User talk:Slrubenstein

It is currently 19:07 where I am

Please place any questions or comments for me at the bottom of this page. Thanks.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

Hello. Jewish friend

The Brights movement seems to be a British thing. I once said, "I seem to be pretty bright (intelligent) but not too Bright (naturalistic thinking)." In other words, I don;t seem to have much cnfidence in my sense of common Sense.

Can you tell that my typing skills are rusty? I wish I could hire someone to take dictation,

I would like you to send word to my sister, Dawn Marie Vanderhyde, nvywfe72@ yahoo.com, NAVy WiFE, DMV, &c. She is my durable power of attorney for medical affairs. We've talked enough that she knows I consuder you to be another sister, or at least a tolkienish Elf-friend. Dawn knows who SOPHIA is, anyway. I'm going down the membershio roll at User:Archola/The_Centrist_Fellowship. Dawny Dawny Doo, where are you?

I am suffering from lung cancer that invaded the human brain and required brain surgery. Trying to coordinate information in my environment is like waiting for the Pony Express. (Coordination is going to be difficult suce the lung tumor invaded my brain through the Cerebellum-Spinocerebellar tract complex. Oh, joy! Not to mention that I heard the doctors here at Skilled Neurosurgery discussing with my sis that they were planning to remove a bone from my skull and let my neck muscles support the back of my head.

one little thing

Heh, :) that's Gwen Gale (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Particularism

Hi Rubenstein,

When I performed that merge, I was debating between either doing as I did or splitting all the sections off into their own articles and turning Particularism into a disambiguation page. The various concepts might have some vague connection between them, but they seem to all be fairly separate topics on the whole. What do you think of this idea?

Neelix (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

recommend a book on historical Jesus?

I've read a lot of Jesus Seminar, some Crossan, a little Borg. Names I hear a lot are Meier, Sanders, Armstrong, Vermes. I don't think I take Tabor seriously, and I like Ehrman for texts but not necessarily for historical biography. Would you be able to recommend a next book or scholar to take up? Thank you. Leadwind (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer was more than I'd hoped for. Thanks. You asked my opinion on the topic, and I hate to disappoint you but I'd honestly recommend Five Gospels by the Jesus Seminar. Funk is up front about the seminar's agenda, so you can read around it. Most of the gospels are not about the Seminar's non-apocalyptic agenda, so most of the book is mainstream. This book represents a massive amount of work by a lot of very smart people from a lot of specialized fields. They even produced new translations of the works, the Scholars Version. It's a huge effort and it pays off. They take you into the sayings of Jesus practically line by line. It's also amazing for looking up any gosh darn verse you want and seeing what someone says about it. Most of their "shocking" findings are just regular old scholarship. That was Funk's point. To take the shocking, iconoclastic findings of modern Bible research and get people to pay attention to them. Leadwind (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you've already read Sanders, Vermes, and Fredricksen, I'm not sure how much new material Meier or Theissen would offer. I think they are very good for reference, and they both discuss the different views of various scholars when there are disagreements. Theissen's work is a good overview, and is basically written in outline format. It covers most topics. Meier is much, much more thorough, but doesn't cover as many topics. Meier is a little more conservative than the 3 you've read, but he discusses disagreements and goes into depth about his views. I enjoy read Meier's writing, even if I don't agree with some of his conservative personal judgments, but I admit I don't have the 3rd volume, nor have I read the 2nd cover to cover (hey, it's a really long book!). I'm not sure of your interest level in this topic, nor how much of an avid reader you are so I cannot state for sure whether it is worth your while to read these works. They are invaluable references to me, but I don't think I'll be reading any of them cover to cover any time soon. Not sure if this will help you, but hopefully it does somewhat. Good luck!-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Independent sourcing for Elements of Fiction

I read with interest your views on WT:OR, as I thought you made some well thought out points. I would be grateful if you would consider applying your intellect and skills to the discussions at WT:FICT#Independent sources were the participants are very close to agreeing on the current draft of Notability (fiction) guideline, but an impass has been reached on the issue of independent sourcing. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wow

Hey, thank you for taking the time to come talk to me, I really appreciate that. I completely understand what you're saying, and I hope that you didn't take my closing comment to mean that "I give up". I'm the type of person that tends to be reflective. When confronted with opposing points of view, I'll listen, back away, and think about what is said. Then, if I feel a need to clarify my position, I'll attempt to approach the topic from a different angle or point of view. Given that many editors here have had much more academic training than I, sometimes I need to do a little research before I respond. I do understand that "truth" can be a very subjective thing, especially when discussed from a philosophical standpoint. I've seen entries allowed to stand (at least for a while) simply because a newspaper printed it. For example, if the NY Times writes a piece on politician A, that says he is cold-hearted (that can be verified, and is allowed to stay) - If I witness the same person help an elderly lady across the street, that's OR. In fact, if I even mention it on the talk page, I can be told that this is not a forum. But I'm getting off-topic here. I love this place, I love to learn, and that very statement on WP:V (not truth) is the final push that prompted me to join and start editing. I've found as much knowledge on article talk pages as I've found on the actual articles. When you throw in the "boards", "Policy and guidelines", "Reference Desks", and history tabs, there is are huge resources here beyond the articles themselves. (As well as all the entertaining AN/I and alert pages, although much of it is more entertainment and soap opera than actual knowlede [...] at least for those of us who tend to refrain from commenting). I admit, I don't envy you administrators when slope gets slippery. I haven't even looked at the ArbCom stuff yet. Although if you look at the User:FT2, or F2T or whatever issues, I suppose it could be considered quite the soap opera. And the flagged revisions? [...], but again I've gotten way off topic.

Back to "the truth". Yes, I understand that I can say "It's cold in Pittsburgh, PA., today", and someone who lives in Alaska can offer a very viable dispute. There is an abundance of academic types here, many professors and post-grads who are able to use vocabulary and fine points of policy to further their "truths". As a more "blue-collar" type of editor, it's up to me to work a little harder to get my alternative points of view across in a way that they are allowed to stand. In the Larry Sanger article, the "Citizendium v. Wikipedia" section just has a very POV feel to it, and I'm not fond of attempts to shed anything or anyone in a negative light. I believe that all people and issues can be discussed on their own merits, and it's a more mature attitude to find the good in life. To be sure, Wikipedia has it's short-comings, but it has merits that deserve their day in the sun as well. I don't care for the "throw stones at the guy on the top" mentality, and believe that "truth" should be equal and fair. That's why I came to WP:V again, to find the fine points in an attempt to allow my edits to stand without being reverted. After research, I do understand that I may be dealing with an editor who loves a wiki-drama, and it will take me a few days to decide if I want to make any more attempts at improving that particular article.

Well, thank you again for taking the time to come talk to me, I really appreciate you taking time out of your wiki-work to do that. It shows once again how valuable the wiki admins are, and how hard they work to provide "knowledge", and provide constructive input to our little slice of the web. Sorry for the extended forumish, it lets me work through the jumbled thoughts in my head. It's a real pleasure to meet you. ;) Ched (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boy does that entry need some copyedit work! First draft and all I guess. LOL Ched (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NO! Not bored in the least, in fact as I was watching the NFL playoffs, I was wondering if it would be proper etiquette to put the blurb about my ref. to BLP rather than essay on your page. But I didn't want to distract you from your work, or abuse the talk pages in a "chat" fashion. You bring up several points that I hadn't considered. (yet) The ArbCom thing was just an off-the-cuff note of something I'm not really interested in (yet). I do enjoy some of the AN/I conversations, even though I find some revolve around some very childish issues. They can also be educational in what not to do here. I was told 30 years ago that I had a very philosophical outlook on life when I was a young man, I guess it's still true today.

The sheer volume of articles at Wikipedia makes it an almost inexhaustible read. I've also learned that reading the talk pages and history can be as enlightening as the articles themselves. I'll probably join the Citizendum site eventually as well, but I don't see a need to bash one site over the other since both have some very admirable traits, and are worthy in their own rights. Even if one doesn't always agree with Jimbo, it would be nearsighted to at least not respect his vision.

Also, I was in fact debating about creating an article titled Pseudo-journalism, as a counter to some of the presentation in the Larry BLP. Reading his talk pages, and interviews, I think even he would take issue with the way some of the items are presented on his BLP page. Even if he couldn't directly edit due to COI, it would be interesting to hear his input, and Jimbo's as well. And I haven't even touched on your views on religion yet (although I was raised with the New Testament). I admire your thought process, and outlook on education and thought. So please don't ever feel you're boring me with anything, even if I don't always agree with you on some topic, I'll always appreciate the input - it helps me make a more informed opinion. Ched (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Culture/GA1

I see you added some comments then deleted them. What's up? --Philcha (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have done a substantial re-write of the whole Culture article. I am worried that, with so many changes at once, and so little discussion of best approach to resolving the problems there were with the article: (1) some worthwhile material may have been lost; and (2) the article now seems to cover the subject as a history of development of US/UK (and a bit of other Western) academic thought. It does not seem a very worldwide approach, even historically. Surely the topic must have been thought about and studied in other parts of the world! It seems a bit radical to add so much material and delete so much material from an important article in one run. Would it not be best if solutions to the pre-existing problems are arrived at by discussion and tackled bit by bit? Under the verswion you have put up, many items are not referenced and there are several important aspects of the topic, to my way of thinking as a non-academic - which are not covered. In my view, your changes should be undone as they are too radical, but the contents of your new version of the article should be preserved as a communal resource in fixing the previous problems. Would that be OK with you? I am thinking of copying my remarks to the GA1 discussion but am not sure if that is appropriate --AlotToLearn (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding as a relatively new user was that the GA subsumed page goes at the bottom of the Culture talk page, and anyone wanting to add a different or new or separate topic would add it ABOVE the GA review discussion. Is that wrong? By adding a topic below, surely you are cutting the GA review short and terminating it? Is that what you want to do? All I was trying to do was fix that problem.--AlotToLearn (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, if you want your comment to be added to the GA discussion, then you click the Edit next to the GA review main header (ie just above my first entry. When I did this it says at the top, within this GA review discussion, do not use == headers, use only === and more headers. Maybe we are both right, in that if you wanted your new topic to be a new topic not forming part of the GA review, then maybe you did the right thing, ie maybe you don't need to stay above the review. Look, I'm busy on other stuff. I've said my bit and you can ignore it if you think best. I know you put some good effort into it, it's just that the whole thing now seems to me to be much too academic and not cover the common meanings and practicalities in ordinary language at the top (what about culture and language for example, when a language dies or is overtaken by another, etc, both in history and nowadays. Look at Papua New Guinea, about 800 living languages, one in each inaccessible valley, how does the Minister of Education handle that for teaching. Does he say forget their cultures, they'll die anyway, teach thenm in English? Actually, no he doesn't - at least at primary level!). I'll come back in a few days to see what is happening.

--AlotToLearn (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshua

The whole talk page? You indicated no particular discussion. -Ste vertigo 18:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cultural history

Sorry, I don't really know. I've not been keeping up too closely with wikipedia in general, and I've rarely come across much on cultural history, which I think we always tend to do badly with. john k (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Culture

Thanks for the implied invitation to collaborate on Culture. Unfortunately I'm in the middle of re-vamping Ctenophore and you should see my To Do list - the zoology and paleontology parts of which are preparation for the Cambrian explosion. In addition I'm GA reviewing some articles and have others awaiting GA review. I only got involved at Culture because I saw it was up for WP:GAR - and I can't remember how I saw that. If you like, I can drop in and make what I might think helpful suggestions(!?) - but only if and when and when invited. --Philcha (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

If there's antisemitism there, it's a little too veiled for me to see it. Good luck with the discussion. I think you're obviously right about keeping Yeshua out of the lede. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twas maybe a kind of pithy reaction to a perceived latent anti-Christianism that has some echoes with a concept in anti-Judaism... But not anti-Semitism. Twas you who pulled the "race" card, not I. But what do you expect - this is fucking Jesus were talking about.-Ste vertigo 16:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SLR, what are you doing? -Ste vertigo 16:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

when have I axpressed any, even latent, anti-Christianism?
please do not use "fucking" in relation to Jesus. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never once seen you personally expressing any anti-Christianism in any form. If I have given that impression, I apologize, but it seems only natural that 1 Judaic sources on Jesus be regarded as.. particular, and 2, that Judaic sources on Hebrew not claim authoritarian ownership of that language. I would love for you to present the sources you claim contradict the Yeshua transliteration. I for one am curious as to the nature of the so-called controversy you describe, and I greatly appreciate both your interest in Jesus and your expertise in the subject of Judaism and Jewish thought.
I am a fucking Christian - I can say it all day if I want to. But I will refrain from doing so on your talk page if you like. -Ste vertigo 16:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. I actually have now seen you expressing a certain concept of anti-Christianism on the Jesus article. Your revert of my edit[1]

basically undid three valid changes to the lede and elevated Islam to the lede of the Jesus article. Elevating Islam in its importance with respect to Jesus could be percieved as an attempt to indicate a closer tie between Jesus and Islam than there actually is, therefore denegrating the Christian concept of Jesus by association with a contradicting view that has some, but not much, consideration for the being, his concepts, and the Gospels. Subtle, but obvious as a brick at the same time. -Ste vertigo 16:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you did it on accident or not, you violated 3RR on Jesus. As such, I have mentioned this along side the Stevertigo report at 3RR, as much as this may pain me. As an admin, you really should know better, so please consider this a final warning, and also consider other ways to contribute besides reverting.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Some Great Truth"

I was checking out you userpage after reading your comments at anti-Semitism. I wondered if an affirmative answer if "South Park" were part of the question would count? ( the Bible for me is affirmative with out a doubt). Just a little levity. See you at the talkpage.Die4Dixie (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Let's dialogue then.Die4Dixie (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just on the phone with their head quarters! My biggest problem is the use of "exclusively" with out direct attribution to Lewis, as in academia there has been peer reviewed literature broadening the application. Before I do too much at the articles, I have an essay to write for Wikipedia on my views of Palestine, since I have had one user misunderstand a userbox on a different project. In fact, I probably should do it before I go too much further. Thanks for the advice.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stevertigo is misbehaving

He's calling you out personally. He's trying to "spread the word" about "Yeshu," etc. He's trying to be an iconoclast, is my guess. The status quo is for Christians and Jews to try to get along, and the Yeshu stuff is a reminder of uglier times. He's also sticking the Nicene Creed in the lede, probably to emphasize the three-century delay between Jesus and the Trinity. It's possible that he's not just an iconoclast but actually has some hateful purpose in mind, but intellectual tomfoolery seems like motive enough. Honestly, I'm not following the whole deal and didn't read your entire post on my talk page. Please don't let a misbehaving editor totally get to you. If you need to go to extreme measures, they're time-consuming, but they can work (sort of). Leadwind (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Stevertigo's description of the trouble he's causing on Jesus is misleading and self-serving, but I'm not on wikien either. Leadwind (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Culture and archaeology

Hey, thanks for the collab invite! I'll dig through and see what I can do. I'll talk more specifics on the talk page. SMSpivey (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you don't think your message has fallen on deaf ears -- I have looked over the Culture article, and it already is far better than the last time I read through it (for which improvement I suspect, without looking at the edit history, that you're largely due the credit). Will try to improve the section on cultural studies if I can (I see that it's largely made up of some muddled and not really apropos discussion of "subcultures" at the moment), but I do not have a lot of free time for Wikipedia at the moment. Nonetheless your invitation is appreciated. -- Rbellin|Talk 01:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

anti?Semitism

Hi, User:Slrubenstein. You may not realize the respect I developed for your work, and I was dismayed by (a) backing an incorrect, neologist spelling and (b) dismissive personal comments. I bit my tongue at the time, hoping you might be persuaded by the venerable OED, Websters, American Heritage, etc, that are aligned against Wikipedia's non-English (apparently German) spelling. Based upon my regard for the quality of your contributions, I hope by extending an olive branch, I might persuade you to reconsider the present stance.

What say you?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Culture

Hi User:Slrubenstein. Thanks for the note. I have only browsed through the culture article so far, but it seems like you have done a thorough job. A great improvement. Though I am an anthropologist myself I actually learned quite a few things. I have a few comments and suggestions for some inclusions, but I will have to read the whole article more carefully in a few days and post them on the talk page. I do have a feeling that you are the more competent of us in these issues, so I will only chip in where I feel I can contribute. pertn (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation, User:Slrubenstein, I will try to look into it shortly. Iblardi (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

V and context

Sorry I did not join in the conversation earlier at WT:V. Real life and ArbCom have been keeping me pretty busy. To the point, NOR already covers your concern repeatedly and explicitly. For example, see the first paragraphs here and here. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

SLR, I want to apologise to you for my outbursts. I was a bit more offended than I realised by your accusation of my anti-Semitism, and I must have let it get to me. Indeed, the concept of dealing with Yeshu(a) (he.wiki appears to use the former and redirects the latter) requires care, and I'm know from history that you have this quality in good measure most of the time. Regards -Ste vertigo 05:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Culture

Hello. I saw your request on my talk page. You're right; it isn't really my field. But I'll do what I can. I'll try to get my feedback to you in a couple of days. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 06:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, thanks for asking for my input. Any particular reason you chose me, or are you just going through a lagrge number of editors and asking them for input? (I'm good with mythology, but not too reliable with culture in general.) --Phatius McBluff (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit:

Err, fancy explaining why you blanked that template, without any form of edit summary? _Talk Islander 19:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair do's, mistakes happen :). Just wanted to make sure you hadn't gone crazy :P _Talk Islander 19:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical Logic

Hi. Re your message, :I do not see what at thisis relevant tp article Philosophical Logic. Will you help?--Philogo 00:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe it is not ... the article I am nominating for deletion addresses truth and representation and I thought these fell under the topic of philosophical logic, and I thought people working on that article would be knowledgabl to judge the issues. Sorry if I was mistaken. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand, and I have read both articles. Meaning (linguistics) appear to do what it says in the box, but I know nothing about Linguistics. Linguistic meaning is puzzling in title, content, and raison d'etre. When a term like "meaning" or "argument" have different uses in different disciplines it is is best I believe to have articles entitled with the discipline in parentheses as is the case with Meaning (linguistics). I know that other editors disagree and I have seen articles like "argument (logic)" renamed "logical argument" which strikes me as quite illogical. --Philogo 12:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, it is because the article is puzzling in title, content, and raison d'etre that I nominate it for deletion. But it is also because I know there are others here who, because of their interests and background, are better suited to judge these things, that I thought it wise to see if people who contribute to Philosophical logic could comment! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have renamed the article [[Linguistic meaning]] to Meaning (philosophy of language) and Linguistic meaning now redirects to Meaning (linguistics). OK?--Philogo 23:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The Nicene concept issue

I appreciate your contrition as well. At this point Im not going to debate with you the Yeshua concept, even though this transcription appears to be common for others of that era. I'll deal with that at Jesus. Its telling to me that you appear to reject the usage of Yeshua in the lede as a common or even compromise original name, but you do not raise an issue with that etymology in the etymology section. I think you would be well suited to the job.

The thing I want to deal with now is the concept that he was a human incarnation of God, and how this is improperly expressed in the current version on the article. This concept is the central doctrine of the Nicene creed, and needs to be distinguished from other Christian belief, which might regard his divinity but outright reject the Nicene concept that God is he and he is God. I made this edit in good faith, dealing with the issue of incarnation and putting it in context as a Nicene concept. For one reason or another you decided against discussing it, and I'm quite certain you did not know what you were doing with this revert. -Ste vertigo 06:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understood when it happened that you didn't "know enough of the history to judge one way or the other." But my point is that you didn't let your obvious lack of knowledge of the subject stop you from reverting an edit. And not being responsive to the point meant that you were (putting it nicely) employing a WP:NINJA tactic. I will certainly work with you on the Yeshu(a) issue, (noting your new comments on talk:Jesus) but I ask that you restore the changes I made to the lede per the Nicene, incarnation, and Islam concepts. (Note also that I carriage returned the ref tags, to make it easier to distinguish text from ref). -Ste vertigo 16:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SLR: "If you want to restore the various edits you made before you were blocked, I will detail my objections on the talk page and see what others say before making further edits." Well, there were three edits, Yeshua to the lede, a controversy section under etymology, and the edit to the lede dealing with Nicene/incarnation/Islam. I will restore the last edit, and leave a justification on the talk. SLR: "But it is a massive sign of bad faith to accuse people who reverted your edits as being ninjas when you seemed not to be able to justify them on the talk page." I actually did. Look on the talk page for any response to that point. There isn't any. SLR: "I resent being called a ninja when I was reverting what I considered nonsensical edits." In the future, if you have a problem with one edit, please don't assume that and and all edits are the same concept or otherwise "nonsensical". I know you must be pressed for time, but if you had read the diff, you would have noticed that the change I made had nothing to do with the Yeshua issue. If you don't read the diff, its like you're killing things with both astonishing accuracy and senseless disregard, hence the "ninja" term. SLR: "I'll give you another chance if you wish but you should take seriously the thought and care of the other people who work on this article." Of the three people who reverted me, only one dealt with me on the specific edit, and that was only one brief comment without much explanation. I will give all considered statements responsiveness and respect, but where any actual consideration is nonexistent, who could? There was nothing there to actually deal with. The one thing you did deal with was unrelated, and you even removed from the talk [2]. Sorry for copying it there, but it seemed relevant to deal with on that page. I appreciate your "giv[ing] me another chance" and if you like I will request your permission whenever I want to stand up, sit down, or otherwise deal with my basic bodily functions. I you don't know what you're doing, please at least discuss it, so I can clarify things for you. -Ste vertigo 17:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: SLR: "As far as I can tell, you just made the lead more wordy, when details can be spelled out in the body or in linked articles." Clarifying an issue to make it less incorrect and more accurate, may appear to some people to simply be "more wordy". Without being to wordy here, I'm sure you see the point. And in the future I'm certain you will develop your conceptual vocabulary to include more advanced concepts regarding the substance of other people's edits. "Good" and "bad" might be a good start.

The Nicene concepts did not originate with the Creed, but the Creed did indeed formalize the concept - three hundred years after Yeshua left the planet. In those three hundred years, Christianity as a concept was seriously distinct from the Nicene expression, and to this day there continues to be serious ambiguity (using a non-controversial term) regarding the concept. Stating or implying in any way that all Christians believe Jesus to be God is not just incorrect - its not correct. -Ste vertigo 17:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments on Culture

Now is the moment of truth (i.e. the moment when I learn whether I have any idea what I'm talking about). Please take a look at my comments on the talk page for Culture. Thanks. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subcultures

In response to your question about my knowledge about academic literature on subcultures, it is not very extensive. My knowledge is more from first-hand experience, as well as from articles and books (as opposed to academic reports).Spylab (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yehudi

Is אהוד a derivative of יהודי as it appears to be? If so, what is the grammatical or phonological concept by which the yodh would be unvocalised? Sources appear to confirm. [3] [4], but this doesn't appear to be mentioned in the above articles. -Ste vertigo 22:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Creation myths

Hi, SLR - It occurred to me that you would probably find this CFD of great interest, and I think the discussion would benefit from your participation. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 03:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered another CFD from the previous day that I suspect you might also have something to say about. Cgingold (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Culture again

Hi again. I'm glad you appreciated my edits for clarity. I'm massively busy with non-Wikipedia activities right now; but, as requested, I'll try to edit Culture a little bit at a time. I do think your attempt to clean the article up is admirable. Keep up the good work! --Phatius McBluff (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the note about the addition of material on signs of culture in chimps and other animals. It could do with comments on other animals, e.g. claims of "dialects" in dolphins and song-bird species. OTOH it needs to be a lot more concise than at present. It might be best to create / expand an article on "Culture in non-human animals" first, and then incorporate into "culture" the principles (i.e. what is culture) and abbreviated examples. Other sections may need a similar approach if they become too long. You might want to set up a "project" / "to do" page, as a buddy of mine did for WP:CEX. However I like the way Culture is shaping up as the "root" for a "tree" of articles about different aspects of culture. Best wishes, --Philcha (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your response at my Talk page. With these big multi-article projects you have to work both top-down and bottom-up; for example WP:CEX got started because, with much help from my buddy, I re-wrote Cambrian explosion (the previous version, by a practitioner, was far too academic in style, like an extended journal paper abstract), but my re-write was too long. If you already have a good idea of the scope and possibly structure of the "root" article, bottom-up has advantages: provides a stock of refs and possibly text you can re-use in "the big one"; it's easier to get the "smaller" articles to GA / FA, which gives a feeling of progress. --Philcha (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your comments at User talk:AlotToLearn about the American-centric issue. I think you need to handle it a bit more delicately: the majority of sources usable by en.WP editors are American, because of the language; however a lot of the underlying theory in Social anthropology was developed by Europeans - even if they do tend to write like pastiches of Hegel. --Philcha (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Cultural Studies takes different forms in the US and in the UK and one way to include more UK views would be in the Cultural Studies section. I am not an expert in this and I have tried to identify Wikipedians who are and have solicited the help of about a half dozen ..." is very sensible - although my experience with trying to recruit "subject experts" is similar to your "although they have not responded yet". To get things done around here needs initiative and determination, which you seem to have :-) --Philcha (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re Jesus discussion of BC/BCE-AD/CE

I am sorry that I contributed to this problem in posting something there. I have no problem with either set of abbreviations. I agree with what you did there. Kindest regards, always.--Drboisclair (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my response on my talk page: I wanted to improve a somewhat problematic sentence that was put into the introduction; however, it would in my view be in the nature of being NPOV for the intro to the Jesus article have something about the Nicene Creed, in that that document expresses in the fullest sense what Christians believe about Jesus. The word "confession" could be changed to "statement of the faith of" with the inner link to "creed." I must say that the reference to Saadia ben Josef the Gaonite enlightened me to stimulating bit of Judaica that I did not know about. I think that there is much to be applauded in the article, and I do not in any way wish to mar it in any way.--Drboisclair (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yehudi (name)

A foreign language first name? I seriously doubt it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added Yehuda Amichai to Yehudi (name) because Yehudi Amichai redirects. I inferred there was some ambiguity with regard to how he is addressed. -Ste vertigo 18:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Ehud (given name). Thanks. -Ste vertigo 20:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Academic literature on subcultures

Not too well. Hyacinth (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Christian sentiment

Currently, Talk:Anti-Christian sentiment redirects to Talk:Anti-christian prejudice. Could I convince you to fix that? The page has a technically non-trivial edit history, so I cannot. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I don't think you can upload images of copyrighted text. You could ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to be sure. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Searle

I feel like I'm in a new world here, like everything has been deleted while I slept. You had something important to say about John R Searle, I think; that's why I'm wikiing here. Please email me, cos it's like the Wikipedia I knew has been invaded by the Stasi, or something? What the fuck is going on? Apologies for the language, but I'm very bewildered. Do talk pages just get deleted now, or what? -M <=copy.my.name>@nightmileage.com

best wishes, -Maher MaherCoen (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redefining Culture: Perspectives Across the Disciplines

Hello. I have not read that book, although I could easily get hold of it, as I see that it is in the University library. Why do you ask? Incidentally, sorry for not doing much on wikipedia for a while. Life has gotten the better of me, although hopefully I can do a little more soon. There are all kinds of things I had meant to do. Robotforaday (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I should be able to take a look next week. You've done a pretty impressive job on that article, it has to be said. I'll let you know what there is in the book that might be of use. Robotforaday (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme speed

I went to revise the six kinship terminology classifications based on what I had added to the talk page, and found it already done within minutes! AnonMoos (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]