User talk:Sunray/Archive16

Sathya Sai Baba article

I'd like the opinion of a civilized person, as you are, for the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Sathya_Sai_Baba

In short: this article currently sustains a biased POV, but every effort in recovering its previous quality is reverted. Every user that manifests disagreement is personally attacked.

If you read the entire notice in the noticeboard, you will see that the case is very serious, and worst than this brief description, above.

I invite you to follow the "news" there, and please give some advice of what can be done to save the article... and also the own Wikipedia, because as it is, the article is like a "dirty stain" on it, heavily decreasing its credibility.

Again: what is happening there is very serious. I am no Wikipedia "heavy user" or "expert" - I don't know exactly where / how / who to warn about this very serious problem going on there (I wish to learn more about it). I contacted you because I read very good comments about you in another mediation comitee member's talk page.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.154.139 (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your query. I'm pretty busy with other projects right now, but will try to take a look later today and either take some action or give you my comments. Sunray (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've now had a look at the article and I do see some problems. Two things: First, are you familiar with WP:BLP, the policy that governs Wikipedia biographies? That will be a necessary reference in fixing the problems. Second, have you considered getting a user account. If you plan on continuing to edit here, having an account has definite benefits. I am not going to be able to get to this until later in the week. Sunray (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: The above concerns have been addressed to the extent that the article has been edited to make it more NPOV. No further action is required at present. Sunray (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Culture

FYI I just did a major overhaul, my explanations here. To some my revision appears radical, actually I think I was rather conservative. In my view the article as of two days ago was an embarrassment to Wikipedia. I think my revision is not an embarrassment but definitely, still needs work. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is a major overhaul. Your approach is historical and transmits a great deal of information in a readable manner. I think that anyone coming to WP wanting to learn something about culture will benefit by reading it. I will look at it more intensively in time. Theoretically, it could eventually become a featured article. However, one thing that struck me right away is that there are large passages without references. It will need more references even to maintain its status as a good article. Can you contribute more references? If so, I think we have the makings of an excellent article. Sunray (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I know it needs citations, I am not at home and thus do not have access to my personal library. Also, there is more to do (I discuss it on the talk page) ... two people were prominent in the GA review and did not like my overhaul, which they considered really radical, but almost everything I cut was just repetitious stuff or clearly unrelated and unsourced .... Slrubenstein | Talk 15:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind, please keep an eye on User:AlotToLearn's planned edits to the Culture article? I have put a lot of work into it, responding to points raised in the GA review - well-sourced scholarly coverage of material culture and archeology, primate cultures and the evolution of culture, all the significant views from notable sources. I am very concerned about this comment. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you just keep it on your watchlist, and comment or edit as you see fit? In fact, I am sure that much of the prose style can be improved upon and woul wlecome your edits to increase clarity, in the overall organization or the explanation of different views. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, will do. One of the issues raised is that the article is too "American centric." While I won't take a position on that, I do think that in some cases the optics can be shifted considerably with some judicious editing. The edit you noted was my first foray into that domain. The problematic I will try to address will be in response to your statement that "... in Europe, anthropology's principal object of study is usually 'society' and not 'culture.'" I think that there has been an ongoing dialectic between American and European anthropology (sometimes captured in the term "sociocultural anthropology"). This seems to date from Levi-Strauss and the advent of structuralism. Certainly, from that time on there were significant transatlantic influences in both directions. The dialectic also brought a major shift away from functionalist anthropology which had focussed primarily on "society." As a sociologist who has also studied anthropology, I tend not to get too worked up about the distinctions. If you disagree with what I'm saying, let's discuss it further. Sunray (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I should tell you that I now work in the UK, and have colleagues in France and South America. This enables me to say with real confidence that yes, you are very correct that there is scholarly exchange and conversation across the Atlantic (as well as between Anglo and Latin Americans). But I think you may not be aware of the details of these exchanges. Put simply, there is no real synthesis of "sociocultural anthropology" - it is called this almost always to get undergraduate students to stop asking questions that US or UK scholars feel will take too long to answer (it is definitely not the result of cross-atlantic exchanges involving Levi-Strauss. Remember, Boas brought the culture concept with him to the US from Germany, and Americans routinely cite Tykor, which I all discuss in the article ... there were transatlantic exchanges happening before Levi-Strauss was born, but they did not lead to a synthesis in anthropology any more than the fact that Fords are sold in Germany and BMWs are sold in the US have produced a BMW-Ford hybrid - such a think can happen, but it does not have to happen; people value variety too). In fact, I have tried to provide a concise answer to this question in the Culture article in the section on structural functionalism. The short answer is this: US anthropologists read almost everything produced by UK scholars and "ethnography" as a kind of writing as it developed had a huge influence on US anthropologists - I mean in the way books are organized, and rhetorical devices used. Nevertheless, the vast majority of US anthropologists still define themselves as cultural anthropologists, and their theoretical orientation is towards studying culture. It is presented as the core concept in any undergraduate US textbook. There are two leading journals in the US for cultural anthropologist; one is called American Ethnologist and the other is called ... tah-dah! ... Cultural Anthropology. The latter is published by the Society for Cultural Anthropology; the former by the Society for American Ethnology, and there is not "Society for American Social Anthropology." If you search American Ethnologist just for the word "culture, you will get a gazillion hits.

In the UK virtually every anthropologist I know insists on being called a social anthropologist, and insists that they are not cultural anthropologists. There are a few cultural anthropologists who have in fact been very influential in the UK: Clifford Geertz, David Schnieder, and especially Roy Wagner. If you read the Culture article's section on structural functionalism, you will see why. One reason I do not go into in the article is this: one of the greatest social anthropologists of her generation is Marilyn Strathern, and she works in New Guinea. So does Roy Wagner. They are friends, and personally engage one another's work. Thus Wagner has had great influence among Strathern's students. And there are other British anthropologists who resent this, and see themselves as being colonized by American cultural anthropology, and they want to resist that!

The scholarly exchanges with France are of a different nature, in part because the French academic system is more hierarchical than either the UK or the US, and THE anthropologist in France is Claude Levi-Strauss. Levi-Struass's "structuralism" is not easy to do justice to in a short space, and the Wikipedia articles on LS and Structuralism suck. but I have three salient points to make. First, "structuralism" is a very sophisticated theory, and it is not quite the same as cultural or social anthropology. Because of Levi-Strauss's domination of France, French Anthropology (and to a degree Brazillian - Levi-Strauss once taught at the University in Sao Paolo and ever since there has been disproportionately greater scholarly exchanges between Braziliand and French anthropologists) is more homogeneous than either American or British anthropology. Second, structuralism has many important sources but two that are usually missed by non-anthropologists (who have not read everything by Levi Strauss or know the details of his intellectual biography) are the father of French social theory, Emile Durkheim ... Durkhem is read by American cultural anthropologists but never had a big impact. But social anthropologist AR Radcliffe-Brown read French, and read Durkheim before it was translated into English, and it really had a big impact on him. Radcliffe Brown's reading of Durkheim is very different from Levi-Strauss's but there is this connection. Another really big influence on Levi-Strauss was Franz Boas, the founder of cultural anthropology, and Boas's students, Kroeber and Lowie. This means that while American and British anthropologists read Levi-Strauss in different ways, for both US and UK anthropologists there is some common point of reference. But to be very clear to you: Levi-Strauss was in no way synthesizing US and UK anthropology. It is almost a pure coincidence that Levi-Strauss calls his theory "structuralism" and the dominant model in British social anthropology is "structural" functionalism - they use the word "structure" to refer to completely different things, the theories are starkly in opposition. Levi-Strauss calls himself an ethnologist, but he was associated with the "Laboratory of Social Anthropology" in France. But is he a social anthropologist or a cultural anthropologist? I would say neither - structuralism is sui generis. It drinks from the same well as UK and US anthropologists, but turns that water into something else. Although all leading French anthropologists read English among other languages, and read works by both UK social and US cultural anthropologists, I would say that most of them are either structuralist or eclectic. But "eclectic" is not the same thing as "synthesizing a socio-cultural anthropology." The fact is (and I think it is very hard for any non-anthropologist to understand this fully) the greatest influence on any anthropologist is the people whose culture or society they study. I think most of my French colleagues would say that they consider arguments over social or cultural anthropology irrelevant, and that they just do "anthropology." Third thing: at specific points in time Levi-Strauss's structuralism had a huge impact on US and UK anthropologists, but for the people I am talking about it was a conversion experience. They did not see themselves as synthesizing US and French anthropology, or UK and French anthropology - they saw themselves as becoming structuralists.

All that in response to your thoughtful comment. More to the point: structuralists have produced many important analyses of different cultures, no doubt - and if this were an article on Arawate culture, or Bororo culture, or Caduveo culture, or Ojibwa culture, there would be a very important place for structuralist analysis. But - if this makes any sense to you - structuralism provides a method for analyzing cultures, more than a theory of "culture" as such. That said, if you look at the bottom of the section that I think I called "1898-1996: universal versus particular" you will see a paragraph on structuralism. Others are complaining about the length, I feel that to give Levi Strauss any more length (given that the paragraph on him is now longer than the paragraph on any other anthropologist) would be disproportionate.

Whjew, a long reply, but I hope it is clear and makes sense. Please let me know if it doesn't or if you have remaining questions. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A long but a very worthwhile reply. Thank you. I need to clarify where I am coming from a tad. I did not mean to imply that I believed that there was a "sociocultural synthesis." I spoke of a dialectic. To give you some idea of what I mean, here's a small example sticking with Levi Strauss: Two of my early teachers were Martime Reid at UBC and Jacques Chevalier at Carleton - both anthropologists, both strongly influenced by Levi Strauss, but in very different ways. Levi Struss did ethnography on the NW coast and Reid was his student. Chevalier is a semiotician, who studied in France and North America. Both were thus very influenced by structuralism.

I haven't studied anthropology in the U.S., but I can tell you that we read American and British anthropology interchangeably in Canada. We read Levi Strauss and later, we read Foucault, Derrida and Lacan. I crossed over into sociology and still read Foucault (though I stopped reading the other two!). I found it all necessary when I started to do research. I realize that academic silos are important in academe, but I think we need to find ways to bridge them in an encyclopedia.

So I would ask you what are the components of culture, as distinguishable from the social? Don't let me get you going. I know we could go on forever on this. But basically, I think what you have done with the article is very useful. I don't believe in a synthesis, but I do think that the quote from the anthropology article that I gave on the Culture talk page is apt. I would like to keep that perspective. Sunray (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think your experience is typical - I read Althusser, Weber, Simmel in Graduate School, Foucault, Derrida and Lacan after. As to distinguishing the cultural from the social there are two answers and again, I hope that what I have written in the article makes this clear already, but if you think it does not I would invite you to make the appropriate edits because at this point it is hard for me to gage the difference between saying too much and not enough. Real Boasians, and they still exist, would say "culture" refers to all extra-genetic human phenomena. That means that the difference between culture and society is one of degrees of inclusion: culture includes ALL human activity, "sociality" - personal relationships, relationships between distinct social statuses, or between social groups or institutions - is one part of this and any good cultural anthropologist will look at social relations and social structures as well as recipes for jam and how people make fish-nets and the designs people tatoo on their faces and bed-time stories and how people mark time (do they recognize seasons, how do they slice up the year), all of this is also culture. For structural functionalists, society = what I said sociality is, and culture = norms and values. So it depends on whom you ask. Levi-Strauss changed over the arc of his career and to really understand Levi-Strauss you have to see that. I think his understanding of culture is as inclusive as Boas's - Boas died in his arms and I had a mentor who was there who told me that Levi Strauss claimed that Boas's spirit entered his body; on reason Levi-Strauss has written much on the Kwakiutl is because Boas's research was on the Kwakiutl and Boas left a repository of data Levi-Strauss could use. But whereas Boas was interested in the daily fluctuations of life, Levi-Strauss is really interested in the BIG change: the neolithic revolution which lay the groundwork for stratified societies and states. That is, Levi-Strauss is far more interested in "the social order" than Boas (this is the Durkheimian legacy, Durkheim cared a lot about social solidarity, and he also cared a lot about the difference between "primitive" vs. modern societies. Levi-Strauss's first great book was The Elementary Structures of Kinship - kinship Americans and Brits would agree is part of the social structure (society). That book is among other things a magnificent study of the way kinship structures transform from being based on reciprocal exchanges to hierarchical exchanges. Marx and Engels begin the Communist Manifesto by saying the history of all societies has been the history of class struggles. Now, LS called himself a Marxist and you could say that Elementary Structures of Kinship is about how a social institution (kinship) can be transformed from providing the basis of a classless society (for Durkheim, mechanical solidarity) to one based on class (for Durkheim, organic solidarity). Then Levi Strauss wrote an essay on Totemism, which ended with his contrasting totemic societies to the caste system - again, an interest in the difference between classless and class-stratified societies. As a social institution Marxists would call kinship part of the infrastructure. But "totemism" involves beliefs about kinship and about nature and about the supernatural ... for Boasians ALL of this is culture, but for structural-functionalists totemism kind of straddles the line between society (a social institution like kinship and clans) and culture (values like spiritual beliefs. The Levi Strauss wrote The Savage Mind which contrasts pre-and post-neolithic systems of classification (ways of classifying the phenomenal world, which is another way of syaing "ways of thinking") and here Levi-Strauss has clearly entered what the Brits would call "culture" but what Levi-Strauss himself says, in The Savage Mind, "superstructure" (so you could say, he is a Boasian adopting Marxist terms). THEN he write Mythologiques which is ALL about "the superstructure" or what the Brits would call "culture." Most non-anthropologists know Levi-Strauss from Mythologiques and essays he wrote on language, where he used linguists like de Saussure and Jakobsen to explain himself. Therefore most non-anthropologists think structuralism has its source in linguistics. It is true de Saussure influenced Levi-Strauss from his graduate school days. BUT if you read only Mythologiques and some essays from the collection, Structural Anthropology, you migh miss the tremendous influence of Durkheim, the Boasians, and Marx had on Levi-Strauss. In fact, in his memoir Tristes Tropiques he explicitly acknowledges these influences. In that book he describes his research among four specific Amazonian Indian groups and the structural analysis he provides in two cases is to show how societies that appear to be of equals are really class-stratified in their own way; only one of the groups (the Nambikwara) for him represent the Rousseauian ideal of a society of equals. Rousseau, Marx, Durkheim .. these are all essential to understanding Levi-Strauss, as important as de Saussure and Freud. But someone who has published on kinship, and totemism, and myths? A Marxist would say that he moved from studying the infrastructure to the superstructure (LS wouldn't deny it). A Brittish anthropologist would say he "moved" from social anthropology to studying culture. An American Anthropologist would say "he has spent his whole life studying culture." Does this make sense?

I think it is vague and weasily to say just that there have been conversations across the Atlantic, and I thin it misrepresents the situation to say people are moving "closer" - there has always been scholarly exchanges and debates across the Atlantic with specific people, discussing specific issues, at specific times either moving closer or father. I do think it is very important to show specific kinds of influences, which I have tried to do in every section I wrote. I begin the "Universal vs. particular" section talking about how Germans and Brits influenced the Americans, and I end the same section taling about how the Americans influenced the French. In the section on structural functionalism I describe how the Brits influenced the Americans, and the limits of that influence. In the section on symbolic and adaptive I begin talking about Americans who then influenced the Brits, and end talking about how many Americans and brits turned to the French. I am not trying to resist your point, I am however saying that there are specific influences at specific times that meet Wikipedia's standard of "significance" and the real value is in providing these specific examples of influence. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

As a simple example - American anthropologists have LOTS to say on "the trickster" - Julian Steward's doctoral dissertation was on this theme (even though he is better known as the founder of cultural ecology). Levi-Strauss would also have lots to say. But British social anthropologists would not. Most British anthropologists don't write a lot about myth (but those few who do - they definitely engage and are in dialogue with Americans and French!) The problem is, many British social anthropologists then conclude that "culture" is just stuff like trickster motifs, myths, and so on, i.e. it is not society so it is therefore culture. For American anthropologists, trickster motifs and kinship, but also what tools people make and how they hunt, and kinship and social structure, are all part of culture. A cultural anthropologist who happens to be writing a book about the trickster motif will engage Levi-Strauss (and maybe even Steward!!) but really won't get much out of reading work by British anthropologists. Of course an American cultural anthropologist writing about conflict resolution or kinship will definitely read a lot of work by British anthropologists. I hope this helps. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure it does. And I think that we are clear on each other's respective points. I also think that there is insularity in various camps as much as there is interdisciplinary collaboration in others. I would estimate that the Brits are the more insular. More power to them. They are preserving disciplinary boundaries and academic traditions. But I don't think the WP reader needs to get involved with this. If someone can come along and say "it's too Americentric," one might beat that down with reason, but then there will be another, and another - often less reasonable than the first. To combat this, I suggest that once it is written, we read the article in light of the average readers' needs. This is a tall order, but then, that is the Wikipedia project. Sunray (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have enjoyed this exchange (though I need to get back to work). I never meant to suggest that different anthropologisats do not or should not engage one another, my only point was that "culture" has in the 20th century been central to the discourse of American anthropologists in a way that is has not for British anthropologists and those trained in the British tradition ... this does not mean that British and American anthropologists (or Australian or Brazilian or Norwegian) do not read one another's works with interest.

I have also been meaning to comment on how lovely the photograph at the top of your talk page is.

Now a serious and practical proposition. Would you be willing to draft the section on language and culture? I have spent too much time in the past weeks researching archeology and biological anthropology to write up those sections and really have to take a break. I have asked some other Wikipedians who are familiar with evolutionary theory to go over the section on biological anthropology - I know it needs more work but I hope that there are other editors who can go over it and fix it up. But I am sure we agree that there has to be a section on language and culture. Weeks ago I tried to recruit Wikipedians who are knowledgable in linguistics; so far none have agreed to work on the article. One left a set of notes and quotes that he felt could be the basis for a section, here. Would you be willing to use these notes and quotes as a starting point to write a section on language and culture? If you have any doubts, I would be happy to go over whatever you come up with and see if I spot any areas I could improve. But I know you have had a longstanding interest in this article, and right now the "culture and language" and the "cultural studies" sections are the weakest parts of the article yet they are important topics. Just a suggestion .... Slrubenstein | Talk 21:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I might be able to do this, but not right away. I'm currently involved with a project to improve the Sustainability article. We are moving into the final edit stage, having completely re-written the article. Once this is done, I should be able to devote some time to the Culture article. I would be happy to work on the "Culture and language" section and probably could also contribute to the cultural studies section. I will let you know more about my availability and timing within the next few days. Sunray (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! If and when you do, I can also send you my old lecture notes on culture and language ... the problem is, I cribbed them from textbooks and there are no citations, so they provide a good but limited general overview that may help put some issues and concepts in context, but that's about it. I can tell you that the sources Cnilep drew on (in the section I to talk:Culture I linked for you) are all very highly regarded, if dated. Strictly speaking, the subfield that discusses the relationship between culture and language is "ethnolinguistics;" I know of no good textbooks on this but the Duranti book Cnilep cites surely covers this. I think a few other areas that should be covered are "sociolinguistics" (how different kinds of people - e.g. race gender or class - use language differently), there is a good textbook on this published by Cambridge by R.A. Hudson; "Discourse Analysis" (how individuals build social relations through conversation), the Cambridge series has a textbook by Brown and Yule and John Gumperz wrote a good book called Discourse Strategies and "Historical linguistics" (gets a bit at the culture/society/ethnicity thing), there is a good textbook in the Cambridge series by Theodore Bynon. These subfields lay out the theoretical and methodological landscape upon which virtually any research or policy discussions concerning language and culture occurs today. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Request

Hello, On behalf of the concerned parties in the mediation case of The Man Who Would Be Queen. I know that none of you have to accept our case. I felt that asking all of you would be the best first approach. If you have any interest in mediating for us, or not, please indicate this on the talk page of the mediation case. If you are outright interested, want to mediate this case, and need no other convincing then please indicate that as well and we can get the ball rolling. If not we will not bother you anymore. Thankyou. --Hfarmer (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If I may add to what Hfarmer wrote above, we very much need your help. As a group, we have had an enormous number of disputes on a set of related pages, and parts of this dispute have even put WP in The New York Times. The pages themselves remain an embarrassment to WP, and I hope you can help us solve our long-standing impasse for our own good as well as for WP's.

I can’t imagine what you or any other mediator uses in deciding which cases to take. I can’t say that the specific issues we need help addressing are novel (COI, incivility, etc.); however, I do have some confidence that most people would find the subject matter rather engaging. Such issues include the nature of transsexuality, the controversies between how (some) scientists describes transsexuality versus how (some) transsexual activists describe transsexuality, a book on the topic that immediately became wildly controversial, and the individual activists and scientists involved (some of whom participate here), all of which became quite ugly. The most complete (yet brief) description of where we now stand (in my opinion) is here.

Thank you for your attention, and I hope you can help us to resolve this wide-ranging problem.

— James Cantor (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This case has been accepted by the Mediation Committee and a mediator assigned. Sunray (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So I have been wasting my time!

Hi. I'm relatively new around here, but I see you have been here for ages and are on mediation panels and things. So you know how it's done. After spending about 2 days trying to edit down down, offline, the size of the 104Kb Culture article, and to add quite a bit of extra subtopics, I came back 10 minutes ago to try and assemble the result and find out that you think that it is not a good idea to do it! I do not understand why. I proposed to do exactly what you say will be done in the future, move material to a new topic Culture (theories), but keep an edited down version (with links to the new page. I mention that I have spent about 15 years editing technical material for publication as part of my job. However. So be it. Goodnight. I've learned to keep my nose out of other people's business and won't waste my time again!--AlotToLearn (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No you haven't been wasting your time, IMO. As I've said in my reply on your talk page, it is a matter of timing. It is tough to have the editors cutting the article down to size while the writers are still trying to determine what goes into it. However, both writers and editors can be collaborating as long as they are on the same page (so to speak). Lets discuss options on the article talk page. Sunray (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Right.

Ten-Four. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.10.97 (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Individualist anarchism

Saying that anarcho-capitalism is an individualist anarchist philosophy is not saying, or even implying, that they're synonyms. Individualist anarchism is just a category of anarchism. There a number of anarchist philosophies that are individualist in nature. Anarcho-capitalism is one of them. Jadabocho (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Some info: http://books.google.com/books?id=yxNgXs3TkJYC&pg=PA243&dq=%22anarcho-capitalism%22+%2Bindividualist&lr=#PPA243,M1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadabocho (talk • contribs) 04:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your statement that anarcho-capitalism is individualist. However, some fairly substantial people (e.g., Roderick Long, editor of the Journal of Libertarian Studies) argue that anarcho-capitalism and individualist anarchism are distinct terms [1]. While this is, no doubt, a minority point of view, it is a point of view. I was trying to reflect this in the lead to the Anarcho-capitalism article. Sunray (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

They ARE distinct terms. Individualist anarchism is a CATEGORY. Anarcho-capitalism is a specific type of individualist anarchism. Where do you see him saying that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of individualism archism in that article? Jadabocho (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

While that is, perhaps the most common view, if you check the references I put on the article talk page, you will see that it is not the only view. Sunray (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 01ec4e9a392153c2828cafb6bb93ea2a

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

AfD nomination of Michael Abelman

I have nominated Michael Abelman, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Abelman. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Oo7565 (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: Keep. Michael Ableman determined notable. Sunray (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)