Misplaced Pages

Origins of NOR

Hi. Yes, I think it's worthwhile to add it. It helps give a historical perpective, that to many editors would explain why the policy was needed and its evolution. wbfergus 12:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm usually on checking some articles out every day, though I may not 'participate' every day. I'll keep an eye on it. wbfergus 13:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think so. This last week has pretty much been exclusively devoted to "Sources". I think the origins of NOR is pretty uncontentious. wbfergus 18:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to get the "origins" inserted. Since the page is still protected though, it looks like I'll need to contact an admin and then explain that this addition has been present on the page since Sept. 13th with no objections, and it doesn't change the policy, just adds a little background information in how the policy came about and evolved. Is the a list or something on here that shows who the current admins are? wbfergus 18:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The policy page protection expired and was automatically unprotected. As of now, three edits have taken place, one of which was myself inserting your "Origins of NOR". I hope you approve. wbfergus 13:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Care to comment at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Creeping_changes...? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Nor again

Fantastic! Absolutely wonderful. And my thanks for your support..! Dreadstar † 20:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be very happy to do that! I'll take it slowly and see how things go. I've been having some personal issues keeping my Misplaced Pages time limited, but everyhing is looking better now - so hopefully I'll be able to contribute more soon. Dreadstar † 20:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

NOR goof

thought so... no worries. Blueboar 22:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

NOR alternative

Don't mind your alternative at all... actually I like it a lot (more succinct than the current language). I'm just not sure if it addresses what others have been complaining about is all. Those who want to change the lanugage of the policy seem focused on the use of the word "source", which your version keeps. Personally, I have never had a problem with that word... I understand what the policy is trying to say and agree with it. But since others are bent out of shape, we are not going to get anywhere by staying still... we have to change the language but keep the intent. If it turns out that the others don't like your use of the word "source", I am thinking of taking your version and doing what I did with the current language... just swapping "material" where appropriate. To me this is all mostly a tempest in a tea pot... it should be easily solved but for some reason it drags on and on. Blueboar 12:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You said at Misplaced Pages talk:No original research: "Do you want to go ahead and make the change to the proposed draft? Go ahead". Thanks. Which draft are you suggesting that I change -- i.e. where exactly is it?

By the way, for good form, I would prefer that you, as a user involved in the discussion, not protect the page. If it needs to be done again I would prefer that you ask a non-involved admin. --Coppertwig 22:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Dreadstar RfA

Slrubenstein,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 55 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to vote in my nomination. I'm a new admin, so if you have any suggestions feel free to let me know. I would like to give a special shout out to Fang Aili, Phaedriel, and Anonymous Dissident, for their co-nominations. Thank you all!

Thanks for your support! I took the easy way out of thanking everyone by stealing borrowing someone else's design...but know that I sincerely appreciate your support and confidence in me! I can't tell you how much it meant to me to see your vote, I greatly respect you and it was quite a wonderful thing to see! Now let me know how I can support the NOR efforts...I can focus again..! Dreadstar † 07:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

Kabbalah article addition

Hi Slrubenstein, I have been thinking about your recent addition to the article:

Kabalah refers to a set of esoteric beliefs and practices that supplement traditional Jewish interpretations of the Bible and religious observances. It is held authoritative by most Orthodox Jews, although traditionally limited to married Talmud scholars. Precisely because it is by definition esoteric, no popular account (including an encyclopedia) can provide a complete, precise, and accurate explanation of the Kabbalah. However, a number of scholars, most notably Gershom Scholem, Arthur Green, Danile Matt and Moshe Idel have made Kabbalist texts objects of modern scholerly scrutiny. Some scholars, notably Martin Buber, have argued that modern Hassidic Judaism represents a popularization of the Kabbalah. According to its adherents, intimate understanding and mastery of the Kabbalah brings one spiritually closer to God and enriches one's experience of Jewish sacred texts and law.

I do see some problems that might need consideration. But I do admire your rising to the challenge of trying to define Kabbalah. One thing that would help is if you would add the sources for Buber, etc. Sourcing is almost completely lacking throughout the article, so if editors would get in the habit of adding sources to their new additions that would slowly improve things. It is a real nuisance to try to find sources after months have gone by. Kwork 19:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, would you mind if I remove the red ink for Danile Matt and Moshe Idel? In the past I would have just made the change, because (unfortunately) no article exists for either of these two yet. But after six months of exhausting, on and off, edit war involving another article, I do not want to take any chance of getting into a new argument. Kwork 17:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will leave the names red. Most of the work I have done on the article involved removing things. Removing bad links, moving Hermetic Kabbalah material (it has its own article), etc. Kabbalah is a very big subject, and I hesitate to add material. Kwork 18:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Say, thanks much for the book recommendation. Odd I didn't notice it when you first left the note. I'll have my headlights checked.--Mantanmoreland 02:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A new essay

I am working out a new essay at Misplaced Pages:The rules are principles, and your feedback and wit would be greatly appreciated. Take care! Vassyana 02:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR proposal

SLR, I just wanted to mention, w.r.t. your preliminary proposal of a brief version of WP:PSTS, the following: Your brief version went:

Most succinctly,

• primary sources are sources of facts
• secondary sources are sources for distinct views of facts
• tertiary sources are summaries of, or generalizations based on, diverse views of facts

I would point out that, for example, works by major authors can also be primary sources. For example, works by Kant, Aristotle, Einstein, Heisenberg are primary sources. Also, the US Code is a primary source, as are any other statutes. There are numerous other examples that also do not fit with this brief version. I think it drastically oversimplifies and would result in great discontinuity of principle and practice in many aspects of the wiki.
Just a thought for the moment. And thanks for the heads-up about the proposal in your note on my talk page. ... Kenosis 02:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Jesus

I saw a statement in the New Encyclopedia Judaica (entry Jesus) that seemed similar to something you once mentioned:

"Jesus' major polemical sayings against the Pharisees describe them as hypocrites, an accusation occurring not only in the Essene Dead Sea Scrolls and, indirectly, in a saying of the Sadducean king, Alexander Yannai, but also in rabbinic literature, which is an expression of true Pharisaism. In general, Jesus' polemical sayings against the Pharisees were far meeker than the Essene attacks and not sharper than similar utterances in the talmudic sources. Jesus was sufficiently Pharisaic in general outlook to consider the Pharisees as true heirs and successors of Moses. Although Jesus would probably not have defined himself as a Pharisee, his beliefs, especially his moral beliefs, are similar to the Pharisaic school of Hillel"

There is also some interesting stuff there about the paralells between Jesus and the Essenes.

Also Re: Criticism of Jesus, the Talmud refers to him as one who "burns his food in public" (meaning that he burnt sacrifices to idols), he is also referred to as the son of a harlot (though its better not to mention that, for obvious reasons). I'm sure there must have been people who criticised his-not very practical- philosophy (If Britain had "turned the other cheek" to hitler and loved their enemy, we'd be in trouble.) BestWolf2191 14:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Masoretes and Jesus

Would you mind looking at this section that I just added here Judaism's view of Jesus#The notes of the Masoretes. I'm not sure if I wrte it up clearly enough. ThanksWolf2191 19:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Just caught your comment at WT:NOR

Just caught your additional comment following one of mine in Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Just_to_be_clear:_definition_of_primary_and_secondary_sources, where you said: "Since I do not disagree with anything Kenosis just wrote, your comment seems a bit like a non-sequitor ... which makes me wonder whether you (Kenosis) misunderstood what I wrote. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)" I think I understood your points. I was attempting to clarify further how these examples fit readily into WP:PSTS. Several seem to be arguing that these various examples don't fit, when all that's needed is to include the examples in PSTS. Scripture is one: it plainly belongs in "primary sources". The other issue had to do with PSTS being seen in terms of the primary source being the published writings being either themselves the origin of the topic under discussion, or that which can reasonably be regarded as the closest sources to the topic under discussion, rather than merely in terms of, e.g., "factual". Sorry I missed your extra comment before-- been busy elsewhere. ... Kenosis 04:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac (talk · contribs)

Please could you explain why you unblocked Proabivouac? From the ArbCom parole that he is on "He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by edit warring, incivility, or other disruptive behavior." - I certainly believe that this parole has been broken with his recent edits as they were very disruptive and pointy in nature, as did many other administrators who agreed this was problematic. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

His additions to policy pages were very pointy - hence disruptive editing and why he should still be blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Seconded - what the hell? You discuss with the blocking administrator. Not tell them you are unblocking, and do it. Proabivouac was not blocked for 3RR edit warring. He is the subject of an Arbitration Committee ruling stating he is to refrain from any tendentious editing or he will be blocked. If it were not wheel-warring, I would reinstate the block. Neil ム 12:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by blocking admin I opened this page to post a comment to User:Slrubenstein, whom I have worked with and respect greatly, to explain the block, following his courtesy note on my talk page. Please accept the following post also, in the same vein of courtesy :) This is more on the rationale. As described in the block reason, the situation is not entirely a new one. Proabivouac has received a ruling that he is on probation. Rightly or wrongly he is felt to have avoided probation, as best I can tell. He has since made a fair number of postings stating that he is being harrassed, accused others of harrassing him, and used the wiki somewhat as a forum for a soapbox on issues of his harrassment. This conduct acquired him some negative attention the last while, as a result. The problem came to a head recently, and then went quiet for a week. Over the last day or so, Proabivouac appears to be coming close to getting himself into problems again. There were many posts, and all were of a nature that were unconstructive and unhelpful, all on the same theme of his feelings, and all using project, talk and other spaces to make the case that has already been amply made elsewhere that he feels strongly on certain issues. Unfortunately Misplaced Pages is not for that. Strong feelings have a place, and self-examination is necessary, but applicable to every editor of whatever stance is the obligation to edit constructively, to not edit disruptively, to not use pages in this manner but to try and add to the project. Adding to a proposed policy that "Misplaced Pages is currently itself an attack site" is not constructive. Proabivouac knows it is not what these pages are for, that the community disapproves of him using multiple pages to repeatedly raise a point that isn't helpful, and that (for whatever reason) his previous conduct was considered serious or long-lived enough to result in a ruling on all incivility and disruptive actions. That's a fairly major step for a ruling. It should not be overstepped or under-estimated. If Proabivouac continues in the same vein, the next step would likely be a harsher one. I have no involvement in the matter, but I would rather see him understand, "you just don't do that and expect it to work out better". A ruling like he received is not a light thing. It signifies there is already a serious history of conduct, enough that a ruling was felt necessary. To then continue to use project and talk spaces to press his viewpoint when he knows it will be less than constructive and merely result in others being irked and a reversion, is to my mind the point where something should be said more concrete than a note, lest he continues and others do worse. And because this conduct is at heart, "not okay", in terms of annoyance, tendentiousness, and loss of communal patience. That said, you have unblocked, and I don't have an investment in the situation. I was asked to review, I have done so, you have viewed otherwise, and that's your right (as indeed it is the right of any admin). I hope for Proabivouac's sake, it was the right decision. That said, all the best, and see you round on various articles! Hope this comment fills in the gaps you were missing. FT2 14:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As an uninvolved outsider, I must say that I support this block and that I find it a little discourteous to immediately unblock without contacting the blocking admin first. These edits were obvious WP:POINT violations and generally disruptive, and we should give less leniency to editors under sanction by the arbcom for disruptive behaviour. "It isn't dsiruptive if it has not even violated 3RR" isn't really a good reason to unblock, because 3RR is not an entitlement, and in this case, the primary reason for blocking was disruption, not 3RR/edit warring. Melsaran (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein -- clarification following your 2nd note: The concern isn't 3RR. As stated above, 3RR isn't the issue. It is possible to be disruptive even with one post, and as I judge it, recent conduct has been mostly posting as described, on the same theme, in places that are known to be inappropriate, known to cause others to remove, known to be unhelpful, and known to be irksome. Knowingly posting as such, to me, is a clear breach of the probation term that states by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by ... disruptive behavior. This to me says, he has had an arb case, and their view was serious enough that they consider him to have acted disruptively on a variety of pages, enough that patience is worn out. It's not 3RR that is the issue. It's the making of multiple edits whilst on probation, that clearly push that probation by posting tendentiously and unconstructively. In the circumstances, a block seemed appropriate, since the evidence of the present course of action is that he is likely to continue to post on the wiki in places that will annoy others, exhaust patience, require reversion or cleanup, and conflict with the requirement to not edit disruptively. Recent contribs as of 26 Sept support that this concern has validity. In any event his then-present course is not serving him well nor fair to others. It needs to change. 3RR is not the issue. Continuing soapbox posts on the topic of his upset, a disruptive activity if repeated as he has done, following breach of probation and breach of probation condition is the issue. My hope as stated is that he will change. I hope your unblock decision works out for the best, for him, regardless though. FT2 17:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Adnan Oktar

Based on some of our work together in the past, I though of you as good evaluator to assist in the dilemma at Talk:Adnan Oktar. I visited this page in response to a request at 3rd Op. --Kevin Murray 17:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good grief!

Slrubenstein, I directly asked you to respond precisely because you are the last best hope for this farce; you are being fair and objective and assuming good faith, and have no need to apologise to anyone; and I am humiliated that I expressed myself so poorly that you felt the need to offer an apology just in case. Sir, I apologise to you for my inadequate ability to express myself.

I was addressing those who responded to me making this point directly above and you are not among those people. Not naming names seemed useful in keeping this from getting personal, but I failed miserably at that, didn't I? Oh well...

Emotions are so high people are not hearing each other. I give up. Actual practice is reasonable. We are better every year than the last. Maybe in the future improvements in the wording will become possible. As for now, I give up. WAS 4.250 06:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I've been thinking that much of the material in my sandbox might be used in the Race and genetics article. I'm a little concerned about it's length for the Race article, but might be able to cut some of it down. I also think I'll have a go at including some of it in the Human genetic variation article, this is where much of the discussion regarding clusters vs clines should more properly go I think. I reckon if I can get some detail in these two articles then I can see how best to précis this info into the Race article with a see also link to these other two articles. Does this sound good to you? By the way I've ordered a few books from amazon:

• White Identities: An Historical and International Introduction
• The Invention of the White Race: Racial Oppression and Social Control v. 1 (Haymarket)
• The Emperor's New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium
• The Hidden Frontier Ecology & Ethnicity in an Alpine Valley
• The Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism And White Privilege
  

Thought I'd have a look since this sounds like a fascinating subject and I have a long bus journey to work every morning with plenty of time to read. I might have a go at incorporating some of this info into the "White people" article at some point in the future, though I am a very slow reader. Some of these books were on your list, some I just happened to come across on amazon. Alun 12:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

In case you missed it

Hi. In case you missed a previous comment of mine on WT:NOR, could you fix the ref you included at the end of 'Origins'? It's showing up as , and there is already a ref#1. It just strange on policy where I think everything should look perfect. Not a big deal in the grand schem of things though.

BTW, I greatly appreciate you taking to time to be a positive contributor to the discussions there. I only wish that more of the 'people' there who hold the same 'opinion' as you would be more willing to participate constructivley. Jossi, Dave Sousa(?), and yourself are the only ones who seem to be so open to rational discussions, though Kenosis seems to coming around as well. His posts don't seem as adversarial as I interpreted them at first, though that may very well have been my fault. Without the input from 'your side', talks would be prety fruitless, as we would certainly be missing points 'your side' takes as important, this way we can see if maybe we can reach agreement (albiet slowly) on other points. wbfergus 15:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

About Igor the Otter

I have had Jp Gordons talk page on my watchlist for about 6 weeks now. I saw your comment and supported your complaint about Igor at the noticeboard. Check out the holcaust denial talk page for more ammunition.: Danny Weintraub (aka) : Albion moonlight 13:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Igor has been Blocked indefinitely. I figured that would happen as soon as the admin had a chance to review Igors last block. You did the right thing by putting it on the admin notice board. : Danny Weintraub ...Aka : Albion moonlight 00:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Albion moonlight 06:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Size matters

Wow, the NOR talk page is over 322kb in size...and it still appears to be going 'round and 'round, getting larger and larger.... There's too much to read - is there a cliff notes version?  ;) Dreadstar † 01:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Scariest archiving I've ever done... :D Dreadstar † 17:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude

Your deep man all that stuff you wrote on your home page I am amazed your really philisophical you dig deep into the brain thats cool I want to be a psycologist and I want to be able to do that.Hetakilla 19:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Sociocultural evolution FAR

Sociocultural evolution has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Origin of religion

Hi SLR, I created a controversial article Origin of religion. It has been nominated for deletion and the discussion is at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Origin of religion. I believe you may have some interest in this topic, so if you have any time I would welcome any comments. Thanks. Muntuwandi 04:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Bible Edit

No problem. I saw the change, and I thought initially it was vandalism, but wasn't 100% sure. My decision was to revert the article and message you about the change. My apologies for not getting around to it. BeanoJosh 01:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sorry about your talk page! I'm using a laptop and the keys aren't working very well. Some of your talkpage must have been highlighted before I began typing my reply. I apologise for that.

Bible Changes

Please do not revert edits without discussion. There have been many requests for separate articles for each of the various bibles in this world. Many people requested this refinement using a disambiguation page to avoid controversy. Please edit the article for the Bible of your interest. Please do not revert the work of other editors without discussion. Luqman Skye 03:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sedition != criticism

Hi Slr! Sorry for being late about this - I was travelling quite a lot. On talk:Jesus you wrote "The article claims that according to most historians he was executed for sedition - that is certainly a criticism." While I agree with a the original claim (a biographical article does not need a criticism section), I disagree with that particular statement. It very much depends on context wether sedition is something that needs to be criticized or lauded. Sedition against Bush's Guantanamo outrage is an entirely honorable thing. Or consider the US founding father's sedition against the English monarchy. Very many people see that as a great step forward. --Stephan Schulz 09:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Anthropology and the origins of religion

I noticed that you have an interest in anthropology and have read Levi-Strauss and like to make sure that many opinions are represented. There are three articles related to the development/origins of religion that are in desperate need of help: Origin of religion, Development of religion, and Anthropology of religion. In the last of the three, Levi-Strauss appears on the talk page but nowhere in the article. My recollection was that he viewed religions as a form of early science - part of an attempt to categorize the world. Mary Douglas (are you familiar with her?) also sees the origin of religion in the human need to categorize (c.f."Purity and Danger") - perhaps you would like to write something about Levi-Strauss or Mary Douglas on one or more of the articles? I hate to ask others to fix a problem I see, but considering your interests I thought you might enjoy it and right now I've got my hands full with the bible article and reading up on the early progressive movement). Kol tuv, Egfrank 10:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Ethnic Group

Hi Rubenstein, I agree with some of the edits you made with the exception of two things:

1) I believe ancestry should link to Kinship and Descent since it was one of the founding elements in ethnic identification and behind the whole concept of common origin/descent.

Thanks you for raising these queries, i am glad we can discuss them. Kinship and descent refer to anthropological concepts that have very precise meanings in reference to social structure and not biological descent, and are just not related to ethnicity. Societies with patrilineal descent include corporate groups membership in which is based often on who one's father is. These corporate groups are not ethnic groups, and moreover, members of a patrilineage who claim descent from one apical ancestor are of course descended, biologically, from many - usually 15 or 31 other, lineages seldom go back more than four or five generations - other ancestors. A word can have different meanings. "descent" in relation to kinship and lineage has nothing in common with the idea of descent in relation to ethnicity. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed, they do refer to anthropological systems of social structure that intertwines with biological aspects, rather, genealogical aspects is a more accurate term. The notion of kinship and descent involves the familial ties, even if minor, of a population group and therefore the relatedness of a population tracing common origins (eg. a most common recent ancestor or ancestors). The whole idea of common descent is that it is based on presumptions of kinship and shared ancestry with others in that group, most of the time based on an actual genealogical connection. Descent in ethnicity and that in lineage are seen by some even as being one in the same, but in any case, Kinship and Descent is one main concepts of ethnic identification and how some of the earliest social groups began to identify with each other. In the past the systems took even more precedence in ethnic groups in Europe (eg. the Scottish Clan System), but this still remains the case for the identity of numerous other ethnic and tribal groups around the world (especially those with smaller, closeley-knit populations). Epf 13:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you just do not understand the concepts of kinship and descent - they just have nothing to do with ethnicity. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, that may be your opinion but many of anthropologists disagree with you, and the familial and kinship organizational structures (around since the earliest human societies) are what led to the very first social and cultural groupings. Epf 13:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

First, i did not say that familial and kinship organizational structures are not what led to the first social groups. I said descent in relation to kinship is very different from descent in relation to ethnicity. Be that as it may you are confused not only about what I wrote, but apparently other things: ethnic groups are only one kind of social group; many if not most anthropologists today do not think that kinship organizational structures led to the first social groups. I'd love to know your sources. For kinship and social groups, mine are Franz Boas, Alfred Kroeber, Meyer Fortas, and David Schneider principally. For ethnicity mine are Joan Vincent and Ronald Cohen for general reviews of the literature as well as brackett Williams - and for studies of specific dethnic identities, well, as I said the bibliography would be enourmous. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to me or give any reference to any of those sources you mentioned where they claim descent in relation to kinship and descent in relation to ethnicity are distinct concepts ? Indeed they are different but they are also clearly related. In terms of smaller ethnic and tribal groups, Kinship and Ethnic descent are obviously both very related (if not the same) concepts. Most anthropologists in fact do agree kinship structures led to the first social groups. Familial structure has been contstant since the beginnings of our species, and is the predecessor to any other social grouping. I would love for you to tell me which one out of any of those researchers debates with any of what I have just stated ?

Btw, in terms of cultural tradtionons being continuous over time, I can give you numerous exampels on the spot who have very rich, ancient cultural histories: Greeks, Persians, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Armenians, Georgians, Egyptians, Nubians, Ethiopians, Assyrians, Jews, Italians, Irish, Tamils, various native American peoples, Australian Aborigines, I could go on and on. Many peoples have very rich, ancient and cultural histories which have been very continuous over time (many of those with ancient literal traditions). This is especially true with tribal/indigenous groups with little contact to other socities. Epf 13:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

2) You made an edit about the the UNESCO statement The Race Question which says: "...that if people are referring to a group marked by shared religion, geography, language or culture, they should "drop the term 'race' altogether and speak of 'ethnic groups'". I have read the excerpts from the statement, (they are also featured at its Wiki article) and it was merely stated that they suggested to "drop the term 'race' altogether and speak of 'ethnic groups'". There was no mention about ethnicity solely referring to 'religion, geography, language or culture'. In fact it even stated "biological differences as exist between members of different ethnic groups have no relevance to problems of social and political organizations, moral life and communication between human beings". They did not refute the biological aspects of ethnicity, just that they should use this term rather than a taxonomic classification suc has race.

Paragraph 6 of the July 18 statement uses exactly this language. i have read the original document, not just some excerpt. I hope this satisfies yoiur concerns. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well I suppose I will have to take your word for it, but last time I read into it, that wasn't the exact quote I read. The comments about religion, geography, language or culture were mentioned elsewhere.

You do not need to take my word for it (though I appreciate the trust) - you can read paragraph six of the July 18 statement for yourself! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Do you ahve a link to the document on-line ? I don't have access to it as of this very moment, unless its been uploaded somewhere on the internet. Epf 13:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• The excerpt from the Wiki article have the lines here: "To most people, a race is any group which they choose to describe as a race. Thus, many national, religious, geographic, linguistic or cultural groups have, in such loose usage, been called 'race". That is where the national, geographic, linguistic, cultural section is mentioned.

The sectoin where it suggests to "drop the term 'race' altogether and speak of "ethnic groups" is distinct from the passage above. Epf 13:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me know what you think, ciao. Epf

I fear that my only possible response will sound patronizing to you: I think that instead of relying on other Misplaced Pages articles for research, you should go to a good library. I see from your user page you are very proud of recently having graduated college - I should have hoped that you would have learned this, there. A good library who has professional librarians should have someone who can help you locate the document in question or get it if Canada has, as I wold think it must, an inter-library loan system. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• There is no need to get personal, but yes I did recently graduate from University, undergradaute studies, and am currently in Graduate school. Indeed I will find the document in my spare time if I am unable to find the resource on-line (though I believe I just have). I am starting to sense a sort of bias against the validity of the common origins of various ethnic groups in your discussion, but perhaps it is jsut me. Epf 13:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• I found the entry from the text and indeed I was correct. From now on I am furthering this discussion on the Talk page for the Ethnic Group article. Epf 14:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My bias is this: to ensure that academic accounts are represented in Misplaced Pages articles. The vast majority of work by historians and anthropologists indeed questions the common origins of ethnic groups. This is as I have said one view that needs to be included in the article. That is just NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well I'm sorry to say but you are not coming across that way at all. The vast majority of anthropologists, population geneticists and historians do question some of the common origins of ethnic groups, but they also acknowledge the validity of many aspects which do show a common origin for many groups. Recent population genetic studies for exmaple have added weight to various claims of common origin while also questioning some others. Epf 14:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I said many, not all. What are your sources? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My sources are the indivdual articles on the history of all those peoples (I dont have time to gather all of the thousands of soruces out there). No need for semantics here, the ancient legacy of the Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese, Persians, Jews is well documented wit hanyone who has even a tiny knowledge of history and culture Epf 14:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wet alife deleted?

I just noticed that my Wet alife page has been deleted. I wasn't aware of any discussion for why it should be deleted. The delete notes claim that "created by sock puppet", but since I created the article and I'm not a sock puppet I don't think that's true. In either case wet alife is a real subfield of alife, and deserves an article, even if it's a stub. --Numsgil 08:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Your views?

Hello. You might have noticed that User:MoritzB is being discussed at WP:AN/I. I have not been able to find one edit by him that was not racially motivated; his remarks on talk pages often seem designed to inflame and shock. He has just received a temporary ban for first misusing and then misrepresenting the views of James D. Watson on Race and intelligence. His devious behaviour seems to be exemplified by the mug shot of Michael Jackson that he inserted 4 times on Black people with the slogan "proud to be black"; when it was rejected he immediately put it on the Michael Jackson page, later making the comment that "Michael's nose looks good". This provocative and disruptive behaviour, accompanied by selective and intellectually dishonest citations, does not seem to be what WP is about. Cheers, Mathsci 09:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Pharisees & NT

That last edit ( 01:43, 26 October 2007 74.226.56.158 ) appears to have been a good faith, useful edit?Wolf2191 00:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Kinship& Descent

Can you join the discussion on subject article before simply reverting without explanation? In particular, 'apical' is just not a word the average joe understands; it means most recentcommon ancestor - so why not use the words everyone understands? Thanks Bridesmill 02:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Photos

I only know the basics. But you can always try me. I do love to take photos. futurebird 03:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I never use film. I have a cannon power-shot and it's good for everything I need. I mostly take photos to plan my paintings, so I'm not THAT picky about quality. futurebird 03:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

R&I – a new approach

R&I has been protected for a breather while we try to form some consensus as to the direction. In the interim we have set up a “sandbox” at: User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound. Moonriddengirl is a neutral admin who has set up the space where we can work on the text section by section; this allows us to have a talk page for the micro project. So far JJJamal, Futurebird and I have made suggested changes with additions in bold and deletions in strikeout. This section and its talk page is an experiment in trying to come together as a group on a focused area. If it works we’d like to approach Guy, the admin who has protected the page, to insert our work-product into the protected article and then take on another section. I would really like to get your feedback on this so that we can demonstrate a consensus. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 19:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

As a courtesy, could you give us your feedback on our progress on our R&I sandbox section at User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound. I think this has been productive, but lacks broad participation.

I'd alos like to discuss some direction for the article in general with you, if you have the time.

Thanks. --Kevin Murray 16:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

a question about an old delete

why did you delete the page 'semiotic triangle'? i am not the author, but was surprised that this article was deleted.

thank you

andrew frank —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewufrank (talk • contribs) 14:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It was created by a banned user, and thus violated our policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Theory - Criterion for scientific status

Thanks for your recent contribution to "Theory". I have some questions and comments. (1) In Popper's view, is a theory comprised of statements or is each statement a theory? Along the same lines, you seem to suggest that a theory according to Popper is a set of statements in which each and every one of them is falsifiable. Is that Popper's assertion? I personally am not familiar with the discussions on criterion for scientific status. (2) Your contribution seems a little wordy and written more like what I would expect to see in Talk. That is, you appear to defend Kitcher's and others position. Do they need defending, or, is there a lot of opposition to these points of view? Is this strongly controversial and why is that? (3) Could your contribution be shortened into a list similar to what was done for Popper? Or, does that format not work in your estimation? (4) Is there a way to efficiently highlight the differences in the two lines of thought? (5) Is the list for Popper an accurate representation of that line of thought? (6) There are some spelling errors in your contribution. Thanks -- AikBkj (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I amaze myself, lol. I found some of your talk on the "Evolution" talk page which it looks like you copied and pasted into the "Theory" article. I'm glad you shortened it considerably. Any chance you can further clean up that section? Also, try to be careful and not load otherwise less controversial articles with ammunition (adding fuel to the fire) for more controversial articles. For the Theory article, it would seem like a good idea to stick to what is generally agreed upon as the criterion for scientific status and then a very short comment on differences with links to the appropriate camps of thought (Popper, Kitcher, etc.). Thanks -- AikBkj (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A quick answer to your many questions: I am sure my prose can be improved upon - Misplaced Pages is a collaborative effort and perhaps others can improve my prose. I do not mean to promote Kitcher any more than others have promoted Popper. I doubt Kitcher is the last word on the subject. One important difference is time: Popper is dated and we shouldn't be surprised that philosophers writing after him have more sopnisticated arguments, it is progress in philosophy. What I mean to say is this: all philosophers I know of consider Popper out of date. I didn't know that the article is controversial and I do not mean to add fuel to any fire but Popper's criteria for scientific status simply do not apply to science; they are his view, and in its day it was an influential view, but that day ius long past. The article needs to make clear why. Kitcher is one example of someone who has considered Popper, criticisms of Popper, and has proposed another view. I hope that other philosophers have done something similar - and hope other editors will add their views to the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Why the unblock?

The block was being discussed, and I see some considerable opinion that 1 year is too long, but I don't see much support for an unblock. You should at least explain yourself at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice#Documentation_of_blocks_or_bans for the record. Friday (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I already explained myself at least three times at AN/I. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I know, but there's a page specifically intended for noting enforcement of this case. It seems reasonable that undoing that enforcement should be noted there too. Friday (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right. Guess what I was doing, just now? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Friday (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A request and an opportunity

User: Thatcher131 has asked that I ask you to take care of this. It seems the mob has backed off -- at least that's what I'm assuming. Silly business -- all of it -- but at least the RfC on DBachmann is one good outcome.

It's an annoyance, but I'm actually glad Thatcher made the request. It's a reminder that I hadn't been to your talk space to formally thank you for being bold, taking a stand and doing what was right. So I'm taking the opportunity to do this properly: Thank you! The place could stand a few more admins like you -- and a few less like you know who. ;p Peace. deeceevoice (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A good unblock, Slr..I agree with you, just to throw my two cents in.. Dreadstar † 19:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Revert section

SL. I don't dispute what you said about Hayden, but maybe you should take a deep breath and just revert that whole section. I'm sure tha Ramdrake and I wouldn't care. You definately had me laughing, but I would hate to see the sensitive among us get their panties in a twist and go after you. Good luck! --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I had a good laugh too, but maybe Kevin's right on this one, come to think of it. You decide.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk page

I do sometimes wonder why you continue to explain something way past the point where it is clear that you are not being listened to. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI that guy you were arguing with. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion on Theory

Best of luck in your efforts to continue to improve articles. A reasonable person is put into very comprising positions in wikipedia, especially in the high profile articles. I better appreciate that now. Keep up the good work. AikBkj (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Flesh and spirit

Just wanted to say - great essay! - in this case I don't have a thing to say contrary(?!) - I think you did a superb job of getting at the philosophical/linguistic underpinnings of everything I was trying to say or thought you might be saying. I only hope you also feel that for what you wanted to say. (Its hard sometimes to put these things into words). Egfrank (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I also thank you for your careful explanation of your thoughts. Personally, I think they are profound, true and of the greatest practical and "spiritual" benefit.

In particular, I take your point that Paul uses typical Greek categories explicitly to make an ontological distinction. And as you say, although the distinction is not without precedent in Law, Prophets and Writings, these are not ontological as in Paul.

While studying herem in the Hexateuch, I became pursuaded that the theological point of the war-herem was genocide. In the theological categories of the Torah, Abraham's decendents' multiplication is a blessing like that of Adam and Eve. Even in the Prophets, haShem's discipline will always leave a remnant. Why? Because, as he promised to Moshe, he would never remove the people who bear his Name from the Earth.

(PS by the way, I see no reason to suppose that Israel had more relish for the genocide of the conquest than Abraham had to sacrifice Isaac. In the canonical presentation, Israel were in fact reluctant about it, where Abraham was steadfast.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastair Haines (talk • contribs) 00:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Although the divine instructions regarding the conquest of Canaan do not provide all the details, there is sufficient to establish that haShem held the Canaanites responsible for rejecting him and piling sin upon sin.

As perhaps you can tell, I am rather captured by a Yahwist vision. What is the meaning of life? It is to embody the Holy One's presence ba'arets.

Returning to your comments regarding martyrdom. Personally, I think Christian martyrdom is wrong-headed. Although there is some NT warrant for the ideal, it says more of Greek and romantic notions than of NT teaching like that of 1 Peter, where suffering (not necessarily death) is expected to characterise those who would live to the glory of God.

It occurs to me that for every Christian martyr, there have perhaps been more persecuted Jews. No Christian witness to the Creator is ever perfect, has Israel ever pleased her God as being perfect in being a light to the Gentiles? I may be absolutely wrong, but I suspect, even if Christianity is true, God is testifying to his glory through his ancient and original people, according to his covenants of love, which can never be broken.

Obviously you and I would disagree on all sorts of things. However, I delight to hear the depth of wisdom and insight you and Egfrank offer on life, God, Bible, your own faith, and even your perspective on my own. Shalom Alastair Haines (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Great comments on martyrdom. Yes, scientifically, social and psychological factors are involved with the decisions of the Christian martyrs that are not unique. It seems cold-hearted to reject their courage as evidence for a resurrection, but personally, I simply accept resurrection because it is logically consistant with what God could and may do if the rest of the Hebrew and Greek books are taken at face value.

But the rabbi you mention makes precisely the point that matters. Abraham's God is glorified when even gentiles call on him with sincerity that costs their lives. You phrase it very nicely, I will be watching for that comment while I read. It sounds like the sort of reference Lapide would cite.

Someone suggested Misplaced Pages talk pages are a more interesting encyclopedia of discussion on topics and debates within them, than the actual topic pages themselves. If nothing else, I suspect continued interaction there among our friends will indeed provide something of value to future readers. Though I'm keen to work for quality text in that article in the ordinary manner. ;)

The Song of Songs,

which is of Solomon.

May he kiss me with the kisses of his mouth,

for better is your loving than wine.

I am being deliberately ambiguous about l'shlomo, I use a participle to translate the plural dodim.

Alastair Haines (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC) Thank you! As I was thinking about the translation, the for Solomon was going through my head. For the reasons you mention -- notoriously polygamous, the end of chapter 3, and a very natural rendering of the preposition l. It fits well within the context of the canon as well. It makes sense for the Bible to comment on Solomon.

But finally, another reason is that I've been reading literature reviews on dating, because I will be expected to have an opinion. In fact, my supervisor asked me and I simply said I just didn't know. He was actually approving, because it's a good thing to admit such things at times, and because my hypothesis does not depend on date anyway. However, I thought I'd make a bit more effort to form something of an opinion regardless. In just the last week or so, I've actually become open to the possibility that the song is not very distant in time from Solomon. If that were so, for Solomon would also make sense.

I will be watching attentively for commentators that read for.

My hypothesis, by the way, is that the Song is first and foremost about the Shulamite, and about the trials and joys of romantic love from a female perspective. I believe this is a natural reading, because she talks not only about the one she loves, but also about herself. She engages with the chorus (and the reader). The man, however, speaks only of her, and is definitely a dream on one occasion, probably more.

If one approaches the Song with the kind of questions teenage girls have about courtship and marriage, one comes away feeling "understood", "related to" and with some real answers -- it's not easy, it's frustrating, it's dangerous, it's worth it, don't push it, let it come to you, once you're there there's no way out, ... It doesn't say how to get Mr Right, it doesn't promise there even is a Mr Right, it just interacts with the issues in the kind of way women (of my aquaintence anyway) seem to like -- reflect their concerns in an understanding way, encourage, support and praise them as is appropriate.

I've got a long way to go to make my reading rigorous, I'm also handicapped by being a man, a never-married man, and middle-aged! ;) But then again, there are advantages in my perspective too, and I become more and more convinced that the Shulamite-stream-of-consciousness reading more adequately explains the various features of the Song than other readings.

For men, I think the point of the Song is -- be faithful to hearts that think and feel like this Shulamite. God stood as witness against the violence and divorce that Malachi's contemporaries perpetrated on their women.

So, you see, the reading of verse 1 that you offer me, fits very well indeed with my thesis, and feels like better reading of the Hebrew ... why use the relative pronoun in full and form a verbless clause, when a prepositional phrase alone would do for attribution?

Drat! Now my idea is in a public forum and someone else can publish it before me! ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

But they still have to attribute it to you - public or not - its yours. Egfrank (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm probably naively relaxed about intellectual property regarding biblical interpretation. With my conservative view of divine inspiration, I see anything I may say as leaving an important "co-author" out of the acknowldgements — any errors being, of course, my own. ;) But, yes, I guess a Wiki talk page still classes as "personal communication". ;) When I get closer, I will give you both links to my dissertation. It's such a joyful book, I do hope that is not lost in what I do with it. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 08:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

PS @ Slrub Yes, rather intimate, but said beautifully. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

3rr

You have been asked to discuss your reversions on the talk page of Franz Boas but instead you have committed 3 reversions, without discussion, within a 24 hour period. Additional reversions will be reported as a violation of the three revert rule. See 3rr. Jim Bowery (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Steve, the above was placed on your user page. I moved it here so you would see it. - Jeeny 22:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Egfrank

..is a she! :-) Egfrank (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

How's this?

Scientific method#Pragmatic model The Tetrast (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

NOR revolutions

And I mean revolutions by something that goes round in circles...;) I just now jumped back into it after I saw them edit warring over the disputed policy section tag Cogden created especially for this particular dispute...the tag is long past its time and doesn't belong if it ever did. Tagging an official policy page section as being disputed seems to me to be the most ridiculous of things - fine for a mainspace section, but a policy page is a whole different animal...it's not policy if it's under some kind of official cloud. There was consensus for the current version and a few editors are insisting on it being changed - that just doesn't warrant a tag. If it were a truly disputed section not backed by consensus, the it should be removed, not tagged.

Well, thanks for letting me vent. You're always welcome to join back in, looks like there's some renewed vigor to get this thing done - one way or another.

Good to hear from you! Dreadstar † 23:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

NO policy should ever have a disputed tag. Disputed edits ought to be removed to the talk section for discussion until there is no dispute!! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Thanks! I tried to explain it in some detail here, but I think SlimVirgin hit it very succinctly when she said that it destabilized the policy. No dispute tags on Policy pages...we should make that a policy...;) Dreadstar † 16:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What would be an appropriate short name for you? I tried "Slr" which looks like 'Sir"...maybe "Slrub"? Although that looks like shrub..looks nice anyway.....just checking to see what your thoughts are, Mr. Slrubenstein...;) You can call me "Dread" for short... :D Dreadstar † 19:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

How should we handle this tag dispute? One editor suggested the protection be removed so the revert war over the tag could continue, and the other doesn't understand why those tags are bad on policy pages...and then makes some fairly skewed comments about consensus and what's happening, all in this section. What's the best way to address this? Dreadstar † 03:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixing R&I

You know, about a year ago I nominated this article for deletion, I was a new user, and I didn't really "get" the idea that even fringe theories can have neutral articles. So, after that I worked hard to add information to the article so that it would give the whole picture and so that there would not be "undue weight" for the theories of Rushton and Jensen. My goal was to have those theories represented in proportion to their actual scientific prominence and degree of acceptance-- I still think the article is way out of wack, unbalanced, at times schizophrenic. So what should we do to move this article forward? The process is stalled and I don't know if it is worth my time or not to participle in Kevin's, piece by piece revision plan. Before the page was protected I had gotten the article to a state where I thought, with some pruning and smoothing it might make sense, but then everyone decided to merge the whole page and not much has happened since. People come by and complain, but none of these people participates in the revision process. I don't like the revision process because I think it is important to look at the article as a whole rather than section by section. I think we need a new approach. Do you have any ideas?

Also,I don't know if you know this but I've had to bring a case to Arbcom. It's really exhausting and I feel as though all kinds of people are getting involved and the whole thing is spiraling out of control. There is this one comment that implies that I've been responsible for "edit waring" at the race and intelligence article. I mean, have I? I don't even know anymore. I think I got a "warning" that I was on the verge of breaking 3RR about a year ago... but, I was new then, and I even apologized at the time, never even been warned since... so I don't know what this is all about or where it is going. They are talking about putting up some kind of "ban on sight policy" on "Race and Intelligence" --and it seems like I'm being blamed for the poor quality of the article, although indirectly. (Picaroon, won't give specifics.)

This is really stressing me out.

futurebird (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you position, but when one tries to bring this up people feel the topic is being censored. I have tried to compromise, and perhaps that is the problem. I think the key here, is the fact that when we group all of theses things together: that is when we put Rushton's theories in the same article as Steele's Stereotype threat research we're doing original research in the sense that we are saying that these views should be considered together. It implies that they are equally mainstream and this is simply not the case.

I'm not going to bother with the revision process anymore. What do you think of this proposal?

Proposal

Let's not have an article on race and intelligence. Before anyone cries "CENSORSHIP" or anything of that sort let me explain. The views of Rushon and Jensen belong in their biography articles, or in articles on their books and papers and the controversies that they have caused. The views on race and its nature as a social construct belong in the articles on race, and the articles for the academics who holds those views. The discussion of test gaps belongs in the article in test gaps etc.

Our attempt to provide a summary of this topic as a summary has failed because it continues to result in an original synthesis of information, and because there is not a definitive position on the topic "race and intelligence" or even race and IQ.

My proposal is that we take the material in this article and move each item to its proper place so nothing is deleted and no information is lost and then delete this article.

arbcom

I would love it if you would look at the arbcom case, any advice that you have would be more than welcome. I'm sorry to here that you're feeling down on the wiki at the moment. I've always respected you opinions.futurebird (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

last question

By the way in taking this position with Race and intelligence I feel that for the sake of consistency and honesty we might need to look at the article race and health (which is mostly my work) and consider if a similar approach is needed. So far, I've taken the position that these kinds of articles are fine, as long as they cover all of the possible interpretations, but I'll ask you if you think Race and heath] is also original research, or is there a difference in this combined subject? futurebird (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Low point

Hi Steve, I noticed your comment about being at a low point with Misplaced Pages at the moment. I feel the same, I feel we just keep going round in circles and am struggling to work up any enthusiasm for editing. I seem to spend most of my time on talk pages repeating myself. I've been thinking about the email you sent me regarding the race article and I think you're right. I have cut back a lot on my Wiki time over the last several months, and had originally assumed that the spit of the race article had been thoroughly debated and that there was a consensus for it. If you want to have a go at reconstituting it to a proper article then I will support you 100%. I think it's like this; if we allow the article to be split up, then really we end up with the same situation as with the plethora of R&I articles we had recently. We have a set of relatively incoherent articles which are all really pov-forks. On reflection I also agree that it is very important to keep all of this information together to make it coherent. I have had so many bad experiences on article talk pages over the last year or so that I try inordinately hard to debate and explain my position etc. so as to avoid conflict, obviously this is time consuming and mostly fruitless. I wonder if we should start an RfC on the race article and try to make a case for getting it put back together? The worst that can happen is that we don't succeed after all, and at least we get the opportunity for a proper debate, which I know you feel was missing during the slit of the article. What do you think? You know your contributions here are greatly admired and you are very much respected by me and many other users. All the best. commie scum 17:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Race

At the time the split seemed like a good idea, that is I supported the creation of a redirect page so that race (as in footrace) would not get buried... but it has become a content fork! Race and genetics and "social race" or whatever it is called need to be merged. The article on race and genetics is in dire need of work, I don't know if all of the information on it is really even talking about race-- This is the problem that keeps coming up. Articles about populations clusters, and mainstream genetics get hopelessly commingled with semi-mainstream work that talks about the loose and imprecise relation between self-identified race and genetics, then trends that appear on a racial level-- which are directly attributable to socially constructed race: things like health, intelligence etc- are pinned on genetics. It's a paper chain of original research and only a few fringe theory guys support it-- but the treatment in the wikipedia makes it appear more legitimate and more mainstream that it actually is.

I think that the general idea should to be to "avoid the paper chain"

I almost want to write a policy page WP:Avoid the Paper Chain

To be honest I'm feeling worn out right now, but I'll start reading after my math finals are over and see if I can help in any way. futurebird (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

over the top

I hate to be annoying about these things but "You do not seem to know much about anything relevant to this article and have nothing to contribute. " That's over the top. You should strike it, as it's not really helping the debate. I mean even if this guy is being frustrating. Patience-- channel some inner peace. OOOOhm... that's my 2 cents. futurebird (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD page

Hey, can you close the AfD page for 'R&I in US', I have no idea how to do that and not home at the moment (public pc). Thanks and ciao, Brusegadi (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You hate me, don't you?

)

Have you voted? Guettarda (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding twin studies - what do you think of this? Guettarda (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sig omitted

Hi, and nice to catch up. Just a brief note - I think this edit needs a sig added.

See you soon on some article or other. FT2  14:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Race debate

Hi, now that we have the Race article back in it's full form, do we need to keep the article Race debate? It just repeats a lot of the info in the original article. Alun (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 23:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

COGDEN RFC

Added the following comments to the RFC talk page. Would it be possible to address them? Thanks. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Allegations regarding sourcing of LDS article edits

The RFC description section currently contains the following statements:

The trigger for this seems to have been his editing of pages related to the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon Church), an area he works in a lot. While his work on these articles is appreciated, his attempts to change the NOR policy to make his reliance on early Church sources more appropriate has become problematic.

However, evidence in support of these claims appears not to have been provided. The diffs provided are based on edits to WP:NOR and its talk page. Would it be possible to provide specific diffs identifying edits to LDS articles that are perceived as inappropriate to support the above claims? These claims strike me as particularly strong, and particularly relevant to the allegation that User:COGDEN's edits and discussions were not based on good faith, yet there doesn't seem to be any supporting evidence provided. I do not believe it is appropriate to make such allegations without providing specific supporting evidence. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Race

Hi, I'm quite happy with the sections about molecular biology in the Race article. I've just had a little edit of the "clines" section, hopefully to clarify a few things regarding clinality and classification. I still want to have a look at the "Populations" section. I might have a go at the subspecies sections as well in the near future depending on time constraints, I'd like to introduce some discussion about phylogenetics and might rename the section something like "Race and taxonomy". I'm going to take a backseat for a little while at the "Race and intelligence" talk page because it's distracting me from the "race" article, where I feel I can do some more actual editing and possibly more good. The Race and intelligence article has several people all more or less saying the same thing, Futurebird, Ramdrake, yourself and me, so I don't think I need to be spending as much time there as I am. All the best. Alun (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Race

Hello Slrubenstein! Sorry for the delay in my reply. Done some stuff - not much... Was there some particular issue you had in mind? And remember, English is not my first language...! The Ogre (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Franz Boas

• Hi there Rubenstein, can you send me the exact quote if possible about Boas, himself, supposedly claiming he did not identify himself whatsoever as a Jew ? Epf (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

see WP:AGF. You said a citation was needed, and I provided it. By the way, learn to spell the man's name correctly. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• No, I want a direct quote showing explicitly him saying such. You can't just post a random quote without verifying it. Epf (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

And I want you to assume good faith, and show the minimum amount of respect to a fellow editor and one who knows much more about you on these topics, as is evident from my contributions. I am neither your teacher nor your therapist so I cannot undo whatever damage has made it impossible for you to understand simple facts or to treat others with basic courtesy. Alas, I will have to accept not geting what I want. And you will have to accept Misplaced Pages policies. You asked for a citation and I provided one; that is what I need to do to comply with policy. And I defy you to prove that I posted a random quote. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Assume good faith ? What place does that have in a scientific discussion or in an encyclopedia that values verifiability above all else ? You are required to verify all that you can regarding source material, especially when it is requested by other users. You arrogantly and honestly think you are "...one who knows much more about" me "on these topics..." ? You are claiming this from what, your own contributions, but when one compares them to mine or our discussions, you can see this is not the case. Most of your contributions would seem to easily take away what credence and neutrality you have in these topics. The fact you consistently resort to personal attacks when invovled in these discussions not only shows your immaturity and "lack of courtesy", but your own lack of understanding. You are ignoring the facts and refusing to acknowledge another, quite valid point of view. You posted quotes to back up a statement, yet refuse to provide me with the exact, detailed text. Why ? Did you even read or do you even have the text you are referring to ? If not, then did you just find the information of a source that relates to the material, and claim it supports your statement ? You are evidently the one who is in need of accepting Wikipolicy, and perhaps a "teacher" or "therapist" as you would seem to advise. Epf (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I even provided you with the link, and you still do not know what place AGF has? So you are lazy to boot, but i already knew that. Now, what other point of view and I ignoring? I thought this was about providing a citation for a statement, not acknowledging some point of view. So what point of view are you referring to? In any event, your continued hysterics fail to pursuade me of anything. You said I posted a random quote. Prove it. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Link ? What link and to which source ? I'm lazy to boot ? What are you talking about ? The other point of view you're ignoring would be, umm, mine (I figured that would be obvious for you), but that is regarding other issues we had. Wow, you label anything that challenges your views as "hysterics", your ignorance and lack of understanding grows by the second ! I suppose the quote was not random, but you fail to provide me with direct text stating what you claim in the article. I did not anticipate my reply would persuade you of anything, since even if it were my intention, it would appear no one is capable of doing so. Epf (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You wrote "Assume good faith ? What place does that have in a scientific discussion or in an encyclopedia that values verifiability above all else ?" I wrote, "I even provided you with the link, and you still do not know what place AGF has." Now, if you cannot figure out what link i am referring to, you are even dumber than I thought. As for POV - please read, perhaps more slowly. I did not ask whose point of view, I asked what point of view? You seem to think I am acknowledging one point of view, and that is true, by providing the citation to Cole that Boas did not identify himself as a Jew, I am providing the view that Boas did not identify himself as a Jew. What point of view are you referring to? By the way, if you want to change the subject to whose point of view, the point of view I am providing is Boas's, according to Cole. It is not my view, because editors should not put their own views into articles. i realize that this is hard for you to understand since all you ever do is push your own personal point of view. I am glad you came right out and admitted it here, that you just want to represent your own view. Honest - but a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• You continue to make obviously unfounded personal attacks and prove just how little intellectual validity you posess in this matter. You continue to confuse here and you did not post any link whatsoever to any Wikipolicy on "Assuming Good Faith". I am obviously aware of this policy, but Wiki itself admits that it is secondary to verifiability (the basis for any encyclopedia). Do you honestly need me to specify "what point of view" I was referring to ? I was referring to not only this disagreement over a quote, but to our numerous other disagreements on other source material and text. With regards to the quote about Boas "not identifying as a Jew", I want you to provide me with the exact, direct text from the source you claim to support this notion with. If you can not do this, then you can not say that you have material supporting your statement. "It is not my view, because editors should not put their own views into articles" - if only you heeded this statement of yours and acted in such a manner, too bad this is not the case. "I am glad you came right out and admitted it here, that you just want to represent your own view" - I did not say this whatsoever and you AGAIN re-word and misinterpret my statements. Your belligerence is becoming almost intolerable, how old are you ? I am going to remind you one more time about Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks which you have consistently violated with insulting comments. Continue to do so and you will be reported. Epf (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"you did not post any link whatsoever to any Wikipolicy on "Assuming Good Faith"." Another lie. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Group, Kinship

I won't violate the 3RR, but this is far from over. I'm not going to allow you to misinterpret and inaccurately represent quotes and information on these articles. You know you have no validity in our argument regarding these articles, yet you persist on entering your own biased POV sentences. We have discussed this and there seems no getting through to you because you know you are at fault here, but do not wish to admit it. All that is left it would appear is for us to edit. Till next time. Epf (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

My edit complies with NPOV, your edit pushes your own POV. Get over it. I defy you to provide any evidence that my edit misrepresents or misinterprets anything. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Interesting you say that since I already pointed out various occasions, as is shown on the talk pages for both articles, where you did misrepresent, misinterpret and inaccurately enter quotes and sources. Your edits do not comply with NPOV, and you are the one who is pushing your own POV by not recognizing something so obvious. Enough with the pretending and perhaps you should get involved in studying how to be scientifically unbiased. You yourself appear to need time to both learn and mature. Do not resort to personal attacks, stick to the issue. Epf (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Bluster all you want - repeating your assertions do not make them true. I asked you to point it out and you don't, because you cannot. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• I honestly can not believe you just claimed, again, that I have not pointed them out. I did, several times, on both Talk:Kinship and descent and Talk:Ethnic group, especially the latter. You never acknowledged or admitted to the claims when they were pointed out to you, you merely ignored them. You also continue to enter information inaccurately and through your own biased POV on the ethnic group article. You are not fooling anyone and you aren't getting away with this ridiculous behaviour. Epf (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

More empty bluster, no surprise. Yaddah yadah yaddah. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• More ignorance and little thought into an intelligent reply, no surprise here either. Epf (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you have yet to provide any reply to my question, let alone anything intelligent, there really isn't any other comment I can make. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have provided replies and you can view them for yourself on those talk pages. I have pointed out extensively the instances where you did not enter quotes accurately, and only through your own opinionated statements, especially on the ethnic group article. You yourself never replied or admitted to the infractions then, so I dont't expect you to do so now. Judging from your own comments here, I don't think you have the ability to recognize an intelligent discussion when you see one. Epf (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)