Jump to content

User talk:RJC: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎nietsche: new section
Line 52: Line 52:


: Those are five different editions of the Thomas Common translation from 1909, not five different scholars. Kaufmann, Pippin, and Hollingdale all translate it as ''Thus Spoke Zarathustra''. I was unable to find any other translators. I also know that Lampert, Rosen, Ansell-Pearson, Dannhauser, Strauss, Pangle, and Reginster use "spoke," since I have their stuff on my bookshelf. I would name more, but their stuff is in my office. On the other hand, I have never seen any scholar refer to it as ''Thus Spake Zarathustra''. Not one. I'm not saying that it is impossible that anyone has managed to get that past in a peer-reviewed book or journal in, say, the last forty years, but it would surprise me and I would be inclined to consider that a usage against academic consensus. '''[[User:RJC|<span style="background:#CEFFCE;color:#0000C6;font-family:Garamond">RJC</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:RJC|<span style="color:#0000C6">Talk</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/RJC|<span style="color:#0000C6">Contribs</span>]]</sub> 21:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
: Those are five different editions of the Thomas Common translation from 1909, not five different scholars. Kaufmann, Pippin, and Hollingdale all translate it as ''Thus Spoke Zarathustra''. I was unable to find any other translators. I also know that Lampert, Rosen, Ansell-Pearson, Dannhauser, Strauss, Pangle, and Reginster use "spoke," since I have their stuff on my bookshelf. I would name more, but their stuff is in my office. On the other hand, I have never seen any scholar refer to it as ''Thus Spake Zarathustra''. Not one. I'm not saying that it is impossible that anyone has managed to get that past in a peer-reviewed book or journal in, say, the last forty years, but it would surprise me and I would be inclined to consider that a usage against academic consensus. '''[[User:RJC|<span style="background:#CEFFCE;color:#0000C6;font-family:Garamond">RJC</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:RJC|<span style="color:#0000C6">Talk</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/RJC|<span style="color:#0000C6">Contribs</span>]]</sub> 21:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

== nietsche ==

hello sir,

in wikipedia's article refers Kazantzakis as philosopher.I know that it wasnt just a novelist,stricto sensu,and i think it would be good to add his name in the influenced section

Revision as of 14:33, 14 August 2009


Hi, do you have a link to the previous similar AfD? Apparently it isn't the same name as this article. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kingbr (talk) RJC - You will find that a Bloomberg/SBC (Athens Business Channel) TV interview was aired a couple of weeks ago clearing up the various claims about AAFM and IAFM and establishing that the association has indeed changed it's name and structure, despite claims to the contrary. This interview is now referenced on the wikipedia article for all to see. These public domain sources are irrefutable, and backed up by legal structural changes. We do hope you will allow the appropriate changes to take place that have been obstructed by financeprofessor and sock puppets... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingbr (talkcontribs) 15:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(From Talk:American Academy of Financial Management) Kingbr recently posted a set of Youtube clips purporting to discuss the change in the AAFM's name to IAFM. I did not watch all 40 minutes of the clips, but after 10 minutes it became clear that Brett King was being interviewed about the financial crisis, not about the organization. Moreover, a claim he makes on the air differs from a news agency's reporting on that claim. A statement he makes (which I have yet to find) in an interview that was not checked by the news agency should be treated as self-published, and as Mr. King has a vested interest in this matter WP:SELFPUB recommends against treating this as a reliable source. I have therefore reverted his edits. RJC TalkContribs 16:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kingbr (talk) RJC - I am amused that you believe that the SBC business channel (http://www.sbctv.gr/) could be manipulated to 'self-promote' information about a completely independent organization. At this point I am calling for other editors to review your revisions of the article American Academy of Financial Management as I do not believe you are acting independently nor in the interests of users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingbr (talkcontribs) 12:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asian lawyer (talk) A quick Google News search finds references for this organization in the Gulf News of UAE, Asian Banker Journal and Straits Times of Singapore. I think perhaps a Greek TV Channel is also a reputable source. RJC - Are you only looking for a news source that you know/recognize, or is public domain good enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asian lawyer (talkcontribs) 15:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did it, found no stories for either "International Academy of Financial Management" nor "American Academy of Financial Management," let alone any discussing this name change. RJC TalkContribs 15:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RJC - I know you've been following this article, but your reversion of the recent edits was unhelpful. As you are aware from the discussions on the discussion page and so forth, there has been major legal action and disputes involving a previous director of the association who severed himself from the association and started to distribute certificates online via a certificate mill, creating what has been characterized as a 'scism'. The removal of the AAFM listed qualifications in the article from the FINRA website and their registry means under Rule of Conduct 2210 of the FINRA/SEC Code of Conduct that these designations can not be used any longer by registered investment advisors or they will face felony charges in the United States in respect to fraudulently representing themselves as a qualified professional. This information was added to the article to assist the public to make an informed decision. By your removal of those facts supported by easy reference to the FINRA listing, you are creating risk for individuals who unknowingly accept the papers offered from the website of the offending past director. I would ask you to reconsider this. Specifically in the references #3 and #4 it is intimated that NASD (now FINRA) approve of the article's listed qualifications. This is not the case and it is a matter of public record by reference to FINRA who remains the foremost industry regulator for the finance sector.

Please allow the edit to be restored for the protection of members of the public. I will ask you to do this, because clearly under the wikieditor rules I believe that it would be bad faith for me to make such an amendment without your cooperation.

Up until this action was taken by FINRA, I do believe the airing of the dirty laundry in public was a negative for our collective association. At this point, however, we have to ensure Wikipedia is not being used as a platform for misinformation. I only ask you to restore references to legitimate government and industry sources that reflect a complete picture of the facts.

Brett (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on political straw polls

The article Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election and its associated pages were deleted as of 9 Nov 2008, and the deletions are now being reviewed. Because of your prior involvement, please comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election. Thank you for your consideration! 20 involved editors are being notified. JJB 19:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that all scholars refer to it as 'spoke'?

Seems like an assertion to me...

VenomousConcept (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, here's a few links to some 'scholars' who clearly think it should be 'spake'...

http://philosophy.eserver.org/nietzsche-zarathustra.txt

http://books.google.com/books?id=v5DFOleeTeAC&dq=Thus+Spake+Zarathustra&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=GpI9HjYp5G&sig=f7TeXZqpdwVncvnkNDElZMAe1O4&hl=en&ei=T_R5SoviHMLr-Ab3pK3HBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=EOBW3zcuh7QC&dq=Thus+Spake+Zarathustra&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=T_R5SoviHMLr-Ab3pK3HBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/n/nietzsche/friedrich/n67a/

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1891nietzsche-zara.html

VenomousConcept (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are five different editions of the Thomas Common translation from 1909, not five different scholars. Kaufmann, Pippin, and Hollingdale all translate it as Thus Spoke Zarathustra. I was unable to find any other translators. I also know that Lampert, Rosen, Ansell-Pearson, Dannhauser, Strauss, Pangle, and Reginster use "spoke," since I have their stuff on my bookshelf. I would name more, but their stuff is in my office. On the other hand, I have never seen any scholar refer to it as Thus Spake Zarathustra. Not one. I'm not saying that it is impossible that anyone has managed to get that past in a peer-reviewed book or journal in, say, the last forty years, but it would surprise me and I would be inclined to consider that a usage against academic consensus. RJC TalkContribs 21:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nietsche

hello sir,

in wikipedia's article refers Kazantzakis as philosopher.I know that it wasnt just a novelist,stricto sensu,and i think it would be good to add his name in the influenced section