he favored protecting the Jews from violence, but during the attack on Trier, he hid and did not take any action to help them. Some bishops, like Archbishop Hartwig of Spanheim in Magdeburg, went as far as offering the Crusaders silver to spare the Jews.

After the First Crusade, there was a continued effort made by the popes to protect the Jews, so that violence that occurred in the Rhineland Valley would not reoccur. In 1272, Pope Gregory X stated that the Jews "are not capable of harming Christians, nor do they know how to do so." Popes continually assured the Christian people that the Jews were not the enemy, but the Saracens were because they opposed Christianity, and Jews would only become the enemy if they challenged the religion. Following Gregory X's lead, Pope Benedict XIII clearly stated to the Christian people how to treat the Jews. "Jews are never to be burdened beyond the limits of the present constitution. [They are not] to be molested, to be offered in their persons, or to have their goods seized... [Rather, they are to be treated] humanely and with clemency..." Benedict enforced the privileges given to the Jews by warning the Christians that their actions toward the Jewish people must not violate those given to them by the Church.

Fifty years later, when St. Bernard of Clairvaux was urging recruitment for the Second Crusade, he specifically criticized the attacks on Jews that had occurred in the First Crusade. Though Clairvaux considered the Jews to be "personae non gratae", he condemned in his letters the crusaders' attacks on the Jews and ordered protection for Jewish communities. There is debate on Bernard's exact motivations: he may have been disappointed that the People's Crusade devoted so much time and resources to attacking the Jews of Western Europe while contributing almost nothing to the attempt to retake the Holy Land itself, the result being that Bernard was urging the knights to maintain focus on the goal of protecting Catholic interests in the Holy Land. It is equally possible that Bernard held the belief that forcibly converting the Jews was immoral or perceived that greed motivated the original Rhineland massacre: both sentiments are echoed in the canon of Albert of Aachen in his chronicle of the First Crusade. Albert of Aachen's view was that the People's Crusaders were uncontrollable semi-Catholicized country-folk (citing the "goose incident," which Hebrew chronicles corroborate) who massacred hundreds of Jewish women and children and that the People's Crusaders were themselves slaughtered by Turkish forces in Asia Minor.

Jewish reactions
News of the attacks spread quickly and reached the Jewish communities in and around Jerusalem long before the crusaders themselves arrived. However, Jews were not systematically killed in Jerusalem, despite being caught up in the general indiscriminate violence caused by the crusaders once they reached the city.

The Hebrew chronicles portray the Rhineland Jews as martyrs who willingly sacrificed themselves in order to honour God and to preserve their own honour.

Sigebert of Gembloux wrote that most of those Jews who converted before the crusader threat later returned to Judaism.

In the years following the crusade, the Jewish communities were faced with troubling questions about murder and suicide, which were normally sins for Jews just as they were for Catholics. The Rhineland Jews looked to historical precedents since Biblical times to justify their actions: the honourable suicide of Saul, the Maccabees revolt against Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the suicide pact at Masada, and the Bar Kochba revolt were seen as justifiable deaths in the face of a stronger enemy. Despite this, the suicidal and homicidal nature of the Rhineland Jews' actions largely separated the events of 1096 from previous incidents in Jewish history. While the events of Masada most closely parallel those of the Rhineland Massacres, it is important to note that the dramatic suicides of that event were often downplayed by Rabbinic scholars, even to the point of Masada's total omission from some Rabbinic histories. Consequently, the deaths of the Rhineland Jews still held a great deal of novelty and presented confusion for both contemporary and subsequent theologians and historians.

The Biblical moment that was most commonly evoked by chroniclers of the Rhineland Massacres was the Binding of Isaac, to which several allusions appear throughout the major primary sources, the Mainz Anonymous, the Soloman bar Simson Chronicle, and the Eliezer bar Nathan Chronicle (though allusions to this moment persist beyond these sources, and even in to more modern interpretations). Although it was the most common Biblical reference, the details of the Binding of Isaac presented significant dissimilarities (alongside definite parallels) that put the actions of the Rhineland Jewry at odds with the Biblical narrative. While Isaac was spared from sacrifice by divine intervention, the Jews of the Rhineland committed their ritual suicide to its end. This influenced novel interpretations of the binding of Isaac. The Soloman bar Simson Chronicle interprets the sacrifice of the Rhineland Jews as a similar, though even greater expression of righteousness and piety than that of Abraham, a theme echoed throughout other chronicles of the events. Similarly, a preexisting alternative Midrashic reading of the Binding of Isaac claiming that Isaac truly was sacrificed gained a newfound popularity following the events of 1096. Still, a total synthesis of the Binding of Isaac (particularly as a condemnation of human sacrifice) with the ritual deaths of 1096 was never quite achieved, and remains an inconsistency between Jewish theology and historical practice.

Several 20th century Jewish authors have related the events of 1096 to an underlying theme of human sacrifice. Historian Israel Yuval understood these choices as a manifestation of a Messianic theology that was uniquely tied to medieval Jews living in the midst of Latin Christendom. This theology understood the Messiah's coming as a time of vengeance against those who transgressed against God and the Jewish people, as well as a process that was sensitive to the blood of Jewish martyrs. Such ideas are alluded to in the Sefer Hasidim, a work of the twelfth century consisting of an amalgamation of Rabbinic teachings common to the era and the centuries immediately preceding it. Additionally relevant was a medieval Ashkenazi genealogical interpretation of Christians as descendants of the Biblical Esau (referred to as Edomites), over whom the Jews (the descendants of Jacob) would eventually succeed and gain dominion. Following from this, the events of 1096 presented an opportunity for the Rhineland Jews to ritually offer their deaths as an example of Christian transgression and spur the Messianic Age – an analysis supported by the frequent ritual tone and symbolism employed by Jewish chroniclers while describing the deaths, and their somewhat lesser interest for Jews who simply died by Christian hands directly. This included frequent descriptions of suicides occurring within synagogues (which were on occasion burning), and the shedding of blood on the Holy Ark. Despite this, somewhat more post hoc explanations provided by Medieval Jewish chroniclers also existed. Most often, the homicide of the Rhineland children was explained by the adage "lest they dwell among the Gentiles; it is better that they die innocent and not guilty", meaning that it was better to kill Jewish children and prevent them from losing their religion than to allow them to die later as a non-Jew. The descriptions of Jewish parents killing their children was shocking to Christian ears, and may have served as fuel for later accusations of blood libel.

Prior to the Crusades, the Jews were divided among three major areas which were largely independent of one another. These were the Jews living in Islamic nations (still the majority), those in the Byzantine Empire and those in the Catholic West. With the persecutions that began around 1096, a new awareness of the entire people took hold across all of these groups, reuniting the three separate strands.

In the late 19th century, Jewish historians used the episode as a demonstration of the need for Zionism (that is, for a new Jewish state).

Manuscripts

 * Albert of Aix, Historia Hierosolymitana
 * Mainz Anonymous
 * Solomon bar Simson Chronicle
 * Eliezer bar Nathan Chronicle

Journal articles

 * (Hebrew)
 * (German)
 * (German)
 * (Hebrew)
 * (German)
 * (German)
 * (German)
 * (German)
 * (German)
 * (German)
 * (German)

title: Rhineland massacres