User talk:Slrubenstein/Archive 25

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)

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. [1] [2], but this doesn't appear to be mentioned in the above articles. -Stevertigo 22:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Academic literature on subcultures

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

Yehudi (name)

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

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

See Talk:Ehud (given name). Thanks. -Stevertigo 20:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

Talk:Judaism

Took me an age to work out who/when the diff came from (!) but I don't understand this and invite your discussion in this section at the Talk page. --Dweller (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nativity of Jesus

Slrubenstein, would you mind commenting on a content dispute at Nativity of Jesus. It concerns a table comparing the accounts of Matthew and Luke. There are concerns over the use of primary sources, OR, novel synthesis, lack of explanation/context which would be afforded by prose, and even its necessity, given the section "The nativity as myth". The table can be seen at this version of the page: [3] at section 1.3, "The narratives compared". Discussion on the issue can be found at Talk:Nativity of Jesus, in the threads "The two narratives compared", "The two narratives compared, part 2", and at "Task List (January 15, 2009)". Your input on the issue would be greatly appreciated, as very few persons have commented on it. Thank you. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Race

Hi, do you still attempt to bring sanity to the race articles, and have you seen this? Its a blog entry, but links to a reviewed paper. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ethnos

"Ethnos" is a Greek word that you apparently attempted to write with Greek letters, but it came out as eáqnov. To me, the very last letter looks like an attempt to represent the Greek lower-case letter $\scriptstyle \nu \,$. Pardon my ignorance of Greek, but that seems like maybe an accusative or dative form of a word that in the nominative case would end with sigma rather than with nu. I think nominative is usually the form that is the dictionary entry, and at any rate, if another form is used, then why is the transliteration shown ending with "s"? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I was looking for an audio book to listen to while exercising, and neither Thiessen nor Sanders was available from my service. But I just ordered both books (as regular books) from Amazon. In the mean time, I'm reading a really odd "novel" called Jesus Christs, written in 1968 by A J Langguth. A very ahistorical Jesus, but an interesting one. Leadwind (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Fascism

I am hitting revert limit -- while Spylab is intent on preventing any use of "left" in the "political spectrum" section (even claiming entire chapters are "out of context" in cites <g>). Collect (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

His last gambit is shuffling material around -- but I would be glad of eyes on this. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

New game -- interpolating identification of left wing fascists as actually right wing fascists <g> and even giving a cite which says absolutely nothing like what the sentence it is attached to says. I fear he has no idea of how to edit as he does not seem to know what WP:V means, and why SYN and OR are not good <g> He also appears to think I feel all fasicsts are left wing, and he has edited Left-wing fascism to indicate it is only American conservatives who use the term ... I am not going to touch that article which he now asserts proves his point ... which it must because he wrote it. Many thanks - someone has to tell him that editors can actually try to give the opinions of others reasonable weights without holding those opinions themselves. Collect (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That is quite the misinterpretation of the situation. However, edit and talk histories don't lie.Spylab (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

1. You added comments about the subjects named without furnishing a cite for why you call them "right wing." 2. You gave a cite for one person which did not even mention the person. 3. You engaged in WP:OR and WP:SYN by "combining sources" to reach your desired conclusions. 4. You asserted that I said something I did not say nor would say (that is, that all fascism is left-wing). Collect (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Lazare quote

Do you have any explanation for restoring the vandalism by Orangemarlin? This paragraph/quote by a qualified academic was properly sourced and documented, and was also a clear example of the use of the term 'antisemitism' (non-hyphenated). This content has been in the article since Nov 2008, and was recognized and quoted by others. It should not be removed without informed discussion. Bushcutter (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Please revert?

Could you please revert this: [4] Thanking you in advance. Bus stop (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Culture

Just to say that I'm not ignoring the request to work on the culture section; I'm just waiting for the Easter vacation! Alarichall (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi Slrubenstein I'm sorry I haven't been able to contribute much to the revision of the Culture article. I haven'b been able to take the time yet. I will follow up on it though and do some bits and pieces when I find the time. Good work! pertn (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Nazi, Swastika References Being Purged from Syrian Social Nationalist Party

Would you mind having a look at the problem of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party's Nazi history and swastika flag being systematically deleted/vandalized? This removes an important aspect of neutrality from the article. References from many reliable sources are provided. See its talk page. The edits are being done by users with IP addresses from very similar domains. Thanks, Histopher Critchens (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice response on this talk page. Would you have a moment to stop by and look at a similar dispute on A land without a people for a people without a land.Historicist (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Gill reference in race article

Just curious as to how that "verges on OR" when the vast majority of it is quoted verbatim from the source? Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That particular paragraph certainly focuses on age, but only as an analogy in an article primarily about race, so I'd say it's more original research on his part than on mine. I haven't (yet) looked into what other anthropologists think, although the debate seems to be sufficiently open for NOVA to sponsor an instance of it, and Gill opens the piece by noting that "Slightly over half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the traditional view that human races are biologically valid and real." But for the sake of NPOV, perhaps a brief, paraphrased summary of his objection (minus the block quote) could go in the main race article? As for his notability, I've tried to demonstrate that in his article, which I created not even an hour ago. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:UEIA re ישוע

SLR, can you please take a look at WP:UEIA, and tell me what you think? Im thinking there needs to be some treatment of the principles you outlined with regard to using Yeshua in the Jesus article. Regards. -Stevertigo 00:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

SLR, in retrospect I think you were right to dispose of my using Yeshua in the Jesus article. As I understand it, the main principle you described was that a reconstruction in Hebrew form that came long after Jesus was claimed to have lived was not proper to use as an indication of his "actual name." Giving him such a name would be an assertion of his historicity, based only on a conjecture, and this would be improper. Thus the extracted form of that principle is: don't use reconstructed names in the lede sections of articles, where "reconstructed" means a theorized transcription from one language to another, rather than one directly recorded. I don't like being taught such a lesson without taking such lesson to its proper conclusion. Thus I'm inspired to amend the relevant policy with this principle so that, in future cases, people like myself might not be so confused, and that people will be more careful in the future. Regards, -Stevertigo 09:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, though I have a couple issues with its content. Since we are discussing editorial principles relevant to the Jesus article, I would like to continue this discussion there. More detailed response later today. Good morning. -Stevertigo 17:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this a reconstruction? -Stevertigo 21:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, from the context of this thread (ישוע), I'm sure you understand what I'm getting at. I did not use the "proper" (allegedly original) written form of אַבְרָם‎. You wrote "..the commentary on the name may yeild a Rabbinic or Medieval etymology and you would have the proper source." You understand of course that a latter-day "commentary" (Orthodox, Rabbinic, Medeval, or otherwise) cannot be a "proper source" with regard to the etymology of a name for a being who predated (~2000~1500 BCE) paleo-Hebrew by several hundred years, and even proto-Canannite (~1400-1050 BCE) by at least a hundred years. At the earliest dating, the writing system used was something like Middle Bronze.

How then do we come by this concept that (from the article) "Abraham's original name was Abram, meaning either "exalted father" or "my father is exalted" (compare Abiram)." Yes, there is Oral tradition and oral law, and I don't know how we would quote poetic recitation as a "reliable source," but your argument against inclusion of a "reconstruction" of Jesus (in the lede) doesn't appear to conform to how the article about an even more mythical and 'unrecorded' (in any language) Abraham is handled, for which the article inlcudes the standard translations of his name. -Stevertigo 05:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"I don't see any inconsistency between how we handle Jesus' name and Avraham's name." Hm. One (2000ya) was a Jewish person of note. The other (4000-3500ya) was a Jewish person of note. One lived during a time of developed Hebrew writing, and yet 'has no Hebrew name,' according to a particular POV. The other older being has an "original" written Hebrew name, and a late-life written Hebrew form of his name (the common one), though he lived at a time when there was only speech, and not (apparently) actual writing. As such, concepts which deal with his alleged "original" and "latter" name are somewhat deprecable. Historically and encyclopedically speaking, not Biblical. Where, when, and how was the name "Avram" first written? And in such likely much-latter-day writing, was such writing in any way like a "reconstruction?" You can refer back to Genesis all you want to, but that book was written around 1313 BCE, according to a 12th century Jewish scholar some 2,400 years later. You see my point. Neither historicity nor sources appears to be the issue with your refusal to accomodate "Yeshua." -Stevertigo 11:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

More gobbledygook from the bullshit artist. What Sanhedrin trial ever said Yeshu has no Hebrew name? Source, please? We have a source that provide a Hebrew name for Abraham, and we say so in the article. We have a source that provides a Greek name for Jesus, and we say so in the article. It does not matter when these books were written until you can find a verifiable source that says so as part of an argument about names. I actually directed you to a potential source but you continue to prefer to spin inventions rather than read boks. How encyclopedic. In the meantime, we provide verifiable information. So what Wikipedia policy has been violated? Oops, sorry, when it comes to research, Stevertigo, who is unwilling to do any, prefers to violate Wikipedia policy to use WP as a soapbox for his pet and ignorant theories (Sanhedrin trial ruling on Jesus' name? Maybe in some novel) Slrubenstein | Talk 18:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not "[a] bullshit artist," just as you are not a complete asshole. -Stevertigo 17:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, what Sanhedrin trial ever declared that Yeshu has no Hebrew name? What verifiable source do you have for Jesus's Hebrew name? or Aramaic name? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you always answer a question with another question? -Stevertigo 17:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Cute, but I was not answering a question as you did not ask me a question. I was repeating a question I asked above and which you have not yet answered. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

True, and I can't tell which is worse. Your spelling has been sucking lately by the way. -Stevertigo 20:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that among people working on an encyclopedia, consistently simply making things up is clearly and by far the worse. That you don't see this is just part of why you are such a huge bullshit artist. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm offended. A known antiwiki cite-fascist is calling me an "artist?" I should have stayed in art school. -Stevertigo 20:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

remark

If science does not deal in truth, and according to you and others, fact is not truth either, then why is evolution taught as true? Why is it not taught as the best science can come up with, or what we have learned through science? Why do you insist on the non-truth of religion, but offer nothing in it's place? You say science does not deal in truth, so what does? Are we to let our minds wander and not be bound by any sort of truth or reason? What constitutes truth if not what we can at the least observe with our eyes? You and I can both observe things around us, but are we to call our observations true? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to me that you have no standard of truth, so to you, nothing is true and everything is true. I really hope, and think, I am mistaken, but this is as it appears to me. What do you use to define truth? If you belive that truth is relative, then I ask you a question. Is it true that truth is relative?Prussian725 (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Where did I say evolution is "true?"
• Where did I say religion is "non-truth?"

I did not come to Wikipedia as a chat-room. We are here to improve articles or write new ones. And in doing so we should follow Wikipedia's core content policies, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. Wikipedia states that it is interested in verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia articles should provide an account of all significant views from notable sources. Wikipedia contains many articles and different articles should cover different areas of content. We should have articles on scientific topics and articles on religious topics. What is wrong with any of this? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well then I apologize. I think I should be talking to Marlin. I apologize if I stepped out of line.Prussian725 (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Culture

Regret I haven't reacted to your invitation to work on the Culture article earlier; haven't signed in for ages as have been working my head off on a couple of lecture series. You asked for material on early hominid tools etc. That's not really my forte, but I might add a bit on the "anthropologie des techniques" of André Leroi-Gourhan and on the "chaîne opératoire" method in general, seeing that the archaeological side is mostly limited to Anglo-American research (Binford, Hodder, etc.). Right now, however, I'm still overworked, so you'll have to wait. Sorry!--Death Bredon (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Language

I know you're busy with real life, but I'm wondering when you are going to respond to my comments at Talk:Language. Some of them are rather pointed ("what then is one to make of your claimed adherence to Wikipedia policy...") but none should be construed as personal attacks. I'm simply trying to improve upon the article, and do so in a way that the lede section would be essentially untouchable forever. The current version is not in such a state, and I can explain why in reasons purely within the domain of writing an encyclopedia. In any case, formulations, even yours and mine, can be improved upon, can't they? Of course "gaining consensus" has always been a prerequisite for improving Wikipedia articles. But if by "gaining consensus" you simply mean 'consulting you,' then by all means consider this a consult. -Stevertigo 19:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Fascism

User:The Four Deuces is not content to have me use his opening sentence on political spectrum (which is the current version used as I thought he would then keep everything else in), he then decided to remove all comments about left wing fascism, and to make it strictly "right wing" as much as he can, calling everything else "incoherent." I rarely have found a person who agrees to something and then completely denies his own compromise to be reliable in such matters. Might I ask you to enter back in since this had once been settled? Many thanks! Collect (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sourcerors

A change from the bickering... You're big on sourcing; FYC. -Stevertigo 15:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not big on sourceing, Wikipedia is big on sourcing. As for this proposed policy, it is the biggest piece of self-serving horseshit I have ever seen at Wikipedia. It serves no purpose and I can't imagine it getting any real community support. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Slrubenstein/Archive 25's Day!

User:Slrubenstein/Archive 25 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Slrubenstein/Archive 25's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Slrubenstein/Archive 25! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Pharisees. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That edit appeared intentional, and it also appeared correct to me, which is why I made the same edit myself. Also, please see WP:DTTR.  Frank  |  talk  19:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Evolution

Slrubenstein, I appreciate your efforts to address this "population" vs "species" issue in the article and I support your efforts. I think laypeople often equate evolution with Darwin and changes in form and either ignore or are ignorant of Wright, Fisher, Dobzhansky, Mayr, etc and the shift to gene-centric and population genetics. In my mind without pop genetics and modelling then evolution would be a dead field and theory. It is a statistical endeavor. I likely will never-ever write or contribute directly to an article again. I find this process too frustrating and many good editors have been harassed and dogged. I wish the best for Wikipedia and I will continue to put in my two cents for what it is worth. Who knows I've changed my mind before is the only caveat. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You said earlier that evolution is a proven fact, yet you refuse to simply arrange an argument to support your opinion. Saying "read the article," or "several articles prove it" does not constitute an argument. If you would be so kind, I would like you to write an argument supporting your opinion. I am very busy; I do not have time to sit and read all the articles you hurl at me. I would appreciate if you made an effort to explain your reasoning instead of simply telling me to figure it out. This conversation could go on for years if you don't. Gefreiter (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

you are kidding, right? You are a user at Wikipedia but do not have the time to read a Wikipedia article, especially the one on the topic you claim to have an interest in? Why should I take the time to write an article "supporting my opinion" when it has already been written and all you need to do is click on a link to be taken to the page where you can read it? Is my asking you to make a little click with your little mousey that much effort? I am not going to write an article on my user page - or yours - when the article has already been written. If you want to go on blabbing idiocies about evolution at Wikipedia, without taking the time to read the Wikipedia article, well, suit yourself, but it is entirely hypocritical. You are simply admitting that you are too lazy to learn even the basics about that which you bloviate. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 18:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Francesco Carotta

I've answered a question you raised about him being a linguist and a philosopher. He did his undergrad equivalent in philosophy and he's an interpreter. A bit of a battle there now. dougweller (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Imagine my disgust that I refer to him as being "notable only as a crackpot", and then the next several comments use that as a rallying cry: "...but he's a notable crackpot!" I agree completely that such articles do no credit to the project, but right now it looks like we'll get stuck with it regardless. If that turns out to be the case, I suggest that a thorough rewrite is in order. His "theory" (I use that term in the loosest possible sense) needs to be presented as a clearly fringe view with no mainstream support or acceptance. In the meantime, I'm glad you're here; you do good work  :) Doc Tropics 15:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Tagged a few IPs that looked conspicuously like SPA-socks to me.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I nearly choked when I saw the new section header on my talkpage; thanks for a good laugh! Regarding your questions about a rewrite, I have to admit that I just can't see it. He is notable only for producing a Fringe theory that has no mainstream acceptance, and hasn't drawn any significant attention from legitimate academic sources. I'm mostly hoping that enough sensible editors will weigh in with coherent comments to swing the !vote the other way. I know that canvassing individual editors to participate isn't acceptable, but what about dropping a carefully phrased message at related Project pages, like Wikiproject:Christianity? I suspect that many of that project's participants would just love to participate in this debate, a minor irony that could be both amusing and effective. Doc Tropics 16:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

But what would be wrong with having a very short article explaining that the man published a book, that he is unqualified, that his ideas have no credibility, but that they nonetheless caused a mild controversy in the popular media of some countries (or even only in the Netherlands - I'm not sure)? The man and his theory exist. Other crackpots also have their own articles. I am not an adept in any way, but I honestly do not see why lemmas like these should be excluded from Wikipedia, as people are likely to encounter this and other pseudo-scientific material on the internet. A brief encyclopedic entry on author, background and reception can be informative, and may even dissuade some from taking the matter too seriously. Iblardi (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Pointer

I just left this note at the WikiProject Biology page, but it doesn't seem very active. If you and other science editors have a chance to take a look, the GM food article is under attack and needs some buttressing. thanks, Doc Tropics 05:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I screwed up on your user page. Just delete it of course.

I'm an idiot.Levalley (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

You are a kind and helpful soul. I feel comfortable being able to both agree and disagree with you. Your work is also very appreciated, I'm watching how you approach your edits (etc.) with respect and respect your knowledge, as well. Levalley (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Just wanted you to know that I did read the core policies (years ago) and do try to abide by them - but I still find the interface itself completely opaque. Okay, well, you and one other person have helped make it slightly more transparent to me in the last few days. I am very new to editing, but what I meant by "author" is "person who initially wrote the text in question," so I should have said (correct me if I'm wrong) "editor"? (Maybe co-editor?) The word editor, in parlance outside Wikipedia, means someone with actual responsibility for a written project, so I assume here it means "someone who has typed some of the text in the article). I need help all the time with the lingo here, and believe me, I've read virtually every main page on the community portal, and tried very hard to understand. There are so many layers of templates here (and new language to learn), I think this explains something I notice all the time: there was a flurry of writing in 2004-5, many articles received lots of edits in 2006, but in many cases, major issues raised since then are not addressed (they need expert attention, as it's said here - and "expert" doesn't mean, here, what it would mean to be in RL). I'm working mainly on pages on literature, Europe and biography, I do not notice this same trend in pages on science. Sorry for the Tolstoy, it's been so enjoyable to read your responses and you've been so helpful.Levalley (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Thanks for the kind words on my talk page. I reread what you wrote earlier. I was actually there for some of the Rushton debates (under a different name), and I regard myself as fairly neutral in the discussion (although not neutral in a debate about racism, of course). I think I have encountered the person (you appear to have someone in particular in mind) who isn't willing to go beyond Wikipedia dilettante and is also a professor. I think this can happen to anyone (being knowledgeable, but a dilettante), but as a professor myself (not at a major university, btw), I do keep from editing for a few reasons - and being a dilettante or perceived as one is a major reason I don't contribute more. On further reading of what you wrote, I realized more about what you are trying to say - either a person "gets" what it means to be part of an encyclopedic project, meant for a broad reading public (and not merely academia) or they have to work very hard at getting it. I think I get it (I hope so) and I will count on you to let me know if I don't (on articles that matter, I'm trying to practice on some that are ranked as minor).Levalley (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)--LeValley

Indents

Since my comment is a reply to Populares and not you, shouldn't it be indented one past his? If it is indented one past yours, it looks like I'm replying to you. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Etic and emic

I'll add sources (revert my edits if you wish, I don't mind). But, I'll add sources and if they're online in some form (some of them must be), I'll link to them as well.

Can you tell me why you think your view of the use of the terms (and the article's view) is the only proper one? These terms have been in use a long time - and I do not at all think the article makes clear their basic use. I'm pretty sure they are quite popular within psychological anthropology and the culture and personality school, and that George Spindler is the one who pointed me to the literature on the terms, initially.

I've been passing on your comments to a couple of colleagues, and we all have the same question. Aside from the sources mentioned in Wikipedia - are you thinking of other sources regarding these two terms? What so strongly convinces you that the usage you indicate is the correct (or primary) one? What we're asking is this: is this generational? A matter of training? At any rate, again, I don't see the huge distinction between the usage as stated (nor is what I wrote off topic), and I think I'm pulling the article more in line with how I believe the term is used. I am going to send my edits round to a larger group of anthropologists.Levalley (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a copy of our convo on my talk page, in case you didn't see my response:

Anthropology

I do not understand this edit. The paragraph is about a conflict between those who think Western anthropologists conduct research in exotic places (primitive people, third world) versus those who think anthropologists can conduct research close to home.

If that's what it is about, it's not clear. Indeed, the entire article jumps from point to point without much logic - who are "those who think Western anthropologists conduct research in exotic places"? Well - most of the reading public, right? Who is in the second group (those who think...close to home)? Virtually no laypeople. But - the article just jumped from talking about what anthropology is to what "people think anthropology is." Two different things, no warning. BTW, both should be addressed. If I were writing this article from scratch, I'd put "What many people think anthropology is" at the top of the article - however, one would have to find a source for that statement (and as it stands right now -there aren't enough sources for either of the statements you just said the paragraph was about.

Your edit introduces a theoretical/methodological point about emic and etic.

Which, unless the paragraph has a better topic sentence, could easily be seen as the subject of the paragraph. However, I will take the statement out, myself, as soon as I get a chance to - but I'll add a topic sentence (based on what you just wrote here) and put this dialogue on talk page for the article (where it belongs).

I do not object to your adding material on this distinction, but it seems like a separate point. I can see how they are related but they are still separate issues - one is "where do anthropologists work" and the other is "how do anthropologists work."

Which, would you say, is actually the topic of the paragraph? Above, you indicate that the paragraph is about "where" they work (and yet, the distinction isn't geographical, it's about "exotic and faraway," two empty terms. If you really think you can parse "how" and "where" properly, fine - but "faraway" and "exotic" are going to be heard by most people as being about place, not method.

Shouldn't they be separate paragraphs or sections? By the way, what is your cource for, "The term used by many anthropologists for an objective study (or attempted objective study) of a culture not own's own is etic?" This strikes me as wrong. I do not see any reason why an anthropologist cannot produce an etic account of her own culture. Surely an English-speaking linguist can descrobe English phonetics. Why can't an English anthropologist provide an etic account of English culture or some portion of it?

I'll get the sources together - I'd begin with almost any introductory textbook in anthropology, but in particular Womack's Being Human comes to mind. She is citing someone else, though, so I'll find the original sources. I linked to the sources on the discussion between Marvin Harris and the others who invented the term on the page on etic and emic - you might want to check out Headlandt's article, the link is on the etic/emic page (where it belongs). It's not about phonetics. So you think "etic" means "inside one's own culture"? Where, may I ask, are you getting that view? Would it be rude for me to ask what your background in anthropology is, at this point?

I also must point out that "Still, it seems to be a valid generalization that anthropology from its beginnings in the late 19th century until the late 1960s, focused primarily on etic analysis (or thought it did). In 1970, at the annual meetings of the American Anthropological Association, a keynote address focused on just this shift, as it was pointed out that hunter-gatherers were in effect, extinct and unavailable for study, and small groups with unusual languages were regularly becoming extinct" violates NPOV. It is not for any editor to suggest what may or may not be a valid generalization or a valid anything. If you have a significant view from a reliable and verifiable source that forwards this generalization, we can put it in with the proper citation. Moreover, you need to provide a verifiable source for the claim that a keynote address claimed thatr hunter-gatherers are extinct. My library doesn't have "Proceedings of the Annual Meetng 1970" - can you provide a proper citation so I can order it through inter-library loan? Also, it is not clear to me hoe the existence or extinction of hunter-gatherers bears on etic analysis. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll find the citation - and until then, I'll take it out. However, I have to say it's a pretty well known address ( I should know the name of the speaker, but I'm bad with names and good with dates). I will revert my edits, paste this dialogue onto the talk page there. It's not a book - you probably won't be able to get it through interlibrary loan. The AAA has a newsletter in which it publishes the proceedings of the meetings, as do nearly all academic associations. I don't know the date of the newsletter, but it is cited in (once again) many introductory textbooks. since you are apparently a stickler for immediate citations (rather than immediate article improvement), I'll remember that. I work in a different manner and would prefer the article make sense first. Trust me, the citatations are available - but it's the kind of scutwork I don't have time to do. So, it's an issue of (once again), Wikification managing to bore and/or annoy away potential editors.Levalley (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, this particular issue (about citations) doesn't bore me at all. But, it astounds me (and you'd have to prove it to me) that publications such as the Proceedings of the American Anthropological Association (as published annually in their Proceedings volumes) would not be proper citations. They are published annually by the American Anthropological Association (a publisher). They are out of print - but available in major libraries. They are also summarized in various publications, such as annual reviews. I have no idea what inter-library loan program you are in- but why not just go to JSTOR and look for it? Many of the rest of the citations in the Anthropology article are equally vague - and no page numbers given - so I was misled into thinking such citations are appropriate. I agree they are not. I will be providing page numbers for my citations, and citing only widely-available publications. I expect the rest of the article to do the same. I agree with you - no one should have to go to inter-library loan to see the citations on a general subject. This isn't a rarefied subfield article - this is an article on Anthropology. I will find the secondary citations about the 1970 proceedings (they've been referred to or published so many times in secondary sources) and when I find them, I'll mention them in a more accessible way. The reason I'm going to do this is that those proceedings have been mentioned in every book on history of anthropology since about 1975 - it was historic. Harris, of course, wrote before that time. I've provided citations ( Erickson and Murphy, 2003) to a more recent theory book, but the citation I'm speaking of is typically mentioned in the recent literature on hunter-gatherers - not on "history of theory."Levalley (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Etic analysis, hunter-gatherers and the history of anthropology

According to Marvin Harris, and other historians of anthropological theory (which give histories of data collection as well), the early history of anthropology was very much involved with the study of other cultures. By the 1930's, many anthropologists were engaged in salvage anthropology. The current article on Anthropology in Wikipedia simply assumes this to be true (note that the History of Anthropology section starts with pre-Enlightenment figures who "wrote about other cultures" as if this alone is enough to make something anthropology (many would say that it does, indeed, belong to anthropology - as etic anlaysis (study of a culture not one's own). It is almost a common sense perception that anthropology studies other cultures. Biological anthropologists go about the world collecting measurements and blood from distant peoples, etc. Most anthropologists, by the 1950's (when the first conference on Man the Hunter was held) assumed (and still assume - see Womack (Being Human), Heider (Seeing Anthropology), Ember and Ember (Cultural Anthropology, Harris's The Rise of Anthropological Theory as well as several other of his books, including Cultural Materialism and his introductory textbook, Cultural Anthropology) that hunter-gatherers are the most "different' or other-like cultures of all the types of society. Jared Diamond, for example (in an oft-quoted passage of Guns, Germas and Steel) mentions that farming was the biggest single transformation in human cultural form. The rush to study hunter-gatherers continued unabated until the 1970's (I am still looking for the citation to the Proceedings of the proper year - it might be 1971 or 1972 - and they are published in a variety of places, but I am finding them slowly on JSTOR) - prompting two more major conferences on Hunter-Gatherers, whether they still exist, etc. In the 1980's a number of revitalization movements (the Inuit come to mind first) involved former hunter-gatherers who had given up or forced to give up the lifestyle attempting to go back. I would have to find the citations on the Ju/'huansi, but they were still making attempts to hunt (called poaching by the South African government) as late as the 1990's. So, after the AAA meetings in the early 1970's, a handful of anthropologists were able to observe some (disrupted) forms of hunting and gathering in various places. But it is certainly the case that it is virtually impossible to find hunter-gatherers in the numbers that Boas was able to locate them ( a series of societies in the Pacific Northwest were all available to him for study, he actually did quite a bit of work with several of them, but considered that intensive work with one society was the way to go (his K'wa-K'wa or Kwakiutl studies). Even by the time of Mead and Benedict, it was getting hard to find Hunter-Gatherers, Mead studied mostly simple farmers. However, my claim was not that anthropologists studied "mainly" hunter-gatherers at the end of the 19th century/beginning of the 20th (although they would have liked to), but that hunter-gatherers, as a percentage of overall studies, declined steadily (along with the actual disappearance of indigeneous hunter-gatherers - a fact which is stated many times in the basic literature of cultural anthropology). My point was that anthropologists (as stated without citation in the Anthropology article) are known for studying "other cultures," and so they did - although at no point in time did they "study" only other cultures. Around the time Dell Hymes wrote Reinventing Anthropology (it's cited somewhere in one of the main anthropology articles - I find it a weak and belated contribution/popularization of themes from the 60's in anthropology, although Dell himself was a gifted anthropologist and wrote way more to support his ideas than is represented in that popularized collection), the fact that anthropologists were "inventing" urban anthropology, applied anthropology, "studying up" (Hymes himself borrowed heavily from B. Babcock's notions - and of course cites her in his book - I believe it contains an essay written by her) was well-known by the 70's. The citation using Hymes, btw, is a weak one (I will find it) as the book is a collection of essays, all of them taking somewhat different points of view on this alleged "reinvention" of anthropology, which was really a compilation of new notions expressed at AAA meetings and in articles throughout the 60's and early 70's. It's rather out of date today, I think, after more than 30 years of anthropologists studying urban societies.

At any rate, I am trying to make the Anthropology article make sense, so that the history section makes sense. The best way to do this is to quote Marvin Harris and use his seminal book, The Rise of Theory. The literature after his book makes no new additional points about ancient or Enlightenment anthropology. However, contemporary anthropology (see the talk page for comments from other readers about the lack of words about contemporary anthrpology) needs a different approach, as no one can write a history of it.

Anthropologists are known for studying "other cultures," is my main point. And that's what they mainly tried to do in the first decades of professional work. It is still done and studying "other cultures," and the preparation for it is still the main focus of top-ranked programs in graduate anthropology. You have only to look at the required training at those programs to make this point. I don't know how Wikipedia views citing university catalogs as sources, but in other articles, I see that statements are constantly made about the state of academia (which types of physics have their own programs and departments, for example) without actually referencing the university catalogs that would document the information. If I didn't make that point clear, then I did a poor edit. That doesn't change the fact that in the midsection of the Anthropology article, without citations, it is suddenly declared that certain ancients were "anthropologists" or anthropologist-like because they studied "other peoples."Levalley (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Etic vs. emic

Never mind.

Levalley (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Summaries and template

Howdy. First, just a gentle reminder to use edit summaries, especially when making drastic changes or reverts. (It took me a few moments to discover that you had reverted the anthropology article back to the version from 05:10, 5 April 2009, and I would guess Levalley might be confused too... ;) I'm still not sure whether you meant to revert all that way, and was hoping you might leave an explanation somewhere (the article talkpage, or Levalley's talkpage), pleaseandthankyou? :)

Second, I'd like to propagate the {{Anthropology}} template to all the articles it is listing. I was wondering if you could give it a check through for major errors and/or omissions first? (I'm watchlisting the projectpage, templatepage, and mainarticle page, and would like to help out in any wikignome ways I can, over the next few days/weeks. Just let me know wherever). Much thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Block

Thanks. User:Itisnotme --KP Botany (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh huh. --KP Botany (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability requires objective evidence

Could you render some philisophical assistance? With reference to WP:NOBJ, how do you distinguish verifibility from objectivity. Are they one and the same thing? Could you stop by my talk page and let your thoughts be known on the disucssion about this? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust

Hi, I made the edit. I used the Catholic scholar Hans Kung as our source. Please back me up if there is an attempt to revert.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI Discussion about you

Hello, Slrubenstein. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Courtesy_failure_.2F_Reword_Template_.2F_Reword_Header. Exxolon (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

fyi

I {{prod}}ded a new article Separate reality (shamanism). I think you might find that material looks familiar. I thought you might be interested. Geo Swan (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC Collect

Could you give your impressions of Collect at his RfC based on your interaction with him at Fascism (include other if there is any thnx). The RfC is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect Soxwon (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeshu

I feel as though I now have a pretty comprehensive understanding of historical Jesus and have therefore lost interest in the a little. There's a lot I could contribute based on my reading, but it's a big task. Sanders's book is especially enlightening (Historical Figure of Jesus). He gives the gospels a lot of credit, maybe because he's writing for a primarily Christian audience and wants to demonstrate his historical case with the reader's own scripture? There's really good material in the book, like an authoritative summary of what historians know (that is, agree) about historical Jesus. And the new textbook lists Sanders as an exemplar of current historical research. But I've been traveling and giving WP a rest. Anyway, I've been meaning to drop you a line because I need a second opinion on Yeshu. I seem to recall you having some interest in the page. Are you still following it (and if not, would you please)? The page is a real mess because one or more parties have been obscuring the topic. Leadwind (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Leadwind, trying to present a balanced view of the varied and subtley differing opinions on Yeshu is not "obscuring". Slrubenstein could you please help work on an intro for the article that all parties can agree on. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Arendt and Anti-semiticism

This is a question which doesn't belong on the Holocaust disc page. I am curious about your statement "Hannah Arendt for example concluded it(the Holocaust) did not have to do with european anti-Semitism." That observation clashes with my understanding of the Origins of Totalitarianism [5]which I admit is a complex book. Do you have a reference, I would appreciate it as in might give me additional insight into her thinking. Thanks --Joel Mc (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will look further.--Joel Mc (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Anthropology fields and subfields

I wanted to tell you that I agree that several parts of anthropology are considered fields in their own right, if that's where you were going. I've spoken or texted with several colleagues about this in the past few weeks. Everyone seems to agree that the term "four traditional subfields" is used when we mean to help a non-anthropologist understand the basics. However, since every anthropologist ((I included some from each subfield) wants to say that there are a lot of other now equally separate fields that are considered by all of us to be part of anthropology in some way, including forensic anthropology (arguably a subfield of biological anthropology, usually taught that way), applied anthropology (which is general based in cultural anthropology, early pioneers in the field like Cliff Barnett were cultural anthropologists, early programs came out of cultural anthropology - but it can be forensic too, I myself have been called in to do forensic/criminal work as a cultural anthropologist), primatology, anthropological molecular genetics (would seem a subfield of biological anthropology, but few people get trained inside anthropology programs exclusively, I can't think of anyone who doesn't have a joint degree or appointment or some kind of cross training in molecular biology), and so forth. I am going to put something on the anthropology page that would propose mentioning that the four subfields approach may have once worked and is still an introductory way of speaking about anthropology, but that the field is really an umbrella (if you can think of a more academic word, let me know) for the study of humans. Today, anthropology has large sections of humanistic anthropologists, ethnomusicologists, ethnopoeticists, ecological anthropology, etc. These are all part of the AAA, but most old separate meetings. Oh, I forgot the myth and folklore people, who have really kept a distinct line within anthropology (they get housed in anthropology at most schools, but some are in philosophy or religious studies, even with docctorates in anthropology, etc). I'd like to mention as many of these seperate fields somewhere (in the see also section at the bottom?). I'm going over there right now to take a look at where we are. Thanks for reminding me about it again.Levalley (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Symbology

I don't have strong feelings about whether or not this article should exist, though I think on balance it should be a disambiguation page. As far as I'm aware Langdon's "religious symbology" is a kind of conflation of academic concepts including Panofsky's "iconology" and the various traditions of semiotics. I doubt there is any proper literature on this, but there have been several bookswritten in response to the DVC, so maybe there is. Paul B (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

archeology

In your archeology talkpage comment you said- "in the UK I think archeology was traditionally associated with humanities like History and Classics; in the United States, with anthropology." As an older American, in my mind. history and archeology are closely linked. History is the written record of man and archeology rounds out and gives us the record of what happened before that. Any idea on who I should research to get to some academics who agree with this view?
On your list of great movies you hate: none of them are great except On the Waterfront. Try viewing it again as a double feature with Rocky- they're basically the same story- and it may give you a different perspective.Nitpyck (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Mhazard9 and literary criticism

Thanks very much for the heads-up you left on my Talk page about Mhazard9. I agree, after looking through it a bit, that this user seems to have a troublesome track record of making major changes, and a cavalcade of minor ones, to articles -- as often making them far worse as making any improvement at all -- under very vague edit summaries that dinsingenuously claim only copyediting or minor cleanup. Since Mhazard9 now seems to be reverting their edits to the literary criticism article and has just left a message on User talk:Mhazard9 accusing me of defensiveness and "ownership" there, I'd invite you to examine the changes if you have a minute and take whatever action seems appropriate. FWIW, if these edits were made in smaller chunks I think some might be worth saving, but since many of them seriously change, and render wrong, the article's previously decent introduction to the subject, I cannot endorse the bulk of Mhazard9's edits there.

Incidentally, I believe I also told you a long while ago that I'd do some work on the culture article's section on cultural studies. Haven't forgotten, and still plan to do so. -- Rbellin|Talk 23:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV: Reality check

Would you mind making a critic of the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#WP:UNDUE? I feel some third party opinion would be useful, as I fear I may be spouting rubbish on this matter? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Judaism and that Zoro business

Removing that unreferenced and original research section was a very good idea. I'd have done it soon myself. Debresser (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

About your revert from born to born. he meant born. I liked his edit very much. Debresser (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do not think I'd revert a proper link ... but it still seems awfully trivial to me. Why do you like it so much? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It is an allusion to the son of a certain souple Yosef and Miriam. Debresser (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we editors should resist using articles to forward our own views. If the point is tht Jesus was Jewish, well, that point should be made in th appropriate article and with appropriate sources, as needed ... in fact, the Jesus article makes that point. The sentence in question is about all Jews and I have to say I find it a little disturbing, maybe even offensive, to use it to make a point about a single Jew. In any event, the sentence is not about birth, it is about what makes someone a Jew. I still consider it trivial, to link it to the article on childbirth. Every reader knows exactly what the word "born" means in this context, there is no ambiguity. I do not think we should be overlinking. If the article had a paragraph describing different meanings of "born" in the Tanakh, Talmud or Midrash, I would have no problem linking each diferent meaning of "born" to the appropriate articl - but that is not what is going on here. Let's not use edits to make little jokes or allusions. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course you are right. But I still think it was funny. I might be making this up, BTW, but that was my first thought. Debresser (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Question about quoting people

I'm thinking this is the kind of thing you might know the answer to. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Fascism

Two editors in concert are now removing any reference to Fascism ever being anything other than "right wing" (the four references to "left wing fascism are gone, as are all 12 references for the former first sentence aboiut the political spectrum, and now the OED definition of is as "right wing" is being forced into the lede). I consider this to be violative of the spirit of WP:RS, and I am deeply concerned that those involved are making that article into a hotch-potch as it once was. Many thanks! I also posted at RSN about using the OED instead of any actual text on the subject. Collect (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Capitalism

Didn't I say that? I wanted to include Lassiez-faire as what some considered the truest form of capitalism and to show contrasts later in the document. I like your opening and would help you work on it if you wished. Soxwon (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope you didn't feel that I was totally redoing your work, I just was trying for a little better flow. What do you think? Soxwon (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, what is it that you don't like? I'm sure we can rewrite it to both of our liking. Soxwon (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Over, I trust

All the ANIs, WQA, CUs, RFC/Us and RFARs are over, I trust. I sincerely thank you for voicing your position on the RFC/U on me. I did not canvass anyone, and in order to avoid any cliams that I canvassd, I waited until now (the request to reopen the RFC/U seems dead). Again, many thanks! Collect (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

Egypt

Please, have a look to Ancient Egyptian race controversy. The article has been radically changed by User:Dbachmann and friends. This unilateral act is fuelling a controversy.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Christian Zionism in the United Kingdom

This has just been heavily edited. Looking even at the earlier version, what is this with 'References' which have footnotes? References which lead to a sales shop? Most of these 'References' are just external links and should be amalgamated and culled. Dougweller (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascism in the political spectrum

The RfC on Fascism#Fascism in the political spectrum has now run one month and there are now two versions of the intro para:

Most scholars do not find the terms right and left very useful with regard to fascism, which incorporated elements of both left and right, rejected the main currents of leftist and rightist politics, and attracted adherents from both ends of the political spectrum. Hence, fascism can be called sui generis. Some scholars do place fascism squarely on the right or left.

Most academics describe fascism as extreme right, radical right, far right or ultra right; some calling it a mixture of authoritarian conservatism and right-wing nationalism. However, there exists a dissenting view that fascism represents radical centrism. Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left.

Could you please comment at Talk:Fascism#RfC.

Following this RfC, there is currently a proposal regarding the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to characterise fascism as "right-wing".

Even if you don't have much to say, it would be useful if you could let your view be known in order to help guide the discussion towards some sort of conclusion.

Please take a look: here.

Thank you. --FormerIP (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

White people

Hello! You might be inrerested in tha fact that some users are trying to re-add pictures to White people. Thsnks! The Ogre (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Faith and Fratricide

I found this book on ABE:--Woogie10w (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism Rosemary Radford Ruether Average Customer Review: (1 reviews) Latest Reviews

	Bookseller: 
	Pro Quo Books 
	(Baltimore, MD, U.S.A.) 
	Bookseller Rating:  
	[View Larger Image] 
	Book Price: 
	US$ 9.75 
	[Convert Currency] 
	Quantity: 1 
	Shipping: 
	[Rates & Speeds]

you interest in editing 'culture'

Dear Slrubenstein,

The ‘culture’ page is a good page, and what we are now referring is a connotation of ‘customs’ consisting of ‘folk culture’ rather than of the semantics of ‘culture’. Let me exemplify this with simple semantic binaries if you are very much interested in this topic—the Bavarians or Scottish customs for example has its distinguishing pattern of depiction, which is a distinguishable ‘folk culture’. At the same time, the both folk cultures may share a subset of culture or component, namely, the custom of Christianity. Again, the ‘custom’ is not the culture but rather a component of culture. So what we usually think about culture is—the folk culture. Therefore, the beginning of this page now is about “folk culture’ than about the connotation of ‘culture’.

So the page should be rewritten by those who are interested in editing. Is this makes sense to you?

Regards. Susan White (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you want to edit an article on Folk culture which of course should be based on a review of verifiable and reliable sources. Beyond that, topics like Scottish custons I think do not deserve their own articles, I think the section on Scotland (for example) should have a section on folk culture and popular culture. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

wikibreak

Hi SLR, I hope you're keeping well. I'm going on an extended wikibreak from around now till mid-to-late October. I might pop in and out every know and then but I'll basically be unavailable till Halloween. I know you asked me ages ago to look at Culture in terms of cultural studies. Well I got this far.
From an outside perspective on the article there is too little weight given to the Cultural studies & sociological viewpoints in the lead section. I've read your talk posts and I agree with you about the page being a work in progress, but I would recommend that the lead be re-imagined. If there are 3 or 4 strands to the current definition of culture - give each one a paragraph with a brief explanation/definition. Head them with a lede line that summarizes them and the rest of the article. Anyway, I hope that the definition I've provided in my user-space is helpful. Good luck with it and everything else and hopefully I'll talk to you again in the winter--Cailil ^talk 17:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Cultural studies

Ok, I just want to get some clarification for what you are expecting (I am unfamiliar with what the community has envisioned). My knowledge of Cultural studies is limited, however I do know Western Marxism which is the Marxist classification which cultural studies falls into. The main identifying characteristic of Western Marxism is that they investigate culture in order to discover why the revolution never happened (Marx wrote from the perspective that the proletariat revolution was eminent, probably in his lifetime). One possible change I could make include giving a cited section referencing the above mentioned chain of events (in more detail of course), inserting a section on Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, and Habermas and paralleling it to cultural studies. This would give the article a good look at how different theorists study different aspects of society (Adorno=art, Marcuse=advertising/comodification, Habermas=communicative rationality and the lifeworld/culture). If you are looking for something different, let me know. I will be humble enough to let you know if it is in my capability.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Culture Article

Wow! The article on culture is a real monster! I'll see what I can do... afamiglietti (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

Thank you for your continuing contributions! After avoiding this website for over a year, I was scared to take a look at the articles relating to broad concepts in the social sciences. You seem to be indispensable in keeping a number of key articles up to reasonable standard. I hope to start working with you again some time soon! 172 | Talk 01:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I just made a major reversion on state. At your convenience, please take a look and offer your feedback. Thanks in advance! 172 | Talk 02:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments. [6] You bring up excellent points about the need to distinguish decentralized tributary states/centralized tributary states, and avoid Eurocentrism. I look forward to addressing those issues shortly once the current mess is resolved ... I may come to you a little latter for some help on the recent anthropological work. As you know, I am definitely going to be writing as a non-specialist in that area. 172 | Talk 02:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

State

I really need some help... I am no longer too skilled with the inner politics of Wikipedia. I now find my self overwhelmed trying to turn the article on state into an encyclopedic entry. The editors on that page are clueless yet very opinionated. Yet, I get the impression not one of them has sat in on a single political science course. 172 | Talk 00:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Few notes for those who edit 'culture'

I think many of you would agree with me if I said that the definition of ‘culture’ has not been still clarified from its componential variations. In order to narrow this, I think, one needs to begin with a right question that can bring some clarities; like, what does constitute in societies dominantly in their day-to-day live?

This assumes that given societies have given cultures. This is not true. It certainly ignores a hundred years of anthropological research. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If one looks in to an anthropological evidence for its definition, then it can only be described in terms of hunter-gathering, fishing, agriculture, industrial innovation, etc.

Therefore in these days, the work culture is no longer a definition of ‘culture’ and fishing and farming require much higher education than some other fields. So rather as an approach to understanding, there are always some problems to bring the concept of ‘culture’ from a point of view. Susan White (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"the work culture is no longer a definition of ‘culture’" is ungrammatical and I do not know what you mean - you may be better off contributing to the Wikipedia that is in your own language. "If one loooks in to an anthropological ..." again I do not know what you mean. What about Ira Bastow's article on culture in American Ethnologist? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Except pre-schoolings and retirements, today, in most societies, the ‘work culture’ consists of an average 10/24 hours. The work culture includes schooling for current and future jobs. So as to its universality (except in few societies), we do not translate the ‘work culture’ as a paradigm of culture, and we look at something that depicts and dominant in their daily activities of societies other than of their work culture. And in most societies, the next activity of sleeping consists 8/24 hours. It is also a universal pattern. However, one may disagree with me about this as to its meaning if a matter comes for example like sexuality in their sleeping hours.

"we do not translate the ‘work culture’ as a paradigm of culture" - don't know what this means. Don't really understand the rest of this paragraph. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think she may be proposing that culture is what we do when we don't work. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is a view of culture that would be rejected by every anthropologist I know of. In fact, there is a section of the AAA devoted to the study of "work" as a central part of culture.[7] Slrubenstein | Talk 13:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly doesn't work well with a modern understanding of culture. It seems rooted in an older idea of culture as the sum of traits that unite a supposedly homogeneous community. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So the rest of the 6/24 hours of a day is for our definition of culture that we look in to something in societies that is cultural specific and more of palpable in its depiction. That is:

Dress patterns

Meal patterns

Living patterns

Rituals

Cultural scripts

Art and music

Language (dialects)

Other minor variations

According to whom? Is this a significant view? Do you have a reliable source? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

However, some may argue the ‘work culture’ not as a universal concept in all societies in terms of their history and of their evolution in their cultural specific thoughts. In this way however, I think the definition seems more of its fixed stage.

Regards. Susan White (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"the definition seems more of its fixed stage." I do not understand this. It is not grammatical. If English is a second language may I suggest you should be working on the Wikipedia for your native language? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by “It is not grammatical”? Is that about the right complements that the word 'seems' can take or about the verb phrase that contains comparative adjective without its attributive phrase?

Susan White (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Dude, just diagram the sentence. It is garbled English. I am not here to tutor you in English. Like i said, why not work on th Wikipedia that is in your own language? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Marxist and culture

Thank you again for asking me to help out. while the work is going slow (I have several non-wikipedia projects on my plate right now) you can see the progress at User:Coffeepusher/Sandbox. Right now the plan is to show the split in Marxist thought between historical determinism, and cultural investigations. after that a section on the Frankfurt school and several kea theorists will be explored. all of this ties to cultural studies because while CS reinterpreted society through Gramsci, FS drew heavily on Lukacs and came up with an entirely different investigation.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Slrubenstein, six of us have been banned unfairly from editing Ancient Egyptian race controversy. See Log of blocks and bans. We need your help. Please go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

I found a comprehensive scholarly reference from 2000 on current trends in arch and anth in Africa which I mentioned here on WP:FTN. Almost all aspects are discussed, including afrocentrism and regional studies in sub-Saharan Africa. Mathsci (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page) The introductory chapter by the editors contains a long survey on Egyptology, Arch and Anth on Africa and in Africa, etc. There is also an article on Black Athena by North which directly criticizes the rejection of usual academic methods on the issues of race. The collection of articles and indeed the 2000 conference itself was aimed at providing a resource for current trends in African Arch and Anth, with particular emphasis on Egyptology. I agree that before writing an article like this, the first step to be taken is to amass as much relevant secondary mainstream literature as possible. This has not happened so far. As in anthropology, there are very few egyptologists who have any desire to contribute to wikipedia (I've spoken to 2 so far). However, there are texts - like the 2000 UCL conference proceedings - which give balanced accounts by leading academics. I agree with almost everything you have written and don't quite know why this particular article with this particular title should exist at all. Mathsci (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Waiting for a response to my question on my talk page. I don't see why you disagree with what you call, quite unfairly I think, a tendentious edit by Dab. He said "have one article on the controversy, but mak it explicitly an article about scholars, journalists, activists, living in the twentieth century and using an argument over the past to forward present-day agendas," and you said "have one article on the controversy, but mak it explicitly an article about scholars, journalists, activists, living in the twentieth century and using an argument over the past to forward present-day agendas,". The article is about the history and development of the controversy, it is not about the race/color of the AE. Dougweller (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Slrubenstein. I do not have access to the checkuser reports, so I can't tell for sure myself. My current understanding is that Muntuwandi is Wapondaponda, and apparently s/he has used a number of socks as well, on this and other articles. I don't know the specific details. I am not sure if there are other editors in the sock-light as well, or if its just this one editor. The admins seem to take the attitude that the socks all belong to Muntuwandi, but really I can't say for sure.

I will consider your proposal on the talk page - its a bit complicated - and respond ASAP.

Regards Wdford (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, thanks for your insights! I was still thinking about your proposal on setting two articles. Actually I found that an article figuring only theories by Egyptologies will have a difficult time here in Wikipedia. Because it will raise another question which will make an article in the article: who is an Egyptologist? Anybody who writes on ancient Egypt? or someone belonging to a body of specialists? How to determine who is a specialist and who is not? A very tricky matter! The ban or the block found me thinking what to do. Else, it is not the ban which makes me upset, but the way we have been banned. It looks targeted towards people having a certain opinion. The ban of Panehesy and the liberty dab is injoying confirms my view of selected bans.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Help, I'm currently banned from this talk-page. Please remind me what Zara was proposing? Thanks Wdford (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Obviously there would be a risk of NOR, but that same risk exists on many other articles too. I don’t see why the material cannot be reported by means of quoting recognised scholars in the various fields, and I don’t see why the material cannot be reported neutrally. Some people might err on either side, but the community will put them straight, until we have a correct tone and balance. It is not necessary to block an article or ban a range of editors to achieve NPOV, all that is needed is to add to anything that is not properly referenced and away we go. Why the big deal over this particular article? Wdford (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This article has long since been poisoned, and there are too many ego's involved now that can't allow it to progress properly. Fresh approach - let's request that the article be officially renamed as "History of the Ancient Egyptian race controversy", and then edit it further as such. Once that is done we can create a separate article/s to deal with other aspects that are ommited here, or build that content into other existing articles if more appropriate. What do you think? Wdford (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Going Plaid

That's going to keep me chuckling all day. Thanks, Doc Tropics 16:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Culture and Language

I would love to help writing about the connection between langauge and culture. I don't have much time this week, but next week I'll start looking at it. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I have been reading up on the topic but feel that it is a little difficult to fill out the section. I don't understand exactly what the contents of the section should be. Could you help me by giving an idea of what questions you'd want the section to answer?·Maunus·ƛ· 23:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added a first draft of a "language and culture" section at Talk:Culture#Draft·Maunus·ƛ· 15:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching my mistake (NPOV). As to the question itself, do you have any opinion? Debresser (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

In contrast to my proposal...

A common theme of the whole Advisory Council debate seems to be that the opponents of the idea perceive (in good faith) a much more restrictive or exclusive structure than what I think is intended by the proponents. This is the case with your comments about my proposal, which does not preclude the formation of think-tanks by anyone who wants to; it only recommends that a certain standard (a charter, certification, accreditation, what-have-you) be established to encourage good practices like transparency, diversity of membership, etc. and to discourage cabalism or anything that would give a particular group influence disproportionate to the quality of its analysis. Groups of editors that do not meet (or desire) such certification would not be prevented at all from coming up with ideas and proposing them, and members of the community could heed or ignore the certification however they wanted. Think of it as a seal of quality to give the consumer of ideas one additional way for judging between them. I was consciously trying to avoid heavy bureaucratic processes (like elections or new committees) but also to minimize actual restrictions or exclusions on who could participate in crafting recommendations. Perhaps my proposal was not written well enough to convey that -- but I think there's less contrast between your vision and mine than you seem to think. Not that I'm asking for your endorsement; I just hate being misunderstood. :) alanyst ^/talk/ 21:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Slrubenstein. You have new messages at Cnilep's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.