User talk:Slrubenstein/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28

Verifiability - in practice not everything need actually be attributed?

Could you offer some sort of independent opinon about this discussion[1]? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Monotheism (reply)

You're welcome. I like your reasoning in that section of that Talk page. I think you bring together some factors that may not have been brought together before in that article. And I think I agree with your idea that a separate section should be set aside in the article for the sort of treatment of monotheism that you articulated on the Talk page. I will try to look into the goings-on there when I have a chance. Bus stop (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Jewish people

Hi. So long as the sentence includes "the" before "Jewish people", I don't think it matters whether "people" is capitalized. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Judaism protected

Why did you make the protection level "sysop"? The vandalism is IP-vandalism, and semi-protection should be enough, no? Debresser (talk) 10:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing#The telltale signs of "disruptive editing"

Your input. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 18:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Patriarchy rewrite and other matters

Hi SLR, hope you're well. I've embarked on a restructuring and re-writing on Patriarchy. See the talk page and my sandbox version here. Any input in either venue would be great. Also if you get a chance could you skim through this and let me know your thoughts on it--Cailil talk 00:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please look over this comment I made about your block

[2] Perhaps I'm misinterpreting something. If so, please point it out. I think if some other admin doesn't unblock and reblock, there will be trouble down the road. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you ask me to do something just before I went away

I think you posted to my talk page, but I can't find it right now (between crashes...). Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this?

Any thoughts on this discussion [3]? Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of Eugeneacurry

Hello Slrubenstein. Eugeneacurry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Sandstein  20:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: I'll be also requesting comment on WP:ANI, where a thread concerning this is still open, so you may want to make any comments there. I've not yet formed an opinion myself, but the request, on its face, would seem to merit discussion.  Sandstein  20:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

ATT draft review

Hi SLR, I assume you are busy as always, so please ignore this request if you don't have the time or inclination. I consider your opinions very valuable, and would greatly appreciate your views on the new ATT draft in my user space and its rationale page (which should be read first for overview). Again, no worries if you can't. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Crum375 (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Jesus

Hi, sorry but you misinterpreted, that was not a circular link in my edit. I want to revert back your edit reversion.--TudorTulok (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

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

--TudorTulok (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

WBU ban/block

I'm rather wildly confused at your assertion that WillBildUnion (talk · contribs) was not banned, but rather blocked, but only from certain articles. Isn't that exactly backwards? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Slrubenstein. You have new messages at SarekOfVulcan's talk page.
Message added 17:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Looking for a second opinion

Do you have any interest in casting a social anthropologist's eye over Chitpavan? I got involved as an admin after a complaint about it on RfPP, and now I find myself crossing into editor mode, though I don't want to. To my uneducated eye it looks as though User:Authentickle may be adding inappropriate material (arguably racist, certainly SYN violations on occasion), e.g. [4] But he also seems dedicated to sticking to the policies and producing a fair account. I'm now unsure what's legit and what isn't. Added to which I know nothing about the topic and have no interest in it, but I feel reluctant to walk away after arriving there as an admin in case things deterioriate.

A second opinion would therefore be very helpful. I did post a couple of requests for help on Wikiproject India, and a few people arrived but they seem to have wandered off again. See the talk page for various exchanges, and here for the latest.

As always, feel free to ignore this entirely if you have no time or inclination. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't treat my edits like vandalism

Hi,

I removed the source because the source given does not even mention prophecies. I left an edit summary noting this reason. Please don't treat my edits like vandalism, at least give a reason for reversions. Flash 11:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The Ten Commandments

I think your view would be apprediated, here Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I would love to get involved. I actually agree with your position. However I won't be able to get back editing until July 25. (Final Sunday as relief pastor.) If you want something more challenging than the Ten Commandments see the Gospel of the Hebrews - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ten Commandments

I totally support your version and am very pleased that so many editors are finally responding to my repeated calls of addressing the perpetual issues around the RD. I simply stated that while the page is protected, no editors should make controversial changes. It would be nice if Kwami acknowledged that he's outgunned. JFW | T@lk 14:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ten Commandments

Was my mistake with who I addressed my reply to. I support your views. I think this K person is a troll just trying to stir up problems. The way he wrote the last part made me think he is intoxicated on alcohol or drugs and having a laugh at our serious replies. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Nick

Wow, more problems. I have a feeling that another lock on this article is coming again the way things are going.... Meishern (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

RD

Oh, OK. Thanks for the link to Ritual decalogue. Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Haste makes waste

Sue Laurence was not the point -- scroll down a little in that e-mail. Louis Proyect (apparently moderator of that Marxism mailing list at the time) was quoting Wheen's biography, which was quoting Marx's own correspondence [5]. And the letter is noted in other sources, even to the point of quoting directly from it. [6] I thought this was common knowledge about Marx among educated people with any interest in his life at all. Yet you seem to be treating it all as apocryphal. Why is that? Shouldn't you (under AGF) at least check the sources I cite with a little care, rather than revert them as if they were vandalism? Yakushima (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

How about all the sources that also say the same? See discussion on Marx bio talk page. I don't see why Red Jenny is an unreliable source especially when it's just saying what all these other books are saying (and what Marx's own correspondence says). Why do you rip it out, and leave statements uncited? Certainly having no source for the statement about Wolff's bequest to Marx seems silly, when Red Jenny is as good as any other for that. Yakushima (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
You do realize by now, don't you, that the claim that Marx was speculating in the stock markets was made by Marx himself? [7] Could you explain what the issue is, after you've verified that fact (if you still need to)? Is it that you think Marx might have been lying, so we need RS to back him up? Then at least be clear about that. Yakushima (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What I meant by my "by now" should be clear: you did not understand that these weren't simply Sue Laurence's "views." You wrote "Sue Laurence simply is not a respected marx biographer and her views are not notable enough to be included in this article." That response indicates pretty clearly that didn't read far enough to see that Louis Proyect, in that Marxism list posting, went further than reposting an article by Sue Laurence and quoted extensively from Wheen's biography. In short, your whole approach to this has been dismissive, as if I (or other people) might simply be making this whole thing up. A more productive approach would be to (a) track down more reliable sources, while (b) discussing whether this merited mention.

"Snippets from some online search are worthless; we do not know the reliability of the source and cannot read enough of it to know the full context for the quote." How much context to do you need? If I turned up the entire text of the letter, right up to Marx's signature, would hold out that he might have written "p.s. ha ha just joking" on the next page? Or in his next letter to his uncle? Or years later? Yakushima (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"Complain all you want about my deleting a lousy citation."
The original citation was to Red Jenny, and that got deleted by somebody who didn't look very closely. Then you stepped up and continued not looking at things very closely. I don't see why Red Jenny is a bad source, nor do I see why Louis Proyect, citing a Marx biography, is a bad source. Do you know who Louis Proyect is?
"But the fact that it was from a chat room or somee list-serve, ..."
(*Sigh*) as if there were no difference between a chat room and the Marxism mailing list, between some idiotic teenager and Louis Proyect. (Unfamiliar with him? Start here: [8]. Note this (my emph. added): "My articles, many of which appeared originally as postings to the Marxism list, have appeared in Sozialismus (Germany), Science and Society, New Politics, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Organization and Environment, Cultural Logic, Dark Night Field Notes, Revolutionary History (Great Britain), New Interventions (Great Britain), Canadian Dimension, Revolution Magazine (New Zealand), Swans and Green Left Weekly (Australia).").
"and the top portion was a private individual quoting a BBC report quoting Sue Laurence,"
I'd already cited Red Jenny by then. And by the time you joined the discussion, I'd already mentioned that this letter had been excerpted in biography by Wheen, itself excerpted by Louis Proyect. Did you skip all that?
"... when all of the sudden you are really referring to something below that,"
It wasn't all of a sudden. I'd already found Proyect's excerpt from Wheen by then. But I knew if all I relied upon was that, I might get shot down for citing only a mailing list. So I found much the same thing elsewhere, and cited the first thing I found (Red Jenny). You're getting the chronology confused.
"... shows what a lousy citation it was."
You're assuming something about me, and Louis Proyect, for that matter, that I think you'd better prove before you say it that way. Red Jenny plus Louis Proyect quoting Wheen quoting Marx himself doesn't add up to "lousy". If it adds up only to "improvable", why not make improvements?
"Better to provide a proper citation to a proper source."
I've pointed you to several that substantiate not only this letter, but Wolff's involvement in helping Marx financially later in life. But do you lift a finger? No.
"All I deed was deletee a lousy citation."
Tell me why Red Jenny is out-of-bounds.
"If you have a proper citation to a proper source, I will not stop you from adding it. Why haven't you even tried to add it?"
After seeing not just my words but my citations deleted even where they supported some of the facts left in place later, I was waiting to see what people would do if I merely supplied a number of links to sources (including, if you look just a little, Marx himself). Would they use those links to add substantiation to any statements made? It appears not. It seems that if some statement squares with canonical Marx hagiography, it not only goes unchallenged, but uncited. Leave a [citation needed] tag, it gets removed. Whereas when it's something that doesn't square with the standard account, it's treated with deep suspicion -- even when the sources cited are quite reasonable. (No, don't start up about "chat rooms" again. Tell me instead why Red Jenny was a uselessly bad source.)
"My starting point is something you wrote: "This is multiply-sourced, from Marx's own correspondence. ...."
There are two sentences before that one, in the same paragraph. Why did you skip them? After all, they say this, which might have saved you considerable misunderstanding:
I reverted your reversion and added a further citation, one that includes a link to a posting by Louis Proyect to the Marxism mailing list in 2004, in which he quotes extensively not only from recent popular press, but from Francis Wheen's "Karl Marx: a Life". Marx's "mushroom" refers to bubble conditions in markets.
Well, that's certainly enough to go on, if you're interested in finding better sources and more background. Why did you ignore it? Or did you not even see it?
"You raised these questions [about whether Marx was making up trades to impress an uncle]. All I am doing is taking what you wrote seriously, and asking that you follow WP policy."
No, you're doing more than taking me seriously there (moreover, taking me seriously after missing the obviously rather light and tongue-in-cheek nature of my comment.) You're thinking I'm so serious about this that you have to pull out the policy guns on me -- without first asking me whether I was actually proposing hashing out -- in the article text itself -- the question of whether Marx actually engaged in such trades. Well, as it happens, that strikes me as a hideously stupid thing to do. I mean, look at the sources. The only known item of stock ownership they've turned up looks like 4 pounds of equity in a newspaper Marx helped start, or something like that. It seems that nobody has solidly settled this question of whether he actually spent any money buying stocks, much less made any money. He might have done it but destroyed evidence of earnings to dodge taxes. Who knows? Anyway, I don't understand why you were so incredulous about this letter. It's widely quoted or at least cited, and not just in his biographies. It strikes me that Marx, with his understanding of economics, finance and business ("rather above" average, even Schumpeter was forced to admit), would actually have made a pretty shrewd investor. As to ideological consistency, well, Marx's letter has a little joke about relieving the enemy of some of his money. Actually, I was hoping to work that into the article, but thought it might be going too far. Maybe I'll get a little bolder. Yakushima (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
"And that is precisely why I deleted it. You have just provided a full explanation for my action."
Wait -- now you're saying you knew all this in advance. How does that follow? But you apparently decided to say nothing about your advance knowlege during a discussion in which you feigned missing one detail after another? Why is that?
If you knew all this in advance, why did you act for much of the time like this quote from Marx's correspondence might not even exist?
Finally, you never get around to saying: why is Red Jenny such a "lousy" source that it didn't even qualify for supporting anything about Marx's financial relationship to Wolff? The author of it is also the author of a number of other apparently creditable biographies of in intellectual history. [9] I'm getting the feeling that you WP:OWN this article, that you won't brook any change that doesn't sit perfectly well with you: easily examined from the safety of your own home with little more than a click. Well, I happened to do a few snippet view searches on Red Jenny (try it, it's not hard) to verify that it squares with what Proyect found in Wheen. (Which is another issue you completely dodge in this response, by the way: why, when you had a choice to look at those sources, did you just edit out any mention of them.)
I did some work. To support at least one fact that clearly stands up (after all, there was no mention of Wolff in the article until I added). And now that support is gone. You took it out. For no reason other than that you believe Red Jenny is not a sufficiently "scholarly" work. What's your measure for that? Will I soon discover that you consider yourself the ultimate arbiter of what is considered "scholarly" for all of the sources in this bio? Did you actually look at any information about that source before making your decision? Or will I have to tell you everything you want to know about it, only to be told, "I knew that! Why, that's precisely why I threw it in the trash!" Yakushima (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Knee jerk

Have you read the section I started about the layout that was ignored by other editors? Have you read the sources I have provided discussing the topic? Your recent comment comes across as finger pointing and knee-jerking.Cptnono (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Significant minority says enough. Again, if you think occupied deserves to be mentioned in every title in the topic area than it needs a more centerilzed discussion.
And the reason I brought up the previous discussion was that it was not political in any way and it was ignored by partisan editors. The topic area is full of editors trying to make certain assertions whenever possible that grinds proper consensus building to a halt.Cptnono (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I sincerely apologize if it came across as baiting. That was not the intent. I was also not trying to put words in your mouth but it came across as your intent. Feel free to blank this if you want it off your page. So seriously, please do not taketone as me telling you off or anything.Cptnono (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: races

I hope that piece by Ernst W. Mayr, one of leading evolutionary biologists of 20th century and author of Populations, Species, and Evolution can clarify your questions. Thanks,Biophys (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Great discussion of Mayr essay

I really appreciated reading your response to the Mayr essay just now in the diffs of the talk page on Race (classification of human beings). It's good to get that kind of cross-disciplinary perspective in discussion of editing the article. When I read the essay yesterday, I was struck by how much Mayr concedes that of course we have to talk about social issues when we talk about race, and thus how much he supports much of the current structure and content of the article. Keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Deleting POV tags and the like because you disagree with them, as you did at Ten Commandments, is note acceptable. The neutrality of the article is indeed contested, obviously. — kwami (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

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

TbhotchTalk C. 18:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Your name came up in a sockpuppet investigation

Here is the link. Wish we could have been informed.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

at least everyone else knows, it is dirty pool. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Dirty indeed that people weren't even informed. I'm already on record over at the ArbCom file as calling for the complainant's topic ban. It's unfair that you had to deal with this at all. I mean, what a coincidence that people who have had quality higher educations might all want to edit articles full of POV-pushing to make them more neutral. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
This kind of wilful disruption during an ArbCom case normally results in some kind of penalty. Mathsci (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I can relate to the sick-and-tired feeling.

I just saw your comment on the ArbCom proposed decision talk page that you are tired of doing conscientious edits that get undone by people who don't read the sources. Please keep up the good work anyway. ArbCom must be sick and tired too, or I think the decision by those beleaguered volunteers would have come sooner, but eventually there will be some sanctions on some subset of editors, and meanwhile the whole project will have to change its culture to emphasize sourced edits and editors checking one another's sources for accurate citation, so gradually this will come around. You'll have me and others on your flank if you stay at the task. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Noloop

Thanks. I took the liberty to make the topic ban comment the start of a subsection and to "support" the suggestion. Please alter my changes as needed or as appropriate.Griswaldo (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

topic ban

Hi, you seem to be a bit involved in announcing and No loops discussion at ani, ani is the most watched page on wiki, please take care not to canvass. Off2riorob (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Content issue

Hi SLR, there is an RfC about whether a normally-hidden list of victim names and ages in a featured accident article is policy compliant. If you have the time and inclination, your input would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation: Jesus

[10] Noloop (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Temple discussion at ANI

Hi Slrubenstein: A discussion and related vote you participated in is being reviewed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#All talk pages, and more, were notified about the discussions and proposed moves. You may want to add your views to the ongoing discussion. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have replied to you at the ANI discussion referenced above. I believe, on re-reading your comment, that is was a misunderstanding on my part from a somewhat ambiguously worded comment you made. Could you please check whether I am correct in this, and if this resolves our being puzzled or baffled by each other's comments? Fram (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning Many Jesus-related articles, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 22:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Christ myth theory

The section we currently have explaining arguments against the Christ myth theory (i.e. arguments in favour of Jesus having existed) is weak, so I would like to try to strengthen it with a very clear introduction in simple language: "scholars argue that Jesus existed because ..." But I can't find a good RS summary anywhere.

Do you have any interest in helping out with one? I've started a discussion at Talk:Christ myth theory#Arguments against the theory again. No worries if you don't have time. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Kohen article

Hi Slrubenstein,

I've run into a pretty inexperienced editor who is making edits to the Kohen article that I'm concerned about. Give your knowledge, would you be able to take a look? I've opened up a section on the Talk:Kohen page for at least one of the problems, though he's still making many edits, so there may be more by the next time I look. :-) Jayjg (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI

You were referenced by Noloop on ANI. Just FYI. Bill the Cat 7 (talk)

Please do not make personal attacks on editors, like you did here. However angry you get at a contributor and however much you disagree with their argument, that kind of attack does not help. Fences&Windows 13:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'm absolutely serious. It is your opinion that this editor is a bigot. You do not have a free rein to insult people, and if you continue I will block you. Fences&Windows 15:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Warning you for attacking someone is not a personal attack. Again you attack Noloop, this time as a "troll". Final warning: you need to stay civil, this is not optional. Fences&Windows 17:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not talking about Noloop's behaviour, and other admins are scrutinising his edits already. What I am concerned with right now is the narrow issue of the use of personal attacks by William C and yourself. WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are not contingent on us agreeing with an editor's opinions or actions, even if we believe that they are being disruptive. Criticise someone's edits, criticise their actions, even argue that they should be topic banned, but using insults and making attacks is not acceptable. You can make your point adequately without resorting to that. Fences&Windows 18:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Slrubenstein, my advice right now is to refrain from using language that allows people to call you out on bad behavior. I read your, very long :), comments on AN/I and you are correct in how you have framed the problem. Absolutely correct. But its not worth the trouble in that venue at this time to stick to your guns. Andrew C has apologized for his use of the word, I'd say do the same or at least promise not to use it again because the last thing the Wiki needs is one of the rational voices in this particular debate to get blocked. Noloop absolutely believes, and has made it clear that he believes, that Christian scholars are biased on this question ... despite the fact that there are no reliable sources to back that claim. This is prejudice for sure, but my advice is to stay away from the b word. Say that "his position is prejudiced against religious historians" ... I highly doubt that this could be considered an attack. Could it Fences & Windows (I'm seriously asking)? I'd also stay away from "troll", though in essence that's not an incorrect statement either. In fact I'm starting to wonder if there isn't something more organized going on with all the sudden attention to these articles, but I'm too worn out to really follow that train of thought. Good luck.Griswaldo (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

scholars & their "bias"

Great series of posts today at ANI. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, they were excellent, thanks for posting them. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

From Tumin's "Race and Intelligence"

Thought I might share this with you, from nearly 50 years ago (1963), from my copy (not online):

"Whether we consider intelligence, or length of life, or happiness the genetic potential of a population is only realized in a social system. It is that system which gives life or death to its members, and in doing so changes the gene frequencies. We know of no society which has begun to realize the genetic potential of its members. We are the primitives living by antiquated customs in the midst of scientific progress. Races are products of the past. They are relics of times and conditions which have long ceased to exist."—Professor Sherwood L. Washburn, USC at Berkeley, from essay based on Washburn's 1962 presidential address to the American Anthropological Association.

Our moral progress has always had the capacity to outstrip our scientific progress. When we mix the two, it is the moral which is diminished. Best, PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been following along with this conversation on both user talk pages. It's good to have this kind of thoughtful background discussion while preparing for more editing. I've just photocopied large portions of a current practitioner's handbook on IQ testing that I could only obtain through short-term interlibrary loan. I also picked up today from the state flagship university library two more practitioners' handbooks about cognitive assessment. I'm at least fifty books and about the same number of journal articles behind in logging sources onto the intelligence citations list we may all share, but meanwhile you are all welcome to suggest new sources. I am beginning to gather sources more specifically about "race," which is an area I have researched in passing (that is, have read a dozen or so books about) over the years. You are also welcome to suggest citations for that list, which is already linked to from my user talk page. I'll be on wikibreak soon; thanks for exemplifying thoughtful discussion of sources and what they mean. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Your input required @ 4th attempt at closing Temple discussions

Hi Slrubenstein: There is now a 4th round of discussions at ANI (actually 5th, counting the original debate). Since you were one of 3 admins at the original discussion and for the sake of giving all sides their chance to voice their reasoning at the admin level, please add your views at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Restatement of what the issue originally raised is - please focus on this. Thank you for attending to this as soon as possible before the discussions are closed off. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 05:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for arbitration: Jesus and Bigotry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Noloop_and_Sandstein Noloop (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Judaism and other matters

Slrubenstein, I have not had time to really look over the history section of Judaism but I have not forgotten. I wonder if it isn't time to start a user RfC for the editor who keeps on taking others to ANI and arbitration. I promised, in another venue that I would stop commenting on his behavior, but if there is some formal proceeding like this I will, of course make a statement. I just thought I would throw that out there.Griswaldo (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Bigoltree

I would advise against calling otehr users bigots, not matter how well you think the shoe fits. All you will do is get a ban.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

So what? I do not wish to be associated with an organization that encourages bigotry. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
If you think he is a bigot take it to ANI. If yoou want a block fine, you'll get one.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
It was already taken to AN/I and bounced back. If I wanted to take to AN/I again, I would have. If you want to take to AN/I go ahead but do not tell me what to do. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Im am not telling you what to do, Im am informing you that your actions will amlmost certailny lead to a block. As I said to Nollop over the saem issue, if you wish to avoid a ban drop it, if not continue. I am not telling you what to do just offering advice, take it or leave it its your option.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you threatening me? Why would anyone block me for insisting that people who contribute o the encyclopedi do so in good faith and seriously? Who, exactly, is going to block me for doing this? You? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not have any power or authority to block you. But if you continue to A. Assume Bad faith 9froim any Edd) B. Continue to call otehr users name in violation of civility rules some admin will eventuialy come along and poke their nose in. If you attidue is anything like it is now you will get banned very rapidly. Evven if you decide that politness is the better part of valour you will still recvie some kind of sanction if the admin thinks your attitude or actions go againist wiki's policies on cilivty or are too disruptive to make your additions a usefull contibutio to hte project (i.e. they are disruptive). Nor would you be blocked for asking some to 'contribute o the encyclopedi do so in good faith and seriously' but you will get banned for name calling. So hy not just concentrate on encouraging "contribute o the encyclopedi do so in good faith and seriously" and stop calling another muser a bigot?Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Bigots undermine the credibility of the encyclopedia. The quality of the encyclopedia matters more than our personal feelings. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(out) Slatersteven, it would be more helpful if you would attempt to do something about disruptive editors rather than confront editors who challenge them. When I requested a checkuser for Noloop because his editing bore a striking similarity to the blocked editor User:Bsharvy, you asked for administrators to close the thread before the checkuser had been completed.[11] You then wrote on the ANI noticeboard. "By the same token user TFD has tried to get another user [Noloop] blocked in a way that smacked of harassment".[12] Noloop has caused hours of editors time replying to his off-beat comments, time which could better be spent improving articles. TFD (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of agreeing with TFD, per my observation here, when a whole host of editors uses the "b" word, I'd respectfully suggest that Slrubenstein isn't the problem, just a convenient target to escalate the conflict (to the desired effect, apparently). PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
As it was clear that none of the accounts had been active in months there seemed to be no reson to continue with an investigation in to an old case. As to the Darkstar1st case, as I said it looked like to me the same patern of actions (also I note you leave out the first part where I say Darkstar1st looks like he is canvasing. You do not stop disruptive editors by name calling, but by ANI's (I notice that at the last ANI agaiinst Nollop his action were defended by a large number of Edds). If there is an Issue with nollop then report it, but do not defend an actio wich you would not like in reverse.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
This is just absurd. Administrators are not judges or police. They are people with limited technological abilities that enable them to do certain necessary maintenance tasks. One of these happens to be blocking editors, but this still does not make the admin the judge. An admin can block someone if they care clearly violating an explicit rule. An account that only vandalizes (in the sense that EVERY Wikipedian would agree) different articles can be blocked by an admin - that is equivalent to the janitor locking the doors at the end of the day.
Most conflicts ought to be resolved by editors, on their own. Editors are the supreme authority at Wikipedia. Talk pages of articles are the place to discuss improving an article. If a consensus emerges on a talk page that a proposed edit is bigoted and unjustified, then that is that. There is no need to go to AN/I. If someone's behavior is so abusive or disruptive that the community of editors agree she should be blocked, well, they have no choice but to ask an admin to block the person. But the decision to block is made by the community, not by the admin. The admin simply has the technical tools to enforce the community decision. But it is editors who make the decision.
Report it? report it to whom? It's the editors at the Jesus or the Historicity of Jesus pages that have to reach a consensus, if they can, about what to dowith Noloop. If they reach a consensus that needs an admin to enforce, you just ask some admin to enforce it. Report it? To whom? We have no government.
"do not defend an actio wich you would not like in reverse" what the hell does this mean? I like saving lives. I guess doing the reverse of that would be killing people. So because I do not like killing people, I am not supposed to defned saving lives? What kind of logic is this? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
But we can report them, we raise an ANI and then let community decide. Nor do I recall writing anything about Admins, but you arre wrong, If an admin decides that some one should not be bloacked then they will eitehr deny the request (whatever consensus is, they can ignore consensus of they wish) or they can grant an unblock request (as I bleive did happen to Noloop recently).
Would you consider it acceptable if I were to call you a bigot?Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
You can call me a bigot. What you call me doesn't matter. What matters is why you call me a bigot. Do you believe I am a bigot? What is an example of my being bigoted? This iw what I care about. Do I find it acceptable? Well, if I am a bigot, of course it is acceptable, what else would you call me. If I am not a bigot, well, go ahead, calling ma a bigot just makes you look stupid. So it all hinges on what evidence you have of my being a bigot. So what is your evidence? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
LOL well I could I am sure find a name you would cosider unn aceptable and call you it. Or am I to take it from your above repsnse that you would never consider begin called something you find insulting a breach of civility, am i to take it that I may call, you any name I wish? Ohh and by the way I have told noloop in the past that he should re-consider his actions.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, do you think I am a bigot or not? Of course I would hate being called a bigot if it meant people thought I am a bigot if that meant I had said or done some bigoted thing. I hate bigotry and would hate it if it turned out I was guilty of it too. Look, I would hate it if you called me a murderer, because if I had murdered someone I am sure I would be deeply ashamed of having done so. I think even if I had killed someone in self-defense I would feel terrible, and if you called me a killer because i killed someone, of course I would feel terrible, killing someone is awful.
Or are you suggesting there is no relationship between words and what they mean? I am just trying to follow your line of reasoning here.
"begin called something you find insulting" - well, what do you mean by an insult? Doesn't an insult depend on the intention of the person using the word? If your intention was to insult me, I suppose I would feel insulted. Isn't an insult just anything you call someone when you are trying to pick a fight? My question would be, why are you trying to pick a fight with me?
Otherwise, the way I see it, you can say something that is true ("you are lazy" and I would just have to say "Yeah, it is true, I am lazy.") Or you can say something that is untrue, in which case why should I care? Have you never heard, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never harm me?" I do not know where you are from but I grew up in the US where everyone learns this by the time they are eight or nine years old.
Since you know I hate bigotry, you already know exactly what names I would consider your calling me unacceptable: words that are expressions of bigotry. If you called me a dyke or a fag or a nigger or a kike or a dago or a spick, yeah, I would consider that unacceptable. I wouldn't be upset - sticks and stones and all, you can call me whatever you want and it doesn't hurt me. But any form of bigotry makes me angry and if I heard you call me or anyone one of those words, or if you said "All Jews are greedy" or "women cannot drive" or "Christians cannot be good historians," yeah, I would consider it unacceptable. I do not know what you could say that could hurt me, but if you said anything prejudicial against a race, color, creed, or nation, I would consider that unacceptable. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Well lests say I called you something (say Hypcrite) and you asked me (either directly or by action) to stop as you found it offensive, would you consider that I was right to continue calling you something you did not wish to be called? Would you consider that being uncivil? By the way I never called you a bigot nor did I say I wished to call you one. Now how would you feel if i now decided to draw a conlusion form that fact and called you something (like ignoramus) would you consider that acceptable?Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, do you think I am a hypocrite? What is your evidence? Tell me what I did that was hypocritical. As for "ignoramous," well, didn't I already explain the sticks and stones thing to you? If you did not understand my response, you need to explain to me specifically what part of it you did not understand and why, before I can explain more effectively. Otherwise I will just cut and paste what i already wrote. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
So you do object to being called a Hypocrite, but not a ignoramous, OK thats fine. But it does not matter what you think, its what communbity thinks that cvounts. and it has stated that calling some one a bigot (or any of the names I have used here) is unacceptable (and an admin was made to appoligise for calling some one a bigot).Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Have you noticed you're like two bulls in a standoff, pawing at the ground and snorting as you face each other? The appropriate solution would have been to deal with Noloop's blanket dismissal of reputable theological scholars as unreliable sources (where this all began). This is in no way an implication that were I to find myself in either of your positions I would act differently... PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I never said I objected to being called a hypocrite. I asked what the evidence was, and what you think I had done that was hypocritical. If you can explain to me what i did that was hypocritical, and can provide evidence, then you should say I was being hypocritical!! As to being called an "ignoramous," the word just does not mean anything. EVERYONE is ignorant of lots of things, and i am no exception. Tell me what you think I am ignorant of. If you are right, I will say "Yup, I AM ignorant about that." if I am wrong i will correct you.

I still fail to see how any of this matters or what Slater's point is. I call Noloop a bigot because he has said bigoted things, and I explained what he said that was so bigoted and why. If I ever write something that is bigoted (or hypocritical or ignorant), go ahead and tell me. My point is: if you are right, it won't bother me, we should never feel bad to be corrected when we do something wrong. And if you are wrong, again, I do not care whether you call my ignoramous or hypocrite (or bigot); sticks and stones. I see my position as being uniform and consistent. if you think it is not, we have some sort of misunderstanding.

As for Noloop, aside from letting him know that bigotry will not be tolerated at WP the only response i can imagine is (1) to ask him for his sources that book or article x is promoting a Christian POV and (2) to propose other sources representing other views. Indeed, I have said both things to her. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

WillBildUnion

WillBildUnion (talk · contribs) Surely Son of God is off limits for him? And King of Kings?Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Expressing some great truth

Hey Slrubenstein, I saw the note on your user page. Since you're familiar with Melville, surely you also have read your Hawthorne, and know of his interest in "the truth of the human heart". It's unfortunate that more people care for truthiness than for truth. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

RFCU on you

[13] Noloop (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

I should mention that "consider what is written, not who wrote it" is the classic line of POV pushers. Or did I misunderstand where your line of thought (expressed elsewhere) might lead? Just curious. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw your request on my user talk page. I'm not sure in what context the concern is coming up, so I am having trouble framing any adjustments to policy that would be helpful. But I guess that since you wrote to several editors, maybe we should all discuss what you have in mind in your user talk space, the better for us to wrap our minds around what the problem is. I'm just back from wikibreak (a very pleasant family reunion in another part of the United States), so I'm still catching u with Wikipedia busyness. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just want better guidance about identifying POV. In my experience, "consider what is written, not who wrote it" is not at all the classic line of POV pushers. On the contrary, I have found, "consider who wrote it, not what is written" is the classic line of POV pushers. For example, Arthur Jensen has written a great deal of work over his life. Some of it has been called racist, some of it racialist, some of it neither. Just because article x has been described as representing a racist point of view does not mean that article y is forwarding a racist point of view. I think making that assumption violates NOR. But be that as it may, I am really talking about NPOV guidelines. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Well then, we are left with "consider not what is written, nor who wrote it" which we can agree is of not much use, and "consider what is written and who wrote it." "Who said what about it" is, of course, a whole other topic. POV is easy to spot when positions don't align to verifiable facts; it's less easy to spot the more subjective the perceptions of alignment are; and what is a "fact" versus what is already at some level an "interpretation." Oh, and BTW, "intuitively obvious" is, in my experience, an oxymoron. :-) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

A parable

Once upon a time, two soccer teams were playing in World Cup group play. Each team had eleven players on the field, trying to advance the ball into the other team's goal. The referees were on the field or the sidelines in their uniforms, making sure that the Laws of the Game were followed. An unruly spectator rushed onto the field, and began demanding attention from the players on the field and getting in the way as they played. A player attempting to execute a pass to break through determined defensive maneuvers by the other team first of all tried to dodge around the spectator. Finally, as the spectator repeatedly got in his way, he began shouting at and eventually shoving the spectator. The referee blew his whistle and ruled that . . . .

Fortunately, at Wikipedia all editors are also referes and can decide for themselves what the right thing to do is! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
It was my understanding that Wikipedians differ in the degree to which they can issue yellow cards and red cards to one another, with some (referred to as administrators) having that power directly and others (editors in general) in the position of being able to urge referees to keep nonplayers from interfering with the game. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are a couple of "games" I am involved in right now, if you wish for me to respond with any clarity at this point you had better tell me to which game you are referring! But, to follow your analogy: I would HOPE that al the player's teammates would have gotten together to help beat the crap out of the fan (unless of course you are saying that I am the spectator in your analogy!) and then the police would have come to haul him off to jail while the referees would have let the game continue play, noting where the ball was wherever it was at the time the spectator entered the playing field. I see no need for red or yellow flags here. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking it's probably best, when someone else is already not playing by the rules, simply to draw the attention of referees to that, without the players laying a hand on the spectator at all. And, yes, I was referring to you as a player in the parable. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
If Admins are refs then Edds are players. So who are the fans in this parable?Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Your RFC/U and going forward

Slrubenstein, I was going to email you but I can't see your email enabled. Can I ask that you tone it down a little bit. Nishidani supports your view of Noloop's activities yet in discussion with him you wrote, "(y)our absense of logic is astounding." This is not productive. I stand by my original comment some weeks ago now that if I were you I'd have taken Andrew c's route - apologize for using the b word "bigot" and refrain from using it. User:Noloop is immensely disruptive, and as you can see many editors agree with you about this. It is very difficult however to get that point across when other users can point to you and say ... well Noloop is suffering attacks from other users who are using nasty language. As I stated before I completely understand your frustrations, and think Noloop is rather clearly prejudiced, but the lets take the high road here. It wont help us deal with Noloop's disruption if you get testy with others at the RfC and start making people think that this really is about your lack of civility. Feel free to delete this comment after you read it. Like I said I was going to email it to you. Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia works because it is transparent, and I am glad you wrote this on my talk page. But "the b word?" Really? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure why I did that ... especially since it might have been confused with other b words if one read this out of context ... you know like "bicyclist" :).Griswaldo (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
If a society erases words like "racist" and "bigot" out of existence, the only purpose served is to give bigots and racists free reign. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
This is not about erasing words or allowing racist or prejudiced behaviour. It is about enforcing a standard of communication that must be civil and courteous even when there are disagreements among editors. As an administrator it is so much more important that you behave in a temperate and courteous manner. And that you refrain from commenting on editors instead of content and afterwards stubbornly repeat the oldest non-defense in the world "but he IS an X". That is simply below your standard. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
You are correct that I need to be very careful and from now on be clear that it is certain statements that are bigoted, without commenting on the editor herself. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
That would be a lot better yes, and you might even be able to find a wording that is sufficiently polite to actually make the person change the problematic behaviour instead of aggravating him or her. You might even be surprised at how easy it is to apologize for somethign compared with how much it can actually accomplish.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I fully agree with Maunus where he writes above, "As an administrator it is so much more important that you behave in a temperate and courteous manner. And that you refrain from commenting on editors instead of content and afterwards stubbornly repeat the oldest non-defense in the world 'but he IS an X.' That is simply below your standard." Your taking the high road is an appropriate response to the community entrusting you with the mop, and it helps other members of the community be much more clear about who is really violating the core rules of the game (said WBB, continuing the soccer game parable). One of the game rules here is to comment on edits, or on other overt editor behavior, but not to comment on editors as persons. Giving someone a tailor-made opportunity to invoke that rule, when you could rather be pointing to that person's unwillingness to edit an encyclopedia, is a missed opportunity to clarify the issues and to get the dispute resolved sooner rather than later. The long dragging on of the current ArbCom case seems also to do with editors who plainly have great editing skills not keeping cool long enough to put other forms of editor misconduct in sharp relief for administrators to notice. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Of course. Which is why I was polite and assumed good faith with this editor for an extended period of time. But after weeks of politely explaining why X is a well-respected scholar and not pushing a Christian point of view, and politicely asking for evidence that X is pushing a Christian point of view, and simply being ignored, I conclude that this is one of those rare cases where politeness is ineffective. Even so, I do not believe I have been rude to this editor. I have never called him an ass or an idiot or any number of insults that are personal and bear no relation to the issue at hand. All I have done is call him a bigot and a POV-pusher. Yes, I should have said "Your statements are bigoted" or "what you just wrote pushes one point of view to the exclusion of all others." But I do not consider these personal attacks any more than telling someone that they are violating NPOV or violating NOR are personal attacks. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
What I really wonder is whether you actually believe the things you say. You spent "weeks of politely explaining..." huh? Our initial interaction is here.[14] You spent about two days discussing a topic I raised; then there was a week gap (I was blocked). Then, I produced a closer examination of sources that found a Christian bias, and you immediately called me a bigot.[15] So, I have to wonder, are you telling yourself stories you actually believe, or is it a conscious attempt to manipulate sympathies? Noloop (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
And why were you blocked exactly? Perhaps part of the explanation of why Slr and others had a shorter patience with you upoin your return can be found if looking into that question...·Maunus·ƛ· 15:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I am stretching out our interactions over a long period of time. If so I am sorry. Things at Wikipedia happen quickly. I know that during the AN/I you posted I took the time to write a lengthy explanation of why I thought you were wrong. I do not feel that you ever responded to the explanation I put so much time into - and it was not just accusations or epithets, it was a serious expression. Indeed, you just mocked me. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Let us take a look at those first exchanges. This was my first response to your first comment:
I think the proper response to Noloop's reasonable concern is: this article does not discuss ANY activity of the resurrected (i.e. crucified) Christ. The historical Jesus - who is also known as Jesus Christ, but perhaps not when he was alive - is the proper subject of this article. And the fact that many believe he peformed miracles does not mean that he is the real messiah (Elisha and Honi the Circle Drawer performed miracles just like Jesus, and were not messiahs). In fact, there is a lot of material on the Christ part of Jesus' identity that is not included in this article and that goes into the article on Christology. I think having these two distinct articles is the best solution we will ever come up with to this matter. Slrubenstein 17:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I consider this quite polite and reasonable, but you never responded to any of my points. Instead you repeated yourself, and insisted that the Jesus article is about the messiah, which sure sounds like POV-pushing to me since the idea that Jesus was the messiah is only one view of Jesus and our article provides other views - yet you insist on only one view. Ellen of the Roads, responding to you, suggested we have one article on the Christian Jesus and one on the historical Jesus and this was my response:
We do not, and should not, because it would be a POV fork, which is against WP policy. It seems to me at this point that Noloop simply misunderstands out NPOV policy and also has misread the article. NPOV is premisedon "verifiability, not truth." We are not claiming that this article is about the messiah. it is about a Jesus who is refered to in, or reconstructed in people's minds based on, the Gospels. Now, people have different views of that Jesus, and this article has to represent all significant views. One view is that he was God incarnate. There is a wide range of views that he was just a human being. When some say Jesus was messiah, they could mean he was God incarnate or purely human, depending on what they mean by messiah. In any case, this article should present all significant views. To fork views as if there are two different Jesuses is just to mislead our readers and to undermine the very idea of NPOV. The subject of this article is not the Messiah. It is a person called Jesus, and the introduction presents multiple views of him including a few views that he was not the messiah, so the only way Noloop can claim that this article is about "the messiah" is by ignoring all the views we include that he is not messiah. To create a POV fork would be to make his hallucination real, which is not a good idea. Let's just keep the views that he was not messiah in this article, and remind readers that Christians and non-devout historians are talking about the same person but have different views of him. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Again, I think this is polite, and reasonable. Your response was to claim that the view that Jesus was not the Messiah is only a small part of the intro, so you think the article is about the Christian view of Jesus. This is just wrong - how can I say this more politely? The introduction provides the Christian vieww, the Muslim view, the Jewish view, and the view of critical historians, which takes up almost if not mroe space than that given to the Christian view. Yet you insist that the article is about the Messiah. So my next response:
No, this is the Jesus article and it does a pretty damn good job of compling with our NPOV policy in providing all significant views from verifiable sources. It correctly distinguishes between diferent fiews, and the introduction has one of the best summaries of what critical scholars suggest about Jesus, as well as a very fine short account of Christian belief, and the jewish view and other views. Noloop seems intent on casting every view in this article as Christian. Sorry, that won'e fly. Please reread our NPOV policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
And I admit I am starting to loose patience and take a more direct and firm approach, but this is still polite, no personal attacks. Your reply? "I have no idea what Slrubenstein is talking about" (22:17 18 July) Soxwon then writes that most non-Christians think Jesus existed, and your reply is, "That's what we're talking about here when we distinguish the historic and divine Jesus. Of course it is controversial because Christians object to that distinction just as they object to distinguishing the origin of the Earth from creationism." Did I misinterpret you? I thought you were saying that this article does not distinguish between a divine Jesus and a historic Jesus, when I had already explained to you that the view that Jesus was divine and the view that he was a mortal man are two views of Jesus and this article has to include both. Ari also responded to you at that point, and then I responded again:
Indeed, the issue is not what is the religion of the historian. Have we stooped to asking university professors about their personal beliefs? When it coms to history, any historian can recognize a bias like "The Bible is the revealed word of God" or "The Bible is historically accurate." We do not need anyone to tell us what their religion is. Conersely, it is easy to see when a historian rejects those assumptions. What is important is whether a historian applies to all 1st and 2nd century sources (including the NT) the same methods they apply to any historical source. The views described in the paragraph in question are those of critical historians. Their religion is irrelevant. But Noloop just wants people to think that this article is only about what Christians think. Sorry, Noloop, we include all significant views. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
We now have a clear disagreement but I am still being polite. And I am explaining to you why the editors of this article reached a satisfactory consensus that complies with NPOV. But what is your response? "Slrubenstein, your characterization of the issue is a strawman. Nobody is saying all Christian historians are biased on all topics. Christians are biased about Christianity." And I consider this a bigoted comeent. Yes, Christians may be biased about Christianity. Maybe most Christians are biased about Christianity. Maybe some Christians are always biased about Christianity. Why not look at the actual evidence? And the question here is very specific: whether someone cited in the lead as a critical historian, like Funk or Crossan, are writing as historians or as Christians, are they expressing a Christian view? My point is that you have already made up your mind. You do not care what Funk or Crossan, or Sanders or ehrman, have written. You do not care about the training they had. If they are Christians, they are biased - so you insist on "secular views." Which I suppose you think are objective rather than just having a different bias. The fact is, no view is ovjective, all we have are views. But Crossan's and Funk's views are not "Christian" views. You insist they are, but you won't read what they wrote, and you have yet to provide an example of where they are forwarding a Christian POV. Fo you, all that maters is, they are Christians. You know that, so you do not need to do any research.
Your view is simple, and narrow: "There is nothing Christian about the view that Jesus existed, huh?" The fact that non-Christian historians say that Jesus existed is irrelevant to you. Any evidence we provide that historians believe it is likely Jesus existed is according to you de facto proof that the author is forwarding a Christian view. You have ignored all evidence to the contrary, and you continue to refuse to provide evidence to support this. So, once you start saying that it doesn't matter what training someone has, or what their views are and what evidence they provide, if someone is a Christian they will always express a Christian view with regard to Jesus, and anyone who says Jesus existed (you know, that "historical Jesus" you once wanted in another article) is Christian, what can I say except: these are ignorant and bigoted comments. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Its interesting to note that my first interaction with noloop began in much the same way. An initial agreement that he had valid concearns then a series of increasingly intrangergent responses from Noloop. This is my problom with him He seems to make good points, then digs in a defends them long after such defence seems unresonable.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There is an informative essay someone recently shared with me that I believe describes Noloop's behavior quite well -- Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. Noloop seems to have hit almost all of the descriptive bullet points in that essay. This is why I have a ton of sympathy for Slrubenstein's reaction to Noloop. However, you can't let the Civil POV pusher push your buttons to the point where you snap, because that's exactly what they try to do. It's much better to follow Maunus's advice no matter what the other party is up to.Griswaldo (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's give this a rest, shall we? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
@Griswaldo: Sometimes the proverbial line in the sand must be drawn. "No matter what" is the slippery slope which begets the toxic WP pool. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Jesus controversy

I haven't been avoiding the Jesus page, but I've been cutting back on WP editing in general. Leadwind (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Rubbers

It ws a convientant name to rember you by. SLR has to me other connertations (L1A1). As you will see I have stoped refering to you by this (and otehr names) before you asked me to stop so i fail to see why you should ask me to stop doing something I had already stoped doingSlatersteven (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ak vai. This is what happens when we allow editors (Noloop) to stir the pot. The big wooden spoon is out of the pot but the contents are still swirling. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

request for clarificatio (R/I)

I have made a request for clarification which mentions you. Please find the request here: [16]. aprock (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

if you get a chance

I know you're busy and I don't want to add to it but if you're interested we're discussing the lede of feminism here--Cailil talk 14:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

NW (Talk) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Lists and notability

Would you mind commenting at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists as there are conflict opinions as to what defines a list topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeshu

See Talk:Yeshu#Accuracy - Stevertigo (t | log | c) 15:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Where I disagree with Slrubenstein

You made the following statement "I happen not to believe that the Yeshu narratives in the Talmud have anything to do with the historical Jesus". However, at Wikipedia "your POV" or "my POV" will get in the way and do more harm than good. What we happen to believe is not relevant to Wikipedia! We must read the sources carefully, then carefully craft an article from a NPOW. Thanks for the Rubinstein and Boyarin refs. Still a fan of your work. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Lechaim66 (talk · contribs)

Could you please take a look at his edits and see if something more needs to be done? He's just removed the Judaism template from Kabbalah, added a bit to Adam about him writing the first Kabbalahistic (sp?) book, etc. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Martin Buber, Gerschon Scholem, Arthur Green, Daniel Matt, Moshe Idel and Betty Rojtmann all seem to be respectable scholars, but they are not kabbalists. Issac Luria, Chaim Vital, Rav Kook, Baal HaSulam, Baruch Ashlag and others were, and had a lot to say about the method of kabbalah, its essence, purpose, ancient roots, misconceptions, relationship with Judaism. It's like behavioural psychologists vs. rock stars talking about cocaine orgies. Again, If you want to talk about Kabbalah within Judaism, a separate article or section needs to be created. If you want to talk about Jewish or Christian scholarly viewpoint on Kabbalah, ditto. Does a reversion like yours fulfil NPOV if the opening not only doesn't illustrate the viewpoint of kabbalah's well-known practitioners, but also is not properly referenced? Overall, the article is extremely biased and misleading. Let's work together. All the best! Lechaim66 (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


re: "Welcome Back"

you will have to modify your user page to comply with this. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


I imagine you expected loud objection to that. But in fact, you're correct, it turns out to violate WP policy. I didn't know that, and I have removed the questionable pic. ...And I apologize for my ignorance. It's my worst characteristic, yet I am saturated in it. TechnoFaye Kane 04:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I expected you to comply with user page guidelines. Are you projecting? Were you expecting "loud objections" to your user page from other editors? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I gracefully, politely, and self-effacingly concede that a pic on my user page violated guidelines I knew nothing about and removed the pic, and THIS is your reply? You really [deleted], rubenstein.

> Can you provide a citation for the differences in brain sizes of embryos only a few weeks old?

Yes. I already did, long ago. Look at the refs. You'll find it in Rushton's survey of the literature.

But I think you knew that.

If you think that you and your bowdlerizing bias-buddy wanaponda can wholesale-hide the awful truth from Wikipedia readers now that September 1 has come and you've killed occam, et. al, you can think again, rubenstein. I didn't participate in the Mediation Committee thing because I knew something shameful like this was inevitable. The smoking-gun was when they failed to toss out the monstrosity mathsci. They should have; it would have painted a veneer of legitimacy.

But that's "past subjunctive"; they didn't. Truth WILL win, of course, eventually. It always does. It is just my bad luck to be born in the sick, uncivilized, barbarian past. But I've done as much as I can to withdraw from it since what I call "the sickness" seems to be contagious, and I already have enough flaws without losing my integrity too.

Mathsci I can understand; he has been totally contaminated and consumed by the Evil of arrogance. And Wanaponda I can understand; the stupid are always innocent. But how can you sleep at night, knowing you propagate lies? TechnoFaye Kane 04:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I did not know that;
[intrpt] well now you do, so drop it. Hmmm... I better go back to the R/I article and see what other vandalism you've been up to. TechnoFaye Kane 03:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
few comments on talk pages are highly memorable, yours included. And yeah, I went back and looked - your comment just said "embryos," not embryos only a few weeks old
[intrpt] I don't know what comment you're referring to. I'm really only interested in what goes in the live article, not our arguments on talk pages. However, if it is either important or interesting, please point me to the conversation in question. TechnoFaye Kane 03:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
, and this was the source:
Schultz AH. Comparison of White and Negro fetuses. In: Davenport CB, Osborn HF, Wissler C, Laughlin HH, Eds. Scientific Papers of the Second International Congress of Eugenics: Vol. 2, Eugenics in Race and State (Plates 11 and 12). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins 1923.
I am highly dubious of a 1923 paper by eugenicists on fetuses being used as a reliable source on emryos only a few weeks old. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Tobias 1977 shows that data from that period are not scientifically valid.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Tell it to the APA, who published a survey article citing the research you don't like the results of.
The ref and the statement stay, because at Wikipedia, YOUR opinion does not have the authority to overrule an academic journal because you can't stomach the truth it tells. TechnoFaye Kane 03:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ferahgo

I'm not sure how to properly deal with this, but it appears that Ferahgo has decided to unilaterally revert/question all edits I've made to R/I related articles since the ArbCom ended: [17]. Any advice would be appreciated. aprock (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I interpret such acts as in effect blocking you from the article. I would go to AN/I and protest that you are bing banned from editing the article without any due process. You will have to provide edit diffs of ALL recent edits of yours to prove that he is reverting ALL edits. Then just point out that the article could be protected, or you could be blocked, as reasonable ways to achieve this, but only with due process. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
It would be simple disruption, but I don't see that he's actually doing that.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I've only reverted two of his ten or so edits to R&I articles. One of those two we were able to reach a reasonable compromise about which resulted in an overall improvement on the article, and the other one we're still discussing. Is it worth bringing up a single disputed revert with AN/I? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, gosh, can't you guys work this out on the talk page/ Aprock is one of our most knowledgable and constructive editors, and beyond the good faith we are all supposed to assume, he has earned in my view real respect. Ferahgo, are you sure that Aprock agrees with you that there wer eonly two conflicts and both weere resolved satisfactorally? In any collaboration, one person's perception is not enough, you need to know what the other things. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, we are discussing them on the talk pages (and actually, I think both of them are resolved at this point). Feel free to look for yourself if you'd like though. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I am not a cop and ther ought not to be any need for mediation. Aprock left a message on my page indicating a concern. If he is satisfied that the concern has productively been addressed, great, i am happy for all of you. If he is not satisfied all I can tell you is: he is a knowledgable and valuable enough a contributor that any editor (e.g. you) should want to have a collegial working relationship with him. He is very knowledgable and I would seek his judgement on any topic relating to these articles. Good luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

IIRC, this was an area of interest to you. You might like to consider [18] which refers to anti-semitism for inclusion in the category of anti-Semitism if you find it proper. Hope the Judaism article is still in reasonable order. Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Here are links to the sources used: Stalinism and nazism (pp. 11-15),[19] and "Anti-Semitism in Europe, 1914 - 2004" (p. 17-18).[20] TFD (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Are you following me by any chance? The user here has the ability to read. Honest. Collect (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I have had contact with Slrubenstein before and this talk page was still on my watchlist. I thought that providing the sources would be helpful. TFD (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Guys! I didn't know I was so popular! I will look at these when I have time, in the next few days. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 07:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

BC or BCE?

I have never really given much thought to the BC/BCE argument. I find that your arguments for BCE and BC appeal to my atheistic and scientific instincts. I now vow to use only BCE and BC in my thinking and in my work. mezzaninelounge (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Slrubenstein | Talk 11:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Please look at Talk:Saint Thomas Christians and set me right. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism on your site...

Slrubenstein - 65.92.51.165 did this on your site. Thought you should know. Dinkytown 18:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Patience Persistence, Rationality

I want to thank you for showing all of these three qualities in your contributions to the Wikipedia. There are many things that I have lost patience with on the Wikipedia, but when I see that you are still patiently responding and bringing sources and clarity to the table in many areas (even as we don't agree at times) I'm inspired to try my best to do the same. futurebird (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ebionites article

Greetings. You were mentioned on the Ebionites talk page as a person who might be interested in contributing to the Ebionites article to bring it back up to FA quality (by me actually). You probably don't remember me, but I was around for the Peer Review, and I remember your suggestions had a major influence on upgrading the article to GA status. You have a lot of background in this area (Historical Jesus), so please consider participating. We also have applied for formal mediation, as editing on this article can be quite contentious at times. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree your input would be very welcome in any way. The subject is one about which the sources themselves seem to have a hard time agreeing, particularly about the "sect" versus "movement" differentiation and how much weight to give the two alternatives in the article. There is also a question about how the article should be structured, which is probably one of the biggest concerns; once structure is determined, it would be much easier to decide what goes where. Anyway, your input would be quite welcome. John Carter (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"Anarchy"?

Hi Slrubenstein, I believe you started Wikipedia:The role of policies in collaborative anarchy. The essay seems useful, current and apt. But the title seems strangely off. Surely "collaborative anarchy" is only one view of what WP is. 'Anarchy' is a word with much political and historical loading. I'd say a more NPOV word is called for. I look forward to hearing your views. Spanglej (talk) 11:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Collaborative anarchy is only one view. It is my view. Some share it, some do not. But essays never have to be NPOV, no more than talk pages or my talk page. It reflects my views and those of any who endorse it. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to write their own essay! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks for your comments. I am fairly new to the WP community. I didn't realise that essays were just essays, as it were. A very interesting piece of writing. Thanks
I am glad you found it interesting .... but why did you not just read the "essay" banner at the top of the essay, explaining what essays are? It is in plain site. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I did read it, but imagined essays to hold more individual weight than just a random mass of ideas. On the talk tab for Wikipedia:The role of policies in collaborative anarchy there is discussion of the WP:NPOV#Undue_weight in the piece. On the essay Wikipedia talk:Don't-give-a-fuckism there is argument as to whether it is an effective vehicle for WP's views. It has been repeatedly proposed for deletion. I have been following these discussions with interest, and it seems they are more than one person's view but something altogether more official and collaborative. Hence my question to you. Cheers. Spangle (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

cool. but ultimately they are nothing more than a diverse range of strongly held and very different beliefs about Wikipedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Best wishes Spangle (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2

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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 17:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo

I see what you mean about "marshmallow fluff". Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Alas, ArbCom is set up to look for the pins and needles, and too many people will not realize it is the fluff that is the real poblem!! Slrubenstein | Talk 11:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I thought your comment did an excellent job of warning them, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • As you are an editor who had participated here, could you please state/explain your level of "involvement" (if any)? I'd appreciate it if you could provide a response (or a copy of it) here. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism

I would appreciate your watching the above page. I have a few concerns regarding additions of unsourced, duplicative material from the article which haven't actually been addressed by the editor edit warring to restore the material. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Socks

There's no point to a checkuser investigation here-Captain Occam says they live together.[21] Ferahgo has admitted "not participating in these articles independently from Occam" prior to his article ban.[22] And now the complaint is over how unfair and uncivil it is not to welcome a banned user's girlfriend to take his place after he's been banned. It's irrelevant whether or not the problem is best diagnosed as two-man tag-teaming, meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry or some combination thereof. It's beyond me why this is dragging on. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It's beyond me as well. I have been a moderator or sysop or the like on a variety of online forums since 1993, and the one thing I have learned is that it always spares work for the moderators and encourages helpful behavior in the community to deal with problems sooner rather than later. I can only suppose that the Wikipedia volunteers who have the mop here are overwhelmed by the problems now present. The great majority of users on the great majority of online forums are helpful contributors, building up the community. Here on Wikipedia, anyone who contributes a reliable source, copy-edits an article, raises a thoughtful question on a talk page, or makes a suggestion from the starting assumption that we are here to build an encyclopedia helps build up the community and helps improve the project of compiling the world's best free online encyclopedia. But some forms of behavior here, from a minority of users, are not based on core Wikipedia principles, and administrator time (all volunteer) shouldn't be consumed with debating those forms of behavior, but rather with encouraging the quiet contributions of the majority of users by using the mop to clean up the mess. Messes need clean-up. Cleaning up the mess makes the environment safer and more pleasant for everyone. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: technical question

Hi Slrubenstein, The link will be added automatically through the talk header when you create the page Talk:Culture/Archive 6. Graham87 15:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the page title has to be in that format so it can be recognised as an archive page. Graham87 15:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The link to the new archive can't be added through the edit window; it's incorporated in the talk header. If I were you, I would use this procedure to create the new archive: go to Talk:Culture/Archive 5 then go to the address bar and change the 5 to a 6. Graham87 15:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem editor

Suarneduj (="Juden Raus" backwards) has been blocked. See the report on WP:ANI, "Problem editor". Mathsci (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Notification

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Koavf. This request was initiated by Koavf, but as far as his contributions show, he didn't notify any user...so I'm notifying you because you participated in the discussion that led to the community sanction. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slrubenstein/Archive_28&oldid=1143313574"