User talk:Slrubenstein/Archive 22

Talk:Race_and_intelligence
Your ideas look great, I just hope the nutters, racists and the rest can be reined in.

On question: are you aware of any cases were IQ has been measured periodically in nations where socio-economic and other environmental factors have improved dramatically? It would seem logical to me that as socio-economic status improves, the educational system should improve, access to literature and other learning materials should increase, more time should be available for exploring pursuits of the mind rather than engaging in physical labour, thus IQ scores should rise. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 16:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In line with Jim's suggestion, maybe there's enough data on IQ testing say in India over the last 50 to 100 years to make the point. These seem to indicate that many studies on the factors affecting IQ were undertaken in India. Found those with a 5-min search, and didn't read them, so I can't vouch how really germane they are, but someone with a better access to scientific research literature than me could probably have a field day.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jim. Your ideas are outstanding, and we're here to help and to lead as necessary.  The article, as now written, gives too much weight to the nutjob theories.  I only ran across this article because I watch MastCell's page, and so a posting from you.  When I read the article, and the edit history, I nearly got ill.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 00:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've expanded (and then expanded, and then expanded) my thoughts on guidlines for the aricle Guidelines for the Race-IQ edit war, in my sandbox for the moment as I don't want to add yet more yardage to the talk pages Nick Connolly (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind comments. I do think we need to rename the article to "The Race IQ debate", as a race and intelligence article it isn't NPOV but as a Race and IQ article its more NPOV :). The leap from IQ to g to intelligence is itself controversial. I think many people have (reasonably) a low opinion of IQ testing and hence any speculation based on IQ tests will look to them very weak. I agree with you statement about experts from appropriate fields but that will occur anyway: Jensens views have been critcised by anthropologists (Montagu), biologists (Leowontin, Gould) and psychometricians (Flynn). Most of that is already in there. I think the best structure for the article, without major rewrite, is as a debate; claim, counter-claims, response. The Jensen et al position gets a boost by being the main focus, the counter-positions get a boost by sheer numbers. Nick Connolly (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Brahmo
Thank you for you message about the article Brahmo. It seems to be a rather pointless fork of Brahmo Samaj. I'm not sure what point you are making about images. As I'm sure you know, Roy was influenced by Islamic and Judeo-Christian ideas about an unrepresentable creator-God, and rejected Hindu iconophiliac tradition. However, his 1830 principles involved no proscription of images as such, only of depictions of God within sacred spaces. Some which ago I created an article on one of leading Brahmos, Protap Chunder Mozoomdar, and uploaded an image of him. I have seen no objections on that page or on the pages devoted to Ram Mohan Roy himself. I can see no good reason why Brahmo should not be merged with Brahmo Samaj. Paul B (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr.S.L.Rubenstein. Mr.Barlow has just placed a "merge" tag on Brahmo and Brahmo Samaj. It appears to be triggered by a message you sent him to which I am not privy. This "merge" tag is quite unacceptable to me and is certain to result in edit wars. It is unfortunate (in my view) that this is being sought to be done when the Brahmo page is under expansion and development to the eventual highest standards of Wikipedia - whereas the Brahmo Samaj page is relatively stagnant / static and fails miserably to conform to WP despite passage of time. After going through certain User Talks between yourself and Mr.Barlow I gather that both have you have interacted often. I would not like our little Brahmo article to be used to settle "Abrahamic" debates nor will we take sides but we shall resolutely defend our faith in public in complete accordance with Wikipedia norms, protocols and conventions. Your point about "images" is a core issue for Brahmos - you appear to have caught the essence of it (which imho Mr. Barlow has not) but again I am not privy to what you have communicated to Mr.Barlow. Ram Mohun Roy was influenced by many things (some of which are not in the public domain nor should ever be), but as I have said (to you) the fact that he may have been influenced by Judeo (?) ideas is unproveable. You can be assured that User:Ronosen shall not make such unsubstantiated claims in WP again. The fact that Mr. Barlow uploaded an image to Protap Chunder Mozoomdar without objection is irrelevant- since Mr.Mozoomdar (in our view) is not a Brahmo. Mr.Barlow may care to re-read Mr.Sib Chunder Deb's famous 1878 reply to Mr.Mozoomdar who was then Asst. Secretary of the Brahmo Samaj of India. Had Mr. Barlow uploaded an image of Debendranath Tagore to the Brahmo Samaj page there would have been uproar. This is also not the place or time or forum to educate Mr.Barlow about all aspects of Brahmoism. I am also copying this to Mr.Barlow and formally voicing my opposition to his merger proposal and requesting him to remove the merger tag himself. If at all it is possible we should all resolve this privately on MY Talk page rather than on the Brahmo Samaj Talkpage which is like throwing a match into a pool of petrol (gasoline). My apology for any indiscretion/ lapse/ inadvertent offence. Yvantanguy (talk) 05:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Slrubenstein.I am very sorry for intruding on your time again. Almost immediately to User:Ronosen's comments on Judaism, the Brahmo Samaj group have yesterday released this document on the internet, http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dssvmvw_57f8j8f4fw which claims that Ram Mohun Roy studied Talmud, Tarjums of Jonathan and Hilel, Syriac, pre-Christ Rabbinacal commentaries etc. The speech delivered in 1933 (the venue is intensely controversial) concludes "Thus the Raja’s mind was enriched with the highest and the best in Semitic culture in both the Hebraic and Arabic traditions, and above all he imbibed in an unbiased spirit the Christian culture, which he traced to a blend of Hebraic stock with Greek, Roman and heathen grafts.". We are very troubled, because it was never our intention to interfere in other people's affairs or thrust into their histories. My question to you is if the said document (in your valued neutral opinion) meets WP standards / policy for citation especially in core theology for WP? I specify that this query is not with respect to Judaism. Yvantanguy (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

R&I article
Don't call other editors racists on Talk page. Not even one more time. --Jagz (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've struck out the above "threat" and am reviewing the situation. Sorry for taking so long to respond to your comment.--Jersey Devil (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Kinship

 * Hi, I just read your post on my talk page and I'm going to go over those sources at some point. I think including the information by Wolf on the ethnic group article is fine, though it does need to be cleaned up a little and condensed. Considering the pertinence between the two articles, do you agree for now with at least leaving the current link to Kinship on the Ethnic group article ? Epf (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Community sanction noticeboard for Jagz, anyone?
Like the headline says. I'm about to lose all remaining patience over this. Suggestions welcome.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright queries about Images hosted on Brahmo Samaj page
Dear Slrubestein. Perhaps recent discussion on Talk page of Brahmo Samaj may interest you. I sense some interesting parallels with your (?) somewhat recent comments under "WHY?" on Mr. Paul_B's Talk page. Thanks and my apology if I am bothering you. Yvantanguy (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

mediation
sounds increasingly necessary. some kind of structure is needed. everytime i think we've hit on some point of agreement, one of the dozen or so editors in the discussion says we have not. --Legalleft (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've suddenly understood where the communication problem appears to be. --Legalleft (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

How do we now formally procede with mediation? I agree to Tim Vickers, do we each have to send some sort of overt agree somewhere? Nick Connolly (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've put a link to the Requests for mediation on the article's talk page. I haven't run a mediation before, so I'm not sure if I'd be the best choice, although I could comment on the text if the mediator thought that would be useful. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the mediation, one possible way to go forward would be to proceed with mediation without naming Jagz as a party (basically, considering him as a pure troll). I believe his last objections seem to confirm that he is likely to be one (at least as far as this article is concerned), and that this might be a permissible way to proceed.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

a useful template
Do you remember the conversation we had last autumn about creating a user warning for hate speech. Well somebody else got round to making one for racially motivated editing - Template:Uw-ra. Hopefully you wont need to use it but its always helpful to have these things to hand-- Cailil  talk 23:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Glossary of Christian and Jewish terms
Another editor has added the  template to the article Glossary of Christian and Jewish terms, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
If you keep up the personal attacks like on the R&I Talk page and Tim Vickers Talk page, I will post a complaint on the Administrators' noticeboard. --Jagz (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * stop being belligerent. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 09:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion please...
Can I ask for your opinion please? Actually, a couple of opinions, if you don't mind.

I posed some questions on WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard about two months ago. One of them concerning whether a certain kind of reference should be considered a "primary source", or a "secondary source". My question only netted one reply, from User:Wjhonson. Wjhonson asked some questions. I offered a detailed reply. And Wjhonson concluded.
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * Yes, imho, summaries of the type you outline above would be considered secondary sources.
 * Yes, imho, summaries of the type you outline above would be considered secondary sources.

I figured my question only netted one reply because people agreed with Wjhonson.
 * }

Well, during a recent afd other participants raised the concern that the memos the article used were not secondary sources. I cited that query and its reply as a counter-argument, and it didn't seem to sway anyone.

I'd appreciate knowing whether you agree with Wjhonson's conclusion that the kind of sources I described should be considered "secondary sources".

Since then I took a closer look at User:Wjhonson's contributions and saw they had archived a discussion at [] where you were one of the other leading participants. That is why I have taken the liberty of asking your opinion.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. It was a lot longer that I expected.  Let me respect the time constraints you mentioned, and not burden you with a long second message.


 * If I understood you properly, it is whether contributions comply with WP:NOR that really matters, not whether the references used meet an arbitrary definition of being a "secondary source". Have I got that right?  If so, I agree completely.


 * It seems to me as if many of my challengers have some kind of unconscious sense there should be some kind of cap on the number of bytes devoted to the topics I work on, and they can then hunt for interpretations of policies, even bizarre ones, to justify deletion.


 * I do find the unwillingness some of my challengers to engage in civil reasoned dialog to be highly disturbing.


 * WRT your list of 39 favourite films -- I haven't seen them all. But most of the ones I have seen top my list too.  2001 came out when I was a kid, and it was my number one film for about 20 years.


 * Thanks again! Geo Swan (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion
I offered my views here. Hope this helps, Brusegadi (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Sorry
SL, I'm sorry. I've beeen so busy lately trying to work, play golf thrice a week and getting in some boat time, that I've been remiss at WP. I took a look at the issues and can't see where there is cause for arbitration unless (can't remember the name) participates. I don't agree with all of his tactics/politics, but I do think that alot of whitewash political correctness and reverse propaganda has been trimmed from the article. I sure wish that we could live in a more perfect world where we all pulled on our different oars in the same direction. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Jagz
Hi. :) I'd like ask you to please refrain from edits like these. I am not involved in editing that article (and really, really don't want to be) and understand from my peripheral observations of it that it must be a frustrating article to work on. I find that approach problematic, though. It seems likely to me to escalate conflict and drama rather than reduce it. This editor came to my talk page—I presume because I have protected the article during edit wars in the past but otherwise keep far, far away from it—and I am trying to encourage him to resolve his disputes within process. If you find him unacceptably disruptive to the article, maybe you should seek an RfC or take it up at ANI? I see there is history between you (just glancing at his talk page) and understand if you'd prefer not to address him yourself. But unless he is prohibited from editing the article, I think it's not a good idea to discourage others from talking to him about content-related issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for your response. :) I'm getting ready to head out of the country for a couple of weeks, so I'm probably not the best person to do informal mediation at this point. I'd be game to give it a shot (I suppose, with serious trepidation), when I come back. Frankly, I'd rather not work on this particular article in any capacity; I'm only here now because back in November a CSD tag resulted in a subpage being hosted in my userspace; all other participation has cascaded from that. While I don't mind handling hard topics, this one screams "racist magnet" and that steps on some of my own issues. I can deal neutrally with racists, but I'd prefer not to have to on a regular basis. Too much biting of the tongue can't be good for it.


 * Meanwhile, I have advised Jagz to accept formal mediation and to work within policy, although I did not advise him to make an application for formal mediation. That's a good idea. But please note that I'm not asking you to accept any disruptive edits. I'm only asking you to try to respond to him within policies. If he's got a COI on that article that disrupts it, he probably shouldn't be working on that article.


 * I'm a relatively "young" admin, particularly when it comes to content disputes and user behavior. The vast majority of my work is in deletions. I've never been involved in initiating a topic ban or an RfC on user conduct. (I had started a topic ban discussion on ANI once, but the user wound up being indef blocked for extensive sock-puppetry, so it became a non-issue.) I don't know how productive those avenues actually are. The only content RFC in which I was ever involved (except as a participator) received 0 responses. I do not know what steps may have already been tried to handle disruptive influences on this article or how difficult it may be to process through those steps. But it does seem to me that the current tag you're using is likely to muddy the waters if at some point it does land in a more formal evaluation area. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * All that time writing, and I feel like my "landing" is limp. :D I'm not saying "Give peace a chance." As a non-participant in this article, I don't currently have a basis to judge whether you can or cannot achieve a working relationship with this particular editor. You obviously feel strongly that you can't. What I'm saying, then, is that rather than attempting to informally ban him—which is what you seem to an outsider to be doing in advising other editors not to interact with him on the talk page—why not go through the process to let the community help handle him? If he's disruptive, as you obviously feel he is, wouldn't it be better to restrict his involvement altogether? I don't think we should tolerate disruption. It may be naive (I don't say that disingenuously; I know it may be naive. As I said above, I don't know how effective these processes are), but I still cling to the hope that we can not tolerate it by eliminating it. Heavy expenditure of energy early on, I know; but if evidence is clear, there seem to big long term rewards. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for responding. I'm sure this is a sore subject, and I appreciate the time you took in crafting your response. :) I would like to clarify one thing: "I am afraid nothing you will say at this point will change my mind." I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm really striving to be neutral here, which means taking no position whatsoever. I'm not trying to be a peacemaker. I'm not going to ask you to give him another chance. As a neutral party, I have no reason to presume he merits one. I'm sorry if my efforts to be neutral have made it seem that I am arguing for leniency. I believe disruptive editing shouldn't be tolerated, be it on Race and intelligence, Evolution or Strawberry Shortcake. I just wanted to talk about process. :D If any editor is irredeemably disruptive, then he or she should be "politely but firmly removed" (wikilink for GFDL, not because I think you don't know it). If you think he's reached the point where he is "unwilling or unable to set issues aside and work harmoniously with others" (same source), then I think you should move towards community ban. I hope that this is one of those processes that runs well on Wikipedia and that responders will evaluate the evidence fairly. And, again, thanks for responding. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Slr. Were you aware of this ? Mathsci (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Jagz opened the door. I'm afraid this time I jammed it open. We'll see where it leads.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Dysgenics
Hello. There is a content RfC currently open at Dysgenics on which you may wish to comment.--Ramdrake (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"WP:DNFTT Slrubenstein |  Talk 18:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)"

 * ? --Jagz (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What question are you asking? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * THe poor man wants to know why you and others consider him to be a troll. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:50,30 April 2008 (UTC)

I explained, in great detail, over the course of several weeks, on the Race and Intelligence talk page, why I think Jagz is a troll. I see no need for further explanation to this question; indeed, asking for an explanation when an explanation was given is just a sign of more trollish behavior. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 08:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Article Talk pages are not the proper forum. --Jagz (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No page is the proper forum for a troll. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL. As you noted, WP:DNFTT  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 20:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

R&I
For a section called history, it sure seems like a lot of "history" (just think wogs and the rest of the AS drivel) is conspicuously absent. I mean, there's no point in mentioning that the Brits felt superior to anyone with darker skin (even the Indians who developed a writing system 3,000 years before the Brits, AS's, etc.) was intellectual pond-scum. OK, I'm done the rant part of this post. Surely, there is someway to present this "subject" in a more academic form. I hope??? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "What can I do?" -- nothing really, I was just venting. Even if you and I dedicate our efforts to cleaning up the pseudo-intellectual effluvium that dominates the article I think we'll be doing no more than did Sisyphus in the end as there will always be someone raising the hill and causing the rock to crash down upon us.  Still, it bothers me that such garbage exists.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I shall work on your suggestion. :)  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 20:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you keep an eye on this
Hi Slrubenstein hope you're keeping well. Would you mind keeping an eye or two on this. I made a post to BrownHairedGirl's page about this issue and I could do with some outside eyes on it to make sure my assessment of the situation is proper-- Cailil   talk 17:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just so you know I have had to post at FTN (see FTN). Blackworm doesn't seem to get what either of us have said about WP:LEAD or the text in question.  Could you run your eye over his latest post on talk:feminism - I feel like he's 'moved' his position from what it was - maybe I'm just wrecked from all of this today-- Cailil   talk 01:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Cultural relativism in Psychohistory
Hi.

You've talked about cutural relativism in the childrearing article; I'm not sure if the misrepresentation thereof is still there, but I posted on this on the talk page of Psychohistory, where it definetely still is. Just giving you a heads up, as I'm more or less continuing your line of argumentation on the subject. I've actually taken a course on the anthropology of human rights, where I for the first time was faced with what exactly the popular representation of anthropology as cultural relativism was, so this is nothing new to me. However, I think user:Cesar Tort needs to understand that this is a view of anthropology from without, and doesn't represent the discipline itself.

Also, good job bringing the anthropological viewpoint to the article :).

-R2


 * Thanks! It is an uphill battle. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Genetics
Hey, SLR - I wrote a 'evidence from genetics' section for Evidence of common descent. Would you look it over and see what parts of it are impenetrable to non-specialists? Graft | talk 21:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Intelligence
You may find this article interesting:

http://www.africaresource.com/content/view/528/236/

http://www.africaresource.com/content/view/528/236/

--70.68.179.142 (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Judaisms view of jesus
Would you mind taking a look at this section of the talk page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Judaism%27s_view_of_Jesus#Does_this_article_really_have_the_right_title.3F

I think that user:Dthrax's edit does clarify the subject but I wanted your opinion before reverting. Best Wolf2191 (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for respoding. The issue seems to have cleared itself up. I would imagine that citations from Talmud and Rishonim and then from prominent theologians and Rabbis (Heschel, Soloveitchik,etc.) from each of the big 3 (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform - I don't really think we have to bother to much about small groups such as Karaites,etc.) ought to be the standard for Judaism articles. BestWolf2191 (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Other editors
Please be cautious when commenting about other editors, I've stepped in to try and keep the discussion on track. If other editors are misbehaving, please let me know and I'll look into it. Thanks. Dreadstar †  16:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

How are you?
SL, it looks like the battles still rages at R&I, don't see an end probably. Don't let it get you down. How are you otherwise? I'd like to see your keen eye more involved in some of the policy issues if you have some time. Talk to you soon. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus is being worked on, and I think is getting better, but is inconsistent with what I think works on contentious articles like R&I etc. --Kevin Murray (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Internal consistency of the bible
Hi SLR. I'm currently working with some others on Internal consistency of the Bible. Naturally, it's a touchy subject. I'm restricting my own efforts to the first section, titled "Religious Views of Consistency" or some such. My objective is to transform it into a decent introduction to the subject, covering the subject-areas under which consistency can be sought - by my own reckoning, these are narrative consistency (does a story, a pericope, hang together - the story of David and Goliath, for example, obviously does not hang together with the story of David as the king's harpist vis-a-vis Saul's failure to recognise him); canonical (there are and have been many biblical canons, and recognising this fact is the beginning of wisdom for those whio wish to defend the bible as the inerrant word of God); manuscript consistency (rather like the canons - how do you weigh the LXX against the Masoretic?); and finally and most importantly, theological consistency. This last is where I want your help. There both is and is not theological consistency in the bible. It consistently treats certain themes such as monotheism, covenant, and redemption. It does not give consistent treatments of those themes. I want to fit all that (I mean, the question of theological consistency and inconsistency) into a single paragraph at the end of the section. Can you do it? Can you do it without offending the lambs of God?PiCo (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your swift response. I can understand your reluctance to get involved in yet another contentious article, and one that isn't mainstream. And you make some good suggestions about the need to consider the Midrash and Higher Criticism - I'll make sure they get worked in. (Incidentally, I dislike the term Higher Criticism when used in a modern-day context - HC was a 19th century term, used to describe the method which would now be called source criticism; it isn't in use in scholarly circles these days. But taking your meaning to be that the views of biblical critics should be considered, yes, of course yes.)PiCo (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hitler picture
It's trolling, and the editor is probably a re-incarnation of some banned user, or a sock. I haven't had any time to look into it, though. Jayjg (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tracked down the two previous accounts - both already indefinitely banned. I've blocked this latest incarnation too. Jayjg (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It would have been very difficult to figure this out on your own, so coming to me was fine. Jayjg (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi SLR, I find it quite difficult to find a balance between assuming good faith and confronting trolls/pov-pushers. It was clear to me that Price Paul had some sort of pov to push, he'd already admitted to violating WP:POINT on my talk page, when he decided to put images of Martin Luther King and a Japanese woman into the White people article. I didn't think he was actually a sockpuppet, his edits were occasional and he wasn't edit waring. Clearly the bloke was doing some minor trolling and was somewhat disruptive, but I've seen editors do a lot worse and not get banned, people like Prince Paul are quite easy to deal with IMO. Still it's nice to see a sockpuppet caught. Personally think Jagz is a more malignant influence on Wikipedia though, but he seems to get away with a great deal, especially considering his constant breaches of talk page guidelines and passive aggressive attitude. I'm also not so sure about Legalleft, he's an inveterate pov-pusher, just because he knows something of what he's talking about doesn't mean that he's impartial or interested in writing a balanced encyclopaedia, and I tend to think pov-pushers are much more dangerous than the occasional troll who's easy enough to deal with. I'm currently having a semi break, not really actively editing, but I'll keep an eye on some pages. Take care. Alun (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Ethnic group" article: hispanics/latinos in the U.S.
Hello, I'm a little confused about your reverting of my edit on the Ethnic group article. You stated in your reason that people from Spain are not classified as Latinos or Hispanics in the U.S. I don't know if looked at my edit closely, but it previously stated that all Latin Europeans (French, Italian, Spanish, Romanian, and Portuguese) were grouped into Hispanics or Latinos in the U.S., so I removed that part and just stated "Spanish" because they would be the only nationality considered Hispanic (coming from a Spanish-speaking country). I disagree with your statement that Spaniards are not Hispanic in the U.S.; however, I think we both agree that the French, Romanians, Italians, etc., are definited not Hispanic or Latino. I am putting back my edits, but if you still strongly think Spaniards are not considered Hispanic, then please just remove that part instead of my entire edit so that it doesn't include all Latin Europeans. Thanks. Kman543210 (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * drive-by comment: surely the original statement should have read "grouped into either Hispanics or latinos". The sentence probably just needs clarifying --Enric Naval (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Just want your opinion
I ran across Water's RfA today, someone gave me a link to his blog. I might be over-sensitive to racism of any time, but everything I've read from the ADL about White Pride, is that it is equal to White Power/White Nationalism/Neo-Nazism/KKK dogma. It's sort of a "whitewashing" (forgive the pun) to make it sound better. The ADL, which is oversensitive at times, says it's a code-word for racism here. I'm strongly opposed to anyone who gives succor to racism, but I know you're involved in these issues too. What do you think? Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 19:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein, in response to your reply to me on WT:RFA/DHMO 3 regarding the above, I somehow missed one of your posts which ended up above someone I believe posted before you. Anyway, I just read it and decided to reply here. The issue with me being called a racist predates this RFA. Though comments from Orangemarlin in this RFA have been, in my opinion, directed at me in part. It started with a comment made by one admin directed to another during an RFAR last month. The situation spiraled from there and came to include me when the original offender made the same claims about me and was then supported in this by several other editors, including OM, despite a complete lack of evidence. That is the group I refer to. And many people are aware of that situation and are aware of what I meant. As far as my links on WT:DHMO 3, it's not about me, it's about DHMO, so I limited the linkage to those regarding him. Those regarding me are being gathered for another process. If you were, however, already aware of the links I posted, then I'm a bit concerned about your comments made before mine. Hopefully that helps clear things up a bit.  Lara  ❤  Love  17:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I just read the link that OM posted and I don't see where it says "white pride is a code-word for racism". Perhaps I missed it. It's talking about "White Pride World Wide", which is the slogan for Stormfront, and Don Black's meaning of the term. I fail to see where they give their meaning. The unfortunate part of this situation is the failure to find not only the distinction between white pride and white supremacy, but the distinction between white pride and the white pride movement. His comments regarding DHMO stemmed from DHMOs blog, where he spoke in support of me and my view, which I explained in detail to him. I've also sent OM this detailed explanation. Yet there is still a failure to realize that what I and others refer to as white pride is not even close to the same thing as the white pride movement or what OM refers to. He keeps comparing it to the KKK, for example. This is a narrow view that focuses only on white pride organizations, which use the term to mask white supremacy. I was not educated to any of this a month ago, but I've done a great deal of reading since, as I obviously upset a lot of people. In my research, however, I did not find I am in a great minority with my view, which is not a racist one. So that is my issue. The original offender, I will add, has since told me he does not believe I'm racist, which is great. The problem is that OM, and possibly others, aren't realizing this or letting it go.  Lara  ❤  Love  18:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

H2O RfA
No, no, absolutely not. You were not to blame at all. As far as I'm concerned that situation was resolved amicably, and I apologise for any misunderstanding there. I am however somewhat fed up with the many accusations and counter-accusations made at the RfA between supporters and opposers but most of all the behaviour of the nominator, which makes me feel very uneasy. Regards, EJF (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks
thanks. no problem. i realized after the fact that using idioms was probably a bad idea. and work is all self-inflicted, so i have no one to blame but myself. cheers --Legalleft (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

ANI - Jagz
Hi SLR, I'm notifying you of this since it involves you and since you have been mentioned (if not by name) by Plusdown there-- Cailil  talk 00:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears that Jagz has retired from the article for a year and so the ANI is moot. If it turns out that he has not, and additional voices are needed, feel free to let me know. -- The Red Pen of Doom  23:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While he has not kept his word voluntarily in the past, I do believe his agreement to a voluntary ban here with admins Mastcell and noncom does make my opinion moot at this point. I am going to AGF that he will keep his word, but if he starts editing again within the next day, (as is his pattern) that is yet one more piece of evidence that he is here editing in bad faith and I will be sure to call it out. -- The Red Pen of Doom  03:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The agreement is actually for the rest of 2008. I have not edited the article itself in several weeks as I stated several weeks ago. --Jagz (talk) 03:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Your note
I am not aware of any specifically thorny issue. It seems to me that there are a lot of people with their own ideas, pushing and pulling in different directions. I would suggest to just do what you think makes sense to you personally. Crum375 (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:European ethnic groups
Slrubenstein, why is this so difficult? I have merely reacted to a talkpage comment at an article with which I was significantly involved. That happens on Wikipedia every day (nay, every minute), nothing personal about it. I consider you a good editor, and I don't know why you insist this is "personal". It may be to you, but I know it isn't to me. --dab (𒁳) 13:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Apolgies
Re: Jagz, I misunderstood his pledge at AN/I. For the record, I do not believe that you, Ramdrake, Alun, or any other editor should be restricted from race and intelligence articles. I thought Jagz was simply pledging that he, personally, would no longer edit the articles, which I think is a reasonable solution. On re-reading, I see that he was actually pledging to do so only if a bunch of other editors were also restricted, and that's not something I support. Sorry for the confusion on my part. MastCell Talk 21:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

European Ethnic Groups
Slr, I'm not trying to pick fights with anyone. If you are concerned with the specificity and clarity of the entry contents it is not helpful to use vital terminology on the talk page in ways that are rather imprecise and unclear. I believe it is important to clarify these matters, as I believe I have done. It also appeared to me from your initial conversation that without wanting to own up to it, you were pushing genetics as if genetics was the true basis for ethnicity--e.g. there is linguistic differentiation but then there is what really defines a "people". If you feel slighted in some way because I decided that it was important to clarify these matters, then I apologize, but I found it rather impolite of you to suggest that the matter was one of my misunderstanding. You are right, I do not know what you "think" and I cannot claim to understand "you" but I can read what you write, and so can any number of people who come to that talk page. I am a fluent reader of the English language and fortunately no one has to be a mind reader to comprehend the most common meanings conveyed by its use. You words, I'm afraid, are not under your control and I've offered you a very sensible understanding of them, one that no doubt is shared by others. If you find that this reading does not coincide with your intended meaning then I suggest you don't simple make the odd excuses you have presented on my talk page, but take seriously the interpretation presented before you, as a common understanding of what your words express. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Slr, I made it abundantly clear, with direct quotes, that I was dealing with what you wrote in your answer to my initial question. It does happen that what you wrote to me suggests precisely that Dab was not crazy for interpreting your initial comments as he did, but again I was referring directly to what you wrote.  It is counterproductive to write one thing, have someone comment on what you wrote, then come back and say ... well what you've read isn't what I meant and you just don't understand me.  I understand that you wish once more to take control of your expressions after the fact and claim some kind of ownership of them, but that is not how communication functions.  You did directly suggest that a people, are such by genetic standards, as different from what ever language they may speak.  This is exactly the most clear position the text I answered takes.  If this isn't what you wish to convey consider the fact that you may be mistaken in how you have expressed yourself.  Consider that an outside observer is fully capable of reading English, and is fully capable of understanding the lexicon in question, and may have constructive criticism to offer you if in fact you are poorly expressing your thoughts.  I should not need to have read the entire talk page archive to understand this very simple point.  The article as a whole does mix and match genetic and cultural characteristics in a problematic way, and I agree with you on that and I have stated repeatedly this agreement.  On the other hand it is entirely incorrect to construe ethno-linguistic groupings in the manner you have, and doing so in fact confuses rather than clarifies this mess.  If you can't bury your pride for two seconds and understand the fact that you may be doing something counterproductive, however noble your motivations are, or however productive your end suggestion is, then I'm truly sorry for not comprehending that before engaging you in critical discussion.  When you repeatedly identify all problems with the those misunderstanding fools who naively and mistakenly believe to be actually critiquing what you have written, then my friend there is little hope for reasonable discourse.  I'll disengage.  However, I suggest you consider your use of terminology in these debates, and consider that when you think someone is "misunderstanding" you, it is in fact quite possible that you haven't been clear.  Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"It is counterproductive to write one thing, have someone comment on what you wrote, then come back and say ... well what you've read isn't what I meant and you just don't understand me." Really? How odd! What then should one say when one has been misunderstood? Are people never to try to clear up misunderstandings? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is a serious question I will answer it. Possible suggestions are: "I'm sorry perhaps I didn't present my argument clearly enough, let me try again" or "gee I can see how you think I meant that, let me try to be more exact because that's not what I meant at all".  If you do not understand the semantic differences between these types of statements and the ones you kept making I will be glad to elucidate further.  If you don't think said differences matter, I will also be glad to explain why they do.  All the best.PelleSmith (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My mistake
Sorry about the formatting mistake. Since no response had been posted to the post being made during this error, I have also replaced it with one that makes no more points of any kind to discuss. Take care and good luck.PelleSmith (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Mind reading?
I've had to push back on people who read my mind. Anyways I came across this article, and found you trying to keep the NPOV. How do you do this? You must drink heavily, or you just have the patience of Job. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 22:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

R&I
One could write a PhD thesis on the systemic problems with this article, it would be a goldmine for sociological/anthropological research into denial of institutional racism in western societies. This is not an encyclopaedic subject, though as you pointed out an equivalent article on "Social inequality and IQ" would be more acceptable. I can't in all honesty assume good faith on this talk page, I've tried by I can't, this article just makes me too angry, which is why I avoided it for so long. I have the deeply held conviction that those promoting the fallacy that non-white people are "genetically" inferior in their "intelligence" are charlatans and racists, it's just a rehash of the same arguments that were used to support slavery and segregation, it is merely an attempt to dehumanise those we wish to exploit or deny full membership of society to. Though I am not so stupid to think that this is necessarily how they see themselves. I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm trying to explain how I feel, this is my problem and I'm owning it, and so I'm not going to participate in this article any more. Alun (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK I'm back. Can't keep a good man down, needed some time to think. I had a think and I reckon I can disagree with people and keep a civil tongue in my head. I also reckon that if I get overwrought then I can rely on people like you and Ramdrake to warn me. Alun (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you're quite right, I've spent the last few days going through some sources regarding "whiteness", especially the construction of "white identities" in North America and "Great Britain", I did it for the "White people" article, but it gave me some pause. I do feel I have something to contribute here, and not from a personal perspective, but from doing investigation into the literature. Indeed Wikipedia is all about research and not "belief". I'm more convinced than ever that this "R&I" article is hugely biased in favour of racialist povs, but also that given good faith we can overcome these. I really think mediation is the way forward. I also have a great deal of respect for Tim Vickers from my brief past experiences of him, so I know he will be impartial and fair if he were to accept the onerous task of mediating this situation.
 * On a different note I wonder if you have noticed that we (yourself, Ramdrake and myself) are considered a "cabal" by some editors? I find it hilarious that respecting and asking for another Wikipedian's considered and expert opinion is now considered "solicitation". I have never been asked by yourself or Ramdrake to support you, only to give my opinion. And anyone familiar with our edit histories is eminently aware that we offer completely different analyses. I want to enjoy editing again, so I'm trying to be less emotional. Take care. Alun (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups of Europe
Hi Slrubenstein. No, I'm not 'giving up' on the article - I've just been swamped with work in my real life and have precious little spare time for Wikipedia at the moment. I don't know when I will be active again - I have a July 01 deadline and a mountain of research to do. Sorry! — Aryaman (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Which Vermes book?
Hello! I thought I'd take your advice on reading Geza Vermes book, but, looking at his Wikipedia article, I'm not sure which one you meant specifically. The Religion of Jesus the Jew is my best guess. Or is it Jesus in his Jewish Context, or Jesus and the World of Judaism? Much thanks! -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

When I have 20 minutes
Mea culpa! Mea maxima culpa! Sorry I didn't reply to your request. There's been work (a lot of it), the cats (3 queens giving birth last week alone!), and honestly probably something about my not wanting to inject myself in yet another controversy yet, at least until the dust has settled on the whole Jagz affair. If it's not too late, I'll try to give it an eye sometime this weekend. Have a good one!--Ramdrake (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Communication
Slbrubenstein, overall I think that you are a good admin, but I am increasingly concerned by some of the language that you have been using in regards to. Specifically, I wish that you would stop using terms such as "trollish" and "ignorant racist troll" in reference to him. Your recent comment on his talkpage was also uncivil, as you referred to "inane" and "silly" comments. Especially because you are an administrator, it is incumbent upon you to set an excellent example of behavior, since other editors look to you as a rolemodel. I understand that you are an "involved" editor at Race and intelligence, but your admin bit still means that you are perceived as an authority figure, even if you cannot use your tools there. Other editors will follow your example. If you call a name, they will emulate your behavior and start using that name too. To be more specific: Please try to adopt a more civil tone, and cease with the name-calling. As for Jagz, I agree with you that his behavior recently has not been as good as it could have been. But for some reason he seemed to get under your skin, and you started to make things personal. I don't know why this is, but since it has gotten to the point of name-calling, I recommend that you back off a bit. What I would like at this point, is if you could both disengage. He has agreed to voluntarily avoid editing the R&I article, and avoid direct interactions with you. You are welcome to continue editing the article, but I would like if you could disengage from comments about him, and then everyone could just move on and get back to editing. Thanks, Elonka 17:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka Jagz hasn't edited an article namespace since 19 May and he doesn't appear to have any interest in editing anything on Wikipedia whatsoever now that he cannot edit "race" related articles. Since this time he's only been interested in posting on talk pages and often this seems to be for the sole purpose of baiting other editors. he's not been interested in neutrality on R&I and he's gone out of his way to keep information that contradicts his own personal point of view (that "race" is a biological construct and that differences in "intelligence" between races is due to genetic differences between so called "races") out of the article. POV pushing is in itself usually considered a bannable offence, and Jagz is certainly a pov-pusher. I'm at a loss as to why you are so keen to unblock this guy, this is not about Slr's comments, it's about Jagz's conduct. It is not good enough to say "we should unblock Jagz because I think Slr should have been more civil", how does that logic work? Furthermore Jagz himself has said that he has nothing very much to contribute to Wikipedia, and this is backed up by the fact that he has failed to involve himself with any other article since he stopped editing "race" related articles. He's just not interested in contributing in any other way. So why are you so keen? Alun (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Alun/Wobble, your own behavior on this is far from clean. If necessary, I will pull up multiple diffs where you engaged in uncivil commentary, using terms such as "nonsense", "claptrap", "ignorant", "troll", etc, but I'd really rather not spend the time trawling through your contribs.  Instead, can we just agree that everyone should disengage from Jagz, let him try to edit other articles, and see how it works?  If he is genuinely as disruptive and malicious as everyone claims, it'll show up soon enough, and then he can be blocked again. --Elonka 18:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka, with all due respect you need to look at what Alun was responding to, which was a combination of two profoundly offensive behaviors that we do not want Wikipedia publically associated with: (1) Jagz' claims that there is scientific evidence that blacks are inherently less intelligent than whites combined with (2) Jagz' refusal to provide any evidence to support these claims, when politely asked. As for lifting the indefinite block - I never requested that and this is a matter to take up with others.  However, if the indef blck is lifted I believe strongly that Jagz has to be blocked from editing any race-related articles. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein, it would be best to provide specific diffs of something like that. But it may be moot, because as to Jagz's editing future, he has said that he will avoid race-related articles for the remainder of the year, and (assuming that the block is lifted) I intend to hold him to that promise. --Elonka 04:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka seems uninterested in evidence, but for those who are, here is a good representative sample: User talk:Slrubenstein/Jagz Slrubenstein  |  Talk 07:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, I am extremely interested in evidence. And the deeper I dig, the more I realize that there are other editors who should perhaps be removed from editing the R&I article. For example, Slrubenstein, here is an example of the kind of language that you have been using with Jagz. Is it your opinion that this is appropriate behavior for an administrator? Because I do not. Even when dealing with a blatant vandal, this kind of language is unacceptable.  --Elonka 07:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are you avoiding the actual discussion at hand? This is not about civility, jagz's or anyone else's, this is about disruption and pov-pushing. Jagz was not blocked due to incivility and no one has claimed that this is the case. You seem to be saying that others should be excluded from the article due to their lack of civility as if this were the same reason that Jagz was blocked, but it is not. Jagz was blocked for disruption and pov-pushing, but your whole defence is to attack other users for not being civil, that's a different question. If you would like to start an AN/I page discussion about the lack op civility on the R&I talk page then I think that would be a fair thing to do and I'm sure you can provide many diffs to support a general lack of civility there. But the issue with Jagz is not the civility or otherwise of any editor on the talk page, it is his long term disruption and pov-pushing. I suggest that your defence of Jagz would be better served to show that he is not disruptive or that he is not pov-pushing, because those are the specific allegations against him. Civility is a different issue, though it's fair to say there has been incivility on the talk page. Let's keep it relevant please. Alun (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka, in the spirit of de-escalating this situation, I'd like to ask that you refactor some of your own comments at ANI, specifically this one and this one, which are basically unfounded accusations. If you re-read yourself, you should easily figure out the specific sentences in these posts which need to be refactored. Thanks,--Ramdrake (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was careful not to name specific editors, though I think that some reacted strongly because they thought that I was referring specifically to them, regardless of whether or not I was. If anyone does want me to be very specific about my concerns about their behavior, I can spend the time digging up the diffs, but if I do, I'm going to write it up formally, as an official notice about incivility on said users' talkpages. My guess is that most of them don't want that, and that most are well aware of what they've said, and do not need a reminder. Specifically, I would like people to stop with the name-calling, and stop calling Jagz a "troll" and "vandal", since those terms do not apply.  If there's evidence that he was deliberately misusing sources, I would be interested in reviewing that, in a format of, "Here's a diff of him adding something with a source, here's what the source said, and look, what he added bore no resemblance to what was in the source."  Or if he was deleting sourced information without a plausible explanation, I would be interested in seeing a few diffs of that as well. But ultimately this may all be water under the bridge, since he has agreed to avoid the topic area, and to avoid the talkpages of the involved users.  Remember that blocks are preventative not punitive.  He has agreed to disengage, and I would like to see the other involved editors do the same. --Elonka 19:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would welcome an appreciate (really!) you taking the time to show us where "there were multiple disruptive editors, who were pushing for Jagz to be ejected, while other editors with equally bad behavior were not censured or even, as near as I can tell, cautioned", for example. I guess my point is that I'd like the charges to be either substantiated, or dropped altogether. As they stand, they look like innuendo, and I'd rather either be shown where I erred, or be exonerated.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Very well, I have posted a thorough response at your talkpage, Ramdrake. If anyone else wants something similar, please let me know. --Elonka 04:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka, I have never claimed to be always the height of civility, and if there is a problem with my behaviour then I would encourage you to deal with it appropriately, that is either start a user RfC on my conduct, or report me to AN/I. I am more than happy for than community to examine my behaviour, and I'm more than happy for the community to impose any sanctions it sees fit, civility and AFG are not demands that editors should allow themselves to be treated as doormats, I'm civil when other editors are civil to me, but I call pov-pushing what it is, and when nonsense is talked by people who do not understand what they are saying, then I call it nonsense, as per WP:SPADE. If the community were to decide that I've overstepped the mark then I can accept that and will take any sanction in good faith. I'm not "afraid" or "intimidated" by the community, Wikipedia works on the idea that we are a community of equals, there is no authority here. The point is that this is not about my, or Slr's or Ramdrake's behaviour, it is about Jagz's. It seems to me that your only defence of Jagz is that other editors have been uncivil, but that's not a defence of Jagz. The accusation against Jagz is of continual disruption of the talk page and pov-pushing. Of course other editors have got exasperated with him because of his behaviour, he has deliberately scuppered an attempt at mediation that all other editors on the article were prepared to contribute to,  he has also stated that the R&I article went through it's most productive period during February. Take a look at what happened, Jagz decided that the article was good enough after February to remove the NPOV template. Ramdrake asked that we have an RfC to see what the consensus was, there was an overwhelming consensus that the article was not neutral, and yet Jagz claims that this is an exemplary version of the article. Furthermore recently he claimed that the article was essentially complete, even though very few of the problems detailed in the RfC have actually been dealt with. Regarding Jagz himself, I'm relatively ambivalent about his block, if he keeps away from "race" related articles then I see no reason for him to be blocked. On the other hand it seems to me that he couldn't keep away from the talk pages of these articles, he appears to be searching for talk pages to make comments, it was inevitable that he would get blocked when he has nothing better to do than frequent talk pages looking for comments to respond to. I really admire your commitment to mentor Jagz, I think it's an honorable thing for you to suggest and I hope it all goes well. I think you have shown tremendous faith in Jagz and I hope that if I should ever get into a similar situation you would work as hard for me, he's extremely lucky to have you, and Wikipedia is lucky to have someone as selfless as you. I must admit though that I'm more than a little bemused that you have such faith in this man, but your faith may be very well placed and I may just be too jaded. All the best. Alun (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We have two different issues here, one in terms of his behavior at the R&I page, and another in terms of his behavior after the R&I discussions. For his behavior at the R&I page, Jagz was topic-banned (told to stay away from R&I) for what was claimed to be POV-pushing. I'm not sure that this assessment of his behavior was accurate, but I have not yet checked the sources for myself, and since he voluntarily agreed to stay away from those pages, I'll support the ban, meaning that he should stay away from those pages. However, after the ban was in place, and even though he was sticking to his word and avoiding those pages, he was still indefinitely blocked, with a reason of, "Long-term pattern of disruptive and tendentious POV-driven editing, capped off by trolling and vandalizing userpages of opposing editors"  I do not feel that that block was correct, and that's what I am trying to get overturned. An indefinite block was out of proportion to what he actually did. Sort of like if an editor said, "BS", and I indefinitely blocked them for "incivility, vandalism, and trolling".  Perhaps a 24-block for incivility might have been in order. But an indefinite block for "trolling and vandalism"?  No. --Elonka 14:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with your analysis, but it doesn't explain why you keep mentioning the level of incivility at the R&I talk page with regard to your attempt to overturn Jagz's ban, the level of incivility at R&I was and is irrelevant to his indeff block. He was disruptive on the R&I talk page and he was an tendentious and pov-pushing editor on the article, and no one has disputed this, not even you. No one has ganged up on him at the talk page even though he repeatedly posted unnecessary and irrelevant posts there in apparent attempts to derail constructive discussion. I would have thought that the three examples I provided of this disruption; his sabotage of mediation; his odd comment about the "egalitarian nature" of Wikipedia making the R&I article irrelevant; and his claim that the article is "essentially complete" would suffice as ample evidence of the disruption he caused, though there are plenty more examples to be found. Add to this similar tactics at the Dysgenics talk page diff diff and there's a clear pattern of disruptive behaviour that goes above and beyond incivility, this disruption has got nothing to do with incivility. No one else attempted to disrupt the talk page by making irrelevant or pointless posts on the talk page, the rest of us were far more interested in actually discussing the article and how to improve it and make it more neutral. I really don't understand why you think that repeatedly commenting on Slr, or my or Ramdrake's civility is relevant to Jagz's indeff block, because these are different issues. As far as I can see Jagz was blocked because this repeated disruption and his pov-pushing had led to a lack of faith in his motives, the posts to Mathsci's page was clearly the final straw in a long passage of disruptive behaviour and it was this that finally caused an Mastcell to lose patience with him, a patience that I have rarely seen extended to other editors who display the level of disruption that Jagz did. Furthermore myself, Ramdrake and Slr have all stated at the AN/I discussion that we are not opposed to Jagz's indeff block being lifted as long as the topic ban remains in place, which really does undermine the claim by Jagz that we three in particular, and some other editors in general, have a personal vendetta against him. Alun (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, are you sure this is wise? --Elonka 15:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Slrubenstein. Good to see that you're back editing! The above kind of micromanagement can be a little puzzling. It seems that the ghost of User:Jagz recently vandalised my user and talk page, just as Jagz did recently. (I think Elonka wrote on that occasion that it was not vandalism, just user:Jagz being humourous; we do now know a little more about his refined sense of humour.) As then, other editors reverted these changes before I even noticed them. They probably did it out of empathy, realising that it might possibly upset me, rather than bring a smile to my face.   Mathsci (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein, these kinds of comments were personal attacks, and conduct unbecoming of an administrator. Please review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and avoid this kind of language in the future. Remember that since you are an administrator, other editors look to you to set an example of behavior, so that they can model their own actions after those of the authority figures. This has even been  reinforced by ArbCom.  Please, try adopt a professional standard of behavior, not just for yourself, but for those junior editors who are looking to you as a rolemodel.  Thanks, Elonka 18:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, what kind of language, specifically? I really am confused by your message. I am starting to wonder about your priorities as an administrator. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hiya, Elonka. No "junior editors", whatever you might mean by that, take administrators as role models. You seem to be harrassing Slrubenstein. Please could you stop? Mathsci (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mathsci, for making a very important point. Elonka's claim that admins are authority figures is in fact anathema to the whole spirit of Wikipedia, and a very dangerous and disturbing claim.  Admins are janitors who have certain technical abilities required for general maintenance.  Wikipedia itself is a relatively anarchic community in which eveyone is an expert in something, in some way.  I really hope Elonka reconsiders the elitist implications of her language and just how corrosive they are to Wikipedia.  be that as it may, I still wish Elonka were specific about what "language" she was refering to. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I was specifically referring to your (Slrubenstein's) statement here, calling another editor a "racist troll", and then the assumption of bad faith in questioning how "supportive of the project" the dissenters were, mentioning User:Zero g in particular, and me by implication. There are certain venues where the latter comment about Zero g might be appropriate, such as a User Conduct RfC, ANI thread, or even Zero g's talkpage, but to make a statement like that on the talkpage of a third-party editor (Mathsci), was (in my opinion) inappropriate.


 * Next, regarding the "admins as authority figures" discussion, I strongly stand by my statement. Administrators are expected to be rolemodels.  ArbCom agrees: Requests_for_arbitration/Giano.  It is also true that administrators can take off the admin hat and be "just folks" in certain situations, such as when editing an article.  However, even there, administrators are expected to be conscious of their administrator status.  This is important: You can try to say that other editors don't regard admins as rolemodels, but it's just not true.  And I'm not just saying this as a random comment.  Keep in mind that off-wiki, I have been a professional online community manager for over 20 years.  I am very familiar with the dynamics of online communities, and am even a public speaker on the topic.  Online communities have well-recognized dynamics, one of which is that junior (newer) members of a community will naturally look to the senior (longer-term) members of the community for cues on how to act.  This goes triple for anyone acting in a sysop or administrator capacity, both because they are authority figures, and also because many junior members often dream of becoming administrators themselves, and so closely observe the behavior of existing admins, to learn how to conform to the community's expectations.


 * Lastly, be aware that I didn't even know that you (Slrubenstein) were an administrator, until Mathsci pointed it out, and emphasized that since you were an administrator, your opinion carried more weight. If anything proves that admins are regarded as authority figures, even when not using their tools, his comment should.  So please, keep in mind that other editors really are watching what you do and say. It is important that you set a good example. --Elonka 17:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka has raised two issues, first concerning the role of admins, second concerning my statement about Jagz being a racist troll. First, I cannot disagree with you more strongly about admins being authority figures. Wikipedia is an open society in which the only authority figures are Jimbo, for legal reasons, and Arb Com, which has a limited mandate. Admins are given the ability to perform certain technical tasks that are required for the functioning of the community. They should never use these abilities to serve their own interests, and should never claim that their being given certain technical tasks to perform in any way gives them any kind of authority. In fact, I believe that to encourage the view that admins are authority figures does tremendous damage to the Wikicommunity. People new to Wikipedia may look for an authority structure because most people who come to Wikipedia come from highly authoritarian societies. We need to disabuse them of this notion. Wikipedians have few obligations but the very nature of the wikicommunity dmands that its members resist attempts to create authoritarian structures. I have never, absolutely never refered to my status as admin in any dispute with any editor. It is not relevant; I do not make it relevant; those who believe it is relevant are mistaken; those who insist it is relevant are doing damage to the community. In my dealings with Jagz I appealed, as I do with any other disagreement with any other editor, to common sense and wikipedia policies, and nothing more. Conversely, the fact that he was not an admin had no bearing on our conflict either. I know that there are those at Wikipedia who believe that Wikipedians should be divided into classes with different privileges and expectations. What does Elonka mean when she says there are "junior members" of Wikipedia? Anyone can edit at any time; that is all that really counts here and it is a right given to absolutely anyone. What does Elonka mean when she says that there are "junior members" who "dream" of becoming aminds? Does she mean that they dream of having authority or of being authority figures? I hope to high heaven not, because that is not what Wikipedia is about and we should fight any attempt to make it so. If people want to dream of ecoming authority figures they can play Dungeons and Dragons, or they can be active in Everything2 which is sent up to promote explicit levels of authority. Wikipedia is not, which is why I am inactive at Everything2 and am active here. I consider this abhorrent and will oppose it until I leave or am kicked out. Elonka is free to disagree with me but as far as I am concerned she is dead wrong.

Second, Elonka thinks that my calling Jagz a racist troll is a "personal attack" and "incivil." I am confused. Is Elonka saying there are no such thing as trolls? Or is she saying we should tolerate trolls? Wikipedia has long had a guideline, "do not feed the trolls" (WP:DNFTT). Why would we have such a guideline, if there were no trolls? Is Elonka proposing that we do away with the "do not feed the troll" guideline? Well, she is free to write her own essay on the topic. But I have been here a long time and next to people who dig authority trips, trolls are the greatest menace I know of to the project. When a troll is active at Wikipedia it is essential that we identify them and ncourage others not to feed them, which is precisely what I did. Elonka is right that I have been around a long time. If this matters at all to newbies, it can only matter because of what I have learned from experience and what I have learned is how to recognize trolls, and that we should have a zero-tolerance approach to them. I cannot believe that anyone who would call themselves a responsible member of Wikipedia would actually disagree with this view and suggest that we should on the contrary feed trolls. That is just absurd. Are you really saying we should delete WP:DNFTT Elonka?

Also, I called Jagz a racist because every disruption of his was motivated by his insistence on giving prominence to the view that blacks are inherently less intelligent than whites. Sorry, Elonka, but that is racism. And racism is wrong. Do you really believe racism is right, Elonka? Then we have another area where we disagree. But let there be no mistake: ir is racism which is incivil and an attack on others. To criticize someone for racism is to criticize someone for attacking others and for being incivil ... indeed, it is to criticize someone for being worse than incivil. And look, kif we Wikipedians are told to reject incivility, then surely, we should reject racism even more strongly. Do you think Wikipedia should tolerate racism, and allow its pages to be used to promote racism, Elonka?

Finally, Elonka believes that my assertion that people who considered Jagz' calling Mathschi a "fucking bastard" who should "eat shit prick" excusable are not supportive of the project was implicitly aimed at her and inappropriate. Well, what can I say? I honestly was not refering to you, Elonka. However, if you think I was refering to you because you do believe that Jagz' calling Matchsci a fucking bastard who should eat shit prick is excusable, well, then, yes, I do not think you are supportive of the project. Zero G did in fact suggest that this was excusable. I really did not think you considered it excusable, but are you now saying you do? Why? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to support what Slr says about admins, they are not authority figures and they should not claim to have authority, they should not expect any special deference or treatment (although the norms of Wikipedia behaviour apply obviously). If they do expect special treatment, then they should probably not be admins. Administrators are permitted by the community to undertake some maintenance work on behalf of the community. I have noticed that experienced Wikipedians are often taken more seriously than less experienced Wikipedians, but this is down to a deeper involvement and understanding of the project and not any authority being invested in these editors. Still it has nothing to do with administrative status, there are many Wikipedians with a great deal of experience at editing who have never been admins, and there are good admins with relatively little experience. I will also say that the overwhelming majority of admins I have had experience with have not expected any special treatment, nor have they behaved as if they have any authority or special status, indeed I didn't even know Slr was an admin until quite recently and he never mentioned it even when we were having a very frank exchange of views about a year ago. Most admins are helpful, thoughtful and seem to have ended up as admins because they are genuinely altruistic, though of course there will always be a subset who really are on a "power trip". I will resist any attempt to create different "classes" of editor and the creation of any authoritarian structure here on Wikipedia. Alun (talk) 05:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Question
There's a question for you here Talk:Christianity and Judaism -- just rock bottom, please.Muscovite99 (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Culture GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Culture and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages of a few other editors and several related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit to bible
Per this edit, I was trying to rewrite the sentence to make the creation according to Genesis link a little more obvious. Just linking the word creation doesn't really make sense. Any suggestions? I'm not sure what you meant with your science/mythology comment? I didn't think there was a comparison (or that one was necessary if that is what you meant). The articles I linked to are intimately linked to the bible article, and should exist somewhere in the article. I'm not sure I can think of a better place either. Ben (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, users clicking the word creation will expect to find an article about creation, not a particular creation myth. Per WP:EGG, the sentence needs to be rephrased. It also needs to remove the word the that precedes creation, since this gives the impression there is only one creation myth. I think the version I wrote is clear, it gave useful links to other articles that readers reading this particular section will likely appreciate, but I'm happy to work something else out. Ben (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm really confused
Are you an admin? In the ANI you just posted, you seem to indicate you are. But I've never seen you do anything admin-wise, and your log doesn't show you to be an admin. What gives? Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 00:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Without looking at what he's just posted, yup, he's an admin. His logs have certainly got admin entries in them as well.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing it on the logs. I've seen where he was blocked by certain admins in the past, but I can't see where he got sysopped.  Oh well, now I know.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 00:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein has been here a long time - 2001 actually! He doesn't have an RfA page because when he applied to become an admin, there weren't any subpages - people just edited the main RfA page and added their nomination directly, and people commented directly on the RfA page so to find his RfA, you'll have to go through the history of Requests for adminship (it might take a long time though!).  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He was made an admin in 2003, and the logs apparently only go back to 2005 or 2004. Well, now I know.  Honestly, and it feels like I'm talking behind his back, I've never seen him do anything "admin."  I have never seen him make a block, for example.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 00:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He's actually made quite a number. Daniel (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, there was a time when the way people became admins was this: someone would mention your name as a possible admin on the list-serve. If no one else said "no" and others said it was a good idea, you were made an admin.  Ah, but those were the days! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please help with Shituf
I am writing this to you because you have edited articles on Jewish subjects in the past. There is currently an RfC on the talk page of this article.

You can view the difference between the contending versions of the article here:.

The page is currently protected from editing for 5 days, but the end result of the article depends on what consensus, if any, is reached during those 5 days. Please help with this RfC. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to thank you for chiming in. FlaviaR (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

R&I
I have a little time to kill, but not much. I keep hoping I'll come back some day and the article will be magically fixed... But I guess one must do a little work to make that happen, no? futurebird (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Desperately Needed Break
SL, honestly, I'm way too committed to a change in jobs, and a change in writing projects. I'm in the middle of trying to get one book out the door, start another, and negotiating for a screenplay. The only reason I got dragged in here was because I perceived Lisa on one page accusing me of trying to promote Messianic Judaism, and I defended my honor -- so to speak. The result was an edit war on a different page -- Shituf.

As far as Shituf is concerned, I only have two isses:


 * 1) The definition we have for Shituf is the definition Christians have for Arianism.
 * 2) Either our definition doesn't do justice to the Jewish intent of Shituf, or Shituf doesn't address Christianity.

Either one is fine, but clarity is helpful. If we wish to claim it applies to Christianity, we should find an existing definition that covers Trinitarianism.

And if one doesn't exist, then we should admit there is a disconnect, and call it a day. Different religions have disconnects all the time.

And my own disconnect is trying to have a life and deal with a pointless edit war. I really don't CARE if there is a disconnect, OR if the definition should be updated. It just makes us look a bit odd to any semi intelligent Christian to claim that there is no disconnect with the current definition.

And with that, I really desperately need a break. I have no problem with Wikipedia, but I do need to get away from a certain editor who is stalking me on other pages.Tim (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) is a coincidence, it does not matter since all we are concerned with is the Jewish POV. (2) is a non-sequitor since Jews believe that shiruf addresses Christianity, and all that matters here is the Jewish point of view. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw a post about this at Tim's page, thought I'd drop by to "reflectively listen" to SLRube.
 * I want to try to argue for SLRube's approach in a slightly different way, one that may have some room for Tim too.


 * I think we need to make use of the NPOV.
 * I think what I'm hearing is that the appropriate way for a neutral encyclopedia to approach the topic is to accept the background common to Judaism and Christianity—one unique Creator.


 * Shituf applied to Philo and various other views needs to be described first, so a non Jewish reader understands how the word is used to differentiate from Judaism and God-fearing through Shituf to Idolatry.


 * Now, here's the suggestion. The problem is Jesus. Both Christians and Jews find him problematic.


 * From the neutral point of view, what does it mean to accept Jesus as distinct from the Creator in some sense, yet the Creator himself in another?
 * Actually, Islam and most common sense people would think it's just nonsense. That's kind of the NPOV.
 * From the Jewish point of view, it doesn't matter that it's nonsense, it matters that its not ALL nonsense.
 * From the Christian point of view, it has to be sense, and that sense is called Trinity, but is mostly asserted, not actually explained.


 * This is extremely important. Who knows and who cares whether Shituf actually describes how Jesus fits into Christian theology (in the context of a Shituf article this is). Shituf doesn't need to know everything about the doctrine of the Trinity to be correctly applied from a Jewish POV. It is perfectly sufficient for Jesus not to be the Creator, yet to be associated with him. The precise details don't matter, except that the association genuinely includes a claim of divinity for Jesus.


 * Shituf is an accurate (true) description of Christianity and the Trinity. It is not a precise (detailed) description of the Trinity.


 * Therefore SLRube is correct. Christianity is Shituf. AND Tim is correct. Even Arianism (which is not Christian) is Shituf.


 * For any passing logicians:
 * (S) Trinity → Shituf, but
 * (T) not(Shituf → Trinity)
 * (S) is SLRube and (T) is Tim.
 * BOTH ARE TRUE!


 * Tim is also right that real Trinitarianism is much worse that Shituf, it is idolatry because Jesus in the Trinitarian, non-Arian sense actually replaces HaShem in a sense, he is "one" with him.


 * Don't know if that helps. Probably all wrong. Please register your complaints at my talk page, people seem to be queuing up to do that these days. But God bless 'em anyway! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Logic is not the issue here; providing reliable sources for notable views (even ones we think illogical) is the issue. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a bit easier than that. Judaism came up with the idea of Shituf long ago, and then asked if Jews can practice Shituf (partnership) with Christians, and then asked if that was what Christians thought of with their God.  Well, as you said, yes and no.  The article doesn't need a huge edit war, or a cabal, or the crashing of two POV armies. I'm even fine with the deletion of the entire Christian view section.  I'd just like a definition that covers the Trinity, or a caveat that Christians forbid the idea of inter-divine "partnership" with a "see Arianism" link.  The only reason the Christian view got so tendentious in its wording is because of an earlier edit war.  Personally, I think that Shituf DOES forbid the authentic Christian view, and that a slightly more careful wording in the definition would remove the need for a caveat.  But this edit war will never get us there... Anyway, sorry to clutter up your page SL.Tim (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's inaccurate. Partnership with Christians, as you're talking about, is not called shituf in Hebrew.  It's shutafut.  They are different terms entirely. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)