User talk:Slrubenstein/Archive 27

Curiosity killed the cat :-)
Hi. I attended Prozdor, the JTS Hebrew high school. I considered the joint JTS-Columbia program, but I never followed through with it. I grew up a few towns over from Westbury. Small world, isn't it. — Malik Shabazz 00:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

caption at Jesus image
Slrubenstein, I placed the comment below at the Jesus Talk page last Oct 23. You might not have seen it because you were paying attention to many other things. Hope you can discuss your reasons. Historyprofrd (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The ball is in your court, slr. It's up to you to discuss that D and E do not "unnecessarily take a position on the validity of 1988 tests" as Soidi very well said, that D and E are balanced and not violations of NPOV. Historyprofrd (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Review
Thanks for the heads-up...I'm not sure which way I'll go on this (or even if I'll vote at all) as my opinion on the article had changed by the end of the AfD. I honestly thought that towards the end of the AfD and the various ANI threads that people were starting to take things personally and arguing from personal POVs instead of policy, and while I abhor anti-semitism in every sense of the issue, I do think that the article was showing itself to be worthy of inclusion, especially as it was shaping up towards the end. I don't think we should become a sounding board for anti-semites, nor do I think that we should allow antisemitic activity, but I'm not as sure about the article's tone as I was when I nominated it. Frmatt (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Crafty (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Stepping away
I wonder if you'd consider making your stepping away a bit more retroactive. I'm going to only ask that you remove your notices of the DRV that you posted to the last 3 editors, whom you weren't already discussing the issue with otherwise. Despite not having left further comment, it still violates WP:CANVAS to post notices of a discussion to specific editors whom you know beforehand will argue for a certain side. Please consider this. I'm not looking to start up another fight. Equazcion  (talk)  18:57, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm not sure if you're still in the process of removing them, but your notice to User talk:Frmatt is still there. Thank you again. Equazcion   (talk)  19:03, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)
 * I just realized who Frmatt is. I'm alright with that notice as he was the one who proposed a compromise that some people on each side agreed with. Sorry I didn't look into that first. Equazcion   (talk)  19:09, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also the original nominator of the AfD :P Frmatt (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I failed to notice that too :) Obviously you deserved to be notified of DRV, so my apologies again. Equazcion   (talk)  19:11, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)

Comment Why is is that every few days wikipedia seems to be on the verge of collapse? Is it because of absurd and unreasonable episodes like this, presumably designed to test the limits of this encyclopedia? Perhaps we are guilty for not having taught people properly at university. But, then again, perhaps some of these people haven't even been to university. Mathsci (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Should only graduates contribute Wikipedia? Or only graduates contribute to deletion discussions?  Or what?  Did this comment contribute anything of value?  Baffling.  Jailed lost orc? (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Got to learn to lie, pervert, etc. somewhere. The devil's work isn't easy. Fixentries (talk) 07:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Js in H
I think User:AFriedman created the two titles as simple redirects which can never become articles in their own right. He She mentioned this at the deletion review. Mathsci (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Mathsci is right, they are just redirects. I think AFriedman is a she, btw. Fences  &  Windows  23:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That does seem to be what happened...for the record, I wasn't asked about it (or if I was asked, I didn't answer), but I've said my piece and am going to go and edit some articles for the next few weeks and try to stay away from ANI and DRV! Frmatt (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Noleander once more.
You might be interested in the continuing discussion about Noleander on my talkpage. Crafty (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought I'd move our dialogue here from Crafty's page. I think there's two separate issues to tease apart. One is incivility on talk pages that isn't directed at a specific editor, e.g. posting "I HATE JOOZ" on WT:The Holocaust. I think this might already fall within the spirit of WP:NPA, I'm sure admins would have no problem blocking a serial offender.
 * The other is writing articles so they are slanted to a discriminatory and non-neutral viewpoint. Wouldn't that already be covered by WP:NPOV? Also see Neutral point of view/FAQ. Writing about antisemitism or other discrimination is fine, but discussing it as though it has some credence is a different matter. WP:Profanity says that "Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not." Someone pushing a point of view that is generally offensive would probably fall foul of WP:SOAP/Advocacy. Fences  &  Windows  03:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Anti-semitism
You chaps are more than welcome to continue the discussion on my talkpage. I think it's notable that the conversation over there has been particulary civil. Crafty (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleting a Page
hi, we would like some help here, if you can help as an administrator. there is a wikpedia page David Lichtenstein and David would like the page removed from Wikpedia. is there any way to get this done? he just wants his privacy, he is a private person and doesn't really want so much fanfare about himself. there is already a wik page about the Lightstone Group which already has most of the information on it, David's page is really just a duplicate. if need be we can incoporate some of the info and put it on the Lighstone page, but does there have to be a separate page for him? can you please help? thanks Thetrueword88 (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Intro on Judaism
I changed "a set of beliefs and practices" to "a religion" and you changed it back. First of all, per any dictionary in the world, "a set of beliefs and practices" IS the definition of the word religion. I'm NOT changing the meaning of the article whatsoever. I'm just making it more uniform with the Christianity and Islam articles and therefore more user friendly. However, in your edit you said that, "not everyone views it as a religion." Uh, what are you talking about exactly? Judaism IS one of the oldest religions in the world, that's just a fact. It's a religion just the same as Christianity and Islam and Buddhism and Neo-Paganism are religions. The reason America is a Judeo-Christian society is because Judaism and Christianity are the two main religions that have historically been practiced, and have greatly influenced, this country [America]. All the religions I just mentioned have religious texts that are easily identifiable (such as the Qur'an, Old Testament, Poetic Edda, etc.). I'm sure your edit was in good faith, but I just figured I'd let you know why it was a little off. Cheers.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 01:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, one of the first things it says in the article is that, "This article is about the Jewish religion. For the main article about ethnic, historic, and cultural aspects of the Jewish identity, see Jew." Now, I could tell you that that means the article IS about the religion known as Judaism, but I think it's self-explanatory. Perhaps when you made that edit you were thinking about the culture of the ethnic group identified as Jews, but as it said in the sentence I quoted, that's a different article. The article we edited is about the religion, not the ethnicity. Happy editing.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 01:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I just found some more evidence. It says in the second paragraph of the Judaism article, "It is one of the oldest monotheistic religions,[7] and the oldest to survive into the present day.[8][9]" I rest my case now.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 01:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

R&I
Thanks for your message. I notice that this article is being edited by several SPAs. Thanks to WMC, Muntuwandi is also now back. And one of the more problematic admins has now become involved. Since I'm actually very busy in real life with academic matters, I will not participate in this mess. I am absolutely against using media articles in this topic. Mathsci (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is a sockpuppet of ? Mathsci (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Looking at his writing style (misspellings, use of &, etc), this does not seem to be him.
 * Having spent a little time following the talk page of R&I now, I think there are serious problems there. What I see is an attempt by inexperienced editors to don the garb of would-be academics. Their approach, however, is not particularly scholarly, because (a) it is selective and (b) they have explicitly indicated that it might be possible to dismiss the criticisms of eminent academics who to do not apparently agree with the hereditarian point of view. This is not the usual way to write an article. If eminent academics have written on these issues, we report that. Please look at this exchange  here. You'll see that your name was brought up in the discussion. Not unrelated is the question that User:MastCell has been working on for the ArbCom elections User:MastCell/ArbCom questions, which you might find mildly amusing. Mathsci (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hatnote of Judaism
Please stop edit warring. You claim to reverse to a consensus version, but you are mistaken. Check for yourself. I have told you this a few times already. In any case, if you revert again without seeking consensus on the talkpage of Judaism, I will have to report you. Debresser (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Answered on my page
Forgot the link, though! Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As have I on mine. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what exactly you are considering when you make the claim that Judaism is "more than religion"? I'd like some clarity on this -- as in some examples.  Also, regarding your long explanation about anthropology and the category "religion" I'm afraid I don't agree and/or don't see anything you have written as a problem that the encyclopedia has to take seriously.  Anthropology is by no means the only discipline that has struggled with defining "religion", but some of the issues raised by cross-cultural particularities and differences between native and scholarly categories have perhaps been more acutely experienced by ethnographers than by their armchair predecessors (or by various other scholars who have focussed mostly on Western contexts).  Fair enough, but so what?  You make it sound like radical cultural relativism is now the norm in anthropology and that we should embrace it as well when writing a reference work.  I actually don't agree with either, but the latter certainly does not follow from the former.  Are you familiar with Benson Saler's Conceptualizing Religion?  Speaking specifically to anthropology as a discipline Saler concludes:
 * "Comparison, some suggest, is inevitably ethnocentric and hegemonic, and they hold out the hope that a non-comparative hermeneutical anthropology, in comparison to (!) a purportedly scientific anthropology, will escape -- or (to capture another irony) better escape -- ethnocentrism and hegemony. I regard this hope in vain.  We cannot fully escape ethnocentrism, but we can temper or tame it.  And we cannot avoid comparisons ... That comparisons may be poorly done, or that they may mislead, or that they may be used to support conclusions now deemed 'politically incorrect' are other matters.  But the idea that we can avoid comparisons entirely is absurd.  Anthropology is and will remain a comparative discipline.  Hence the great importance of how we go about conceptualizing our analytical categories." (Emphasis mine)
 * Saler, who understands the contextual history of the term "religion" far better than either of us can hope to, attempts to escape the problems inherent with substantive and functional definitions by suggesting a prototype approach. What he doesn't do, as you can see in the above quote, is allow cultural relativism to destroy the utility of a comparative analytical category.  His approach is by no means novel or fringe.  Radical cultural relativism is pase to say the least, because it doesn't get us anywhere, and as Saler so plainly states, such impulses are against the grain of basic human cognitive processes.  Communication through language itself would not be possible if we didn't constantly force comparisons and lump phenomena together.  None of these comparisons are perfect, but in order to promote basic communicative understanding we disregard imperfections all the time.  In a large reference work like an encyclopedia we are bound to find ourselves much more so on the side of lumping and cramming than splitting and particularizing, but that is a good thing because our objective is to promote understanding.  Now this discussion is a bit of a tangent, but I had to respond to what you wrote because I think it paints a very extreme picture of anthropology which is not representative of the greater field, but instead it is a caricature of a moment in its development -- and an unhelpful caricature for an encyclopedia.  Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to add also that not carrying assumptions into a field setting like the notion that one will find the native "religion" as if such a social phenomenon will necessarily conform to every checkpoint in some substantive or functional definition is quite different from abandoning an analytical category altogether. But the most important point to keep in mind, if you ask me, are not differences in field settings but differences in audience.  It may be helpful and indeed useful to his intended audience for Fredrick Barth to leave "religion" behind when he is with the Baktaman of New Guinea (though apparently "ritual" and "cosmology" are another story).  Conversely it may be helpful for Don Handelman's audience when he argues the opposite, that "ritual" is a meaningless category while "religion" meaningfully labels some human propensity towards holism.  I'm not going to argue that their various analytical moves aren't helpful in some way, but they are so in a very specific context which is not the context of a basic encyclopedia.  They are also not universally accepted moves by any means even amongst their more specific intended audience.  Context, is very important, but I am not sure you realize which one to focus on.PelleSmith (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I responded to you on my talk page, but I do not wish to continue the conversation here, there or on any other talk page or entry. Please feel free to read my response but please do not respond on my talk page. If you really feel like you have to please do so and delete it afterwords as I did with my response. Good luck with the entry.PelleSmith (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Unanswered question
There is still an unanswered question in Talk:Judaism, keeping up the unprotection of this article. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sincerity
Sl, of course I believe you are sincere. As I said a couple of times, those operating from within a paradigm reject generic terms that would make their religion just one among many. ONLY a sincere person would do this. Sincere Christians reject the term "religion" for their faith, and sincere Jews do the same.

No religion is "just a religion" any more than you or I would be "just a male" or "just a Jew." There is always something unique.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Judaism: Nation or religion
I'd like to help, but I'm over-committed with RL projects right now. Maybe in the next few weeks I can lend a hand. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's probably easiest to speak of what Judaism contains rather than what it is. The religion contains legal, national, linguistic, territorial, and belief elements.  Prayers are directed toward the temple mount in Jerusalem, are in Hebrew, and pray to God in terms of commandments.  The Talmud is not primarily a philosophical or faith text, but rather one of legal jurisprudence.


 * That said, the lede is way too cumbersome. It gives too much detail about too little -- and parts of it should move down in to the article.  But given the overhead of opposition here, I'm not sure how much real progress could be made.  As I said on the article talk page, waging a war to change "beliefs and practices" to "religion" was unnecessary.  "Beliefs and practices" are what Evangelical mean when they use "religion" in a negative way, as in "we are not a religion; we are a faith."


 * Also, while arguing that a religious group is "uniquely unique" is silly, every religion is contains "unique" elements. Those unique elements -- what it contains -- are a better definition than a simple definition.  Thus, it is less contentious to say that Judaism contains national elements than it is to say that Judaism is a nation.  One is an objective recognition of a subjective interest, and the other is a subjective claim of objectivity.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Sl -- you have a lot of points there. I think one of the things that drives my terminology is reversibility.  Although sets and subsets don't make perfect equivalence, it's helpful to flip things around when we can to see what happens.  Jews have a nation, a language, a legal system, a religion, etc.  The nation is "Israel."  The language is "Hebrew."  The legal system is "Halakha."  The relgion is "Judaism."  Although Judaism isn't JUST the "Jewish religion", the Jewish religion IS "Judaism."  There's not really a good way to get around that, and maybe we shouldn't try.


 * Also, people don't contrast America, Russia, and Judaism -- or English, Russian, and Judaism. They contrast America, Russia, and ISRAEL -- or English, Russian, and HEBREW.  In the same way they don't contrast Christianity, Islam, and Israel.  It's Christianity, Islam, and JUDAISM.


 * And that's where some of the other editors are coming from. While some may have hidden motives, most are driven by normal usage.  We use terms in a given way not necessarily because they are "right" by some cosmic rule, but simply because that's the way we happen to use them.


 * That said, I've never had a problem with your "beliefs and practices" simply because everyone understands that to be the Jewish equivalent to an Evangelical speaking about his "faith." It's a nuance, but a native one.  You aren't forcing anything there.


 * I do agree that Judaism contains national elements. Christians and Jews have sometimes noted that Christianity is more focused on the next life than Judaism, and Judaism more focused on this life than Christianity.  While those are not absolutes, they are true relative differences.  So then Christianity will be focused on Heaven and how one gets there, while Judaism has a legal code for conduct in this world -- and in this world we have nations and citizens (hence a national element).


 * While I do think my expression that "the religion contains national elements" I have no objection to your "Judaism contains national elements." I understand and appreciate your need for nuance.  I also understand everyone else's interest in common usage.  The trick is to use terms that people already know to tell them information that they don't already know.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Bold being
Check out discussion at United States talk page. It's me, a human being morphing into a bold being. All your fault.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

MedCabal Case
Hello! My name is Reubzz and I have opened up this mediation cabal case that lists you as a party. Please indicate your acceptance of the mediation process on my talk page and on the case page so we can move quickly towards discussion and resolution of the dispute. The proceedings cannot start unless ALL parties agree to accept the mediation process.

Cheers! Reubzz (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved section?
Hi Slrubenstein. You recently (re)moved a section from the R&I Mediation page, but I don't see where you moved it to. I'd like to respond, but I don't know where. Could you indicate where you're moving this to so the discussion can continue? Thanks, -- Aryaman (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I just saw that you moved the comments here. I do not think this is in the interest of the mediation process, Slrubenstein. The mediator has said that all parties will have the chance to present their position once everyone involved has responded to the proposal. Please let the mediator do his job, ok? -- Aryaman (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement
The mediation case has now opened. Please post your Opening Statement here: Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race and Intelligence.

Cheers! Reubzz (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please indicate your acceptance of the geoundrules listed above thr opening statement section. Reubzz (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Judaism article
Thanks for suggestions. I have my own plans though they are affected by the intro in Judaism because often its 'square 1' as it were for a lot of articles.

I was under impression I stepped into encyclopaedia editing, and not a minefield.

Encyclopaedias, as I mentioned in edit summary, require internal consistency not just within the article, but across the breadth of subject matter the individual articles fall into, in this case monotheism.

If what I edited was wrong, then I would suggest that the articles on Christianity and Islam also require their introductions re-edited, and monotheism requires complete rewrite.

Or to put it another way, don't let the tail wag the dog...

Cheers--Meieimatai?  22:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Although consistency is a good thing, it is not always appropriate when the subjects of the articles are not necessarily of the same class. Consistency of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is appropriate if they are equivalent classes.  Sl's point is that they are not equivalent, and the difference of Judaism requires a unique wording.


 * As I've said here and elsewhere, while the Jewish religion IS "Judaism", Judaism is not simply "the Jewish religion."SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you Slrubenstein's PA/PM?--Meieimatai?  04:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What is a PA/PM?SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 05:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Mediation issue
I need you to sign your agreement to the groundrules here for your opening statement to be accepted. Reubzz (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

IQ and atheism
Richard Lynn has published another gem inversely linking "g" scores and the belief in God.... Gee!--Ramdrake (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

evolution fine point
Yes, the discussion is about teleology in a sense, but the direction which survives in modern word use, at least in the sciences, is a broad one, and not necessarily metaphysical: evolution is not just "change" but NORMALLY change between two clearly defined points, a starting point and an end point. (Not just any points, because notice how evolution also has an opposite "devolution".) Saying "gill-like structure" implies that you know the structure is ancestral to a gill, and if we are talking about a fossil or embryo you might indeed know this. So indeed yes, putting the word "partial" in shows this more clearly. It shows that evolution implies that you can be stuck between the two points. Saying a "partial change" does not make much sense unless you ALSO define an end point. In this sense, "evolution" is normally something more like "develop" than just "change". Historically what happened is that the word evolution entered biology before Darwin, when people were already thinking about the possibility that species might change. So now we do see that evolution can have a meaning which is simply "change" without ANY direction at all, but this is because biologists originally brought the word in "wrongly". Does any of this make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding me. Evolve is a verb. It is used in several ways, as are many words. The technical meaning in biology has a confusing history, and this leads to even trained biologists using it two ways. See the examples I gave on the talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia "bylines" idea
After perhaps 4 days on the Talk:United States page, one (anonymous) editor liked the idea, but two more prominent editors didn't; there didn't seem to be much interest either. Combined with your view against it (making three editors opposed), I'm not planning to pursue the idea any further due to no interest. But if you find other ideas for encouraging the retaining & motivating of editors which may attract more interest in the community, please let me know.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Brazil
Thank you. I'll look for this book soon. In Brazil the conception of race is really different from the one in the United States. What matters here in the skin color or color pigmentation. Give your opinion and contribute for the subject, please. Opinoso (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I found the book online! Do you know where it talks about Brazil? Opinoso (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I read some parts of the book. It seems very similar to what Edward Eric Telles wrote in Race in Another America: the significance of skin color in Brazil. Opinoso (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Mediation
Seriously yes! I don't know if I am speaking for Xavs [my nickname for the new mediator, :) ], but I am feeling overwhelmed by the sheer mass of your (everyone's) posts. No wonder you got to 74 archives so fast! I am considering imposing some form of limitations for everyone's sake, and because I believe long drawn out speeches will only make it more difficult for us to evaulate the situation. Reubzz (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Your questions
Your first two questions are frankly insulting, and seem to ignore Noleander's previous statements. That's why you haven't gotten answers.


 * "Do you think that every AfD is an attempt to censor"

No, he doesn't. You haven't gotten an answer to this because it's an oversimplification of everything that's been said up until now. Noleander said he felt there was a suppression of certain content. There's no reason to assume he therefore thinks all AfDs are censorship attempts. If you told me to stop parking my car in front of your driveway, and I countered that by asking you "So you think all parking should be banned?", that's not constructive. It either means you haven't been listening, or you're playing a rhetorical game.


 * "Do you think Wikipedia should allow anti-Semitic articles?" 

As should be obvious from Noleander's comments up until now, he doesn't believe his articles were anti-semitic. So, what's the point of asking this? Answering the question, especially saying "no" to it, could carry the implication that he agrees on its relevance. Your asking of this question to begin with already makes an insulting assumption of relevance to the situation. Equazcion (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuses, excuses - response on your page. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

hi Slrubenstein i might be just stupid but i still don't understand Franz Boas's understanding of culture. tell me about him "like i'm a child". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.101.72 (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The Holocaust
Just so you know, I couldn't help putting in my tuppence's perspective on the rename proposition. Oh -- and I'm not Jewish, but I have a great-grandfather who was.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

hi Slrubenstein i might be just stupid but i still don't understand Franz Boas's understanding of culture. tell me about him "like i'm a child". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.101.72 (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Today's new wonderous posts of 20,000 words
As for protection, I was under the impression only administrators could do that - yes?

As for the spark, I have made a comment on it below the heated discussion. I just looked at your Archive 14 on your talk page. Dear Jimbo! (lol) - this has gone on forever!

Lastly, I told Stevevertigo not to make edits or intervene on the main R+I talk page to the actual article. However, I'm curious as to your sharp objection to him ?? - note though he is not being included at this point, nor plans to include him are made. Cheers! Reubzz (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

History
After reading some of your talk archieves, I've seen that the r+I conflict has gone on forever. It appears there was a big flare up nearly 3 years ago in 2007. As far as dispute resolution is concerned, could you provide me a short history of attempts to resolve the issues? Thanks :) Reubzz (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This I think is an appropriate time to respond by saying OMG. :)
 * The conflict is more intense that I thought. I have yet to read any of the archives, which I will do soon I assure you (I need to have an understanding of the history of the situation to understand fully the situation), but I can already see that this is something that may need some enforcement body. If a conflict has lasted nearly FIVE years, something drastic may be required. I will try my best to mediate this to a conclusion with the assitance of two great mediators, but I see it potentially going to an Arbitration atmosphere at some point. Hopefully it will not make it to that point Reubzz (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Notice
This is a notice to inform all parties in the MedCabal case involving the article Race and Intelligence, that the deadline for any final comments in this introductory stage of mediation is due within the next 24 hours. At the end of this timeframe, the Mediators will seek page protection for 48 hours to review the entire case and prepare a schedule of issues to discuss to proceed forward. Thank You for your cooperation and acting in good faith to pursue a conclusion to this dispute. Cheers! --Reubzz (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: Judaism
I understand what you are saying but you are missing some crucial points. First consensus was ALREADY gained on the Judaism article.
 * no, you broke consensus. Can you provide edit diffs to demonstrate the change in consensus? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You are the only one who keeps changing the article. Everyone else agrees with the edit I made. Second, you keep talking about what YOU believe and your OPINIONS.
 * I have never expressed my opwn opinion on the matter at Wikipedia. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Here on wikipedia, opinions do not matter. I'm sorry, it's just that simple. It clearly says on the Judaism article, "For consideration of ethnic, historic, and cultural aspects of the Jewish identity, see Jew." It doesn't matter if you think the Jew article is about the people and not about the ethnicity or culture. According to wikipedia it is.
 * You are sounding infantile. Wikipedia says it is so, so it is so?  Really?  Wikipedia?  Are we talking about the same thing?  Wikipedia the encyclopedia that anyone can edit at anytime?  Guess what: that means that Wikipedia does not tell us, we tell Wikipedia.  Now, someone put in a disambiguation line.  What they wrote was not well-worded.  It ought to be corrected.  But because one editor wrote a faulty disambig. line, that does not mean we forever must kow-tow to it.  The article said Judaism is beliefs and practices, "That is what Wikipedia says it is!" - so whynot revise the disambig. to fit the article?  As for my edits, i always provided reliable sources and most people - and everyone who has done research on Judaism - agreed with me.  Sorry to see your ignorance give your ego a thrashing.  Go back to school, learn something, can come back when you have something to offer other than vindictive. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Which makes your argument completely pointless. Please comply with consensus.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 21:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Social Scientists
(The mediation page has been protected, so I thought I'd bring this over here.)

I wrote:

"Social scientists like to believe they are not hampered by the dominant ideologies of their times, but history consistently proves otherwise."

You responded:

"I agree but why restrict it, why not just say 'scientists'?"

Well, I don't think the results of mathematics, physics and chemistry, for example, are all that susceptible to ideological manipulation. Of course, there are some ideological disputes within the more theoretical branches of all sciences, but the social sciences are uniquely subject to the influence of the Zeitgeist. And there's nothing wrong with that, provided one understands that they serve a different function than do the "hard" sciences. The history of the social sciences - particularly in the United States over the last 100 years - is quite interesting, particularly when compared with the development of the very issues they set out to study. "Race and intelligence" is certainly no exception. -- Aryaman (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Medical genetics
Can you give your opinion here? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Jew. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the [ page history]. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. It's still referenced... A8  UDI  13:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jew, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. A8 UDI  13:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
A8 UDI  14:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Chile
I like your neutrality. Could you please give your opinion about the issue going on at Chilean people. User:Likeminas is removing sourced informations arguing that they are "false informations", "personal opinions of the author of the book" and the the view of the author is not compatible with the majority view. Opinoso (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Boas, pupils
Hallo, I have tried to respond to you on the Boas/talk page, just want to add that my list is in German, but most basic information should pose no difficulties, not as much as the chaotic state it is in, anyways. My debates with User: Jürgen Engel on Boas are on his talk page, de:Benutzer:Jürgen_Engel. --Radh (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Fourth wall
Hi SLR. Long time no chat. I'm still on extended wikibreak and so I'd like you to add Fourth Wall to your watch list. Please review my last edit to it] and my earlier ones. There is a campaign to keep the page in this version which violates site policy. You can see in that diff that one editor went so far as to remove (by reversion) sourced info restoring a page tagged for clean-up in order to keep the page in their preferred version. Anyway if I'm wrong feel free to RV me. Best wishes,-- Cailil  talk 20:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Weird question
Hi! I have a problem that I don't know how to handle on Wikipedia and I was wondering if I could ask your excellent advice? I created the article Nina Gray about two weeks ago; but I got an email from Ms. Gray saying she wants the article deleted. Here's the email:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "The article embarrasses me and has too much private information. I tried to delete everything that did not pertain to my professional career.  There were also many mistakes and inaccuracies.  I appreciate your good intentions but you should have asked me first.  I would like the majority of it deleted or if it is easier delete the whole thing. Thank you. Nina Gray"

So, I'm willing to oblige the request. I never considered that the article had any "private information" but it was all stuff I found on the web, and well referenced; maybe she's just a very private person? The traffic statistics to the article are minimal. But I think the article is "notable". But I don't think Wikipedia will be any worse off without the NG article. So, I'm wondering: is there a way to quietly delete the article? Or does it have to do something called an AfD? And I'm only a nooB; I've never done an AfD b4. And is it a good reason that "subject of article doesn't want an article" -- is that a good enough reason to delete the article? Seeking your advice.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow! You're fast! Thanks!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI
You are the subject of a discussion at ANI.--Die4Dixie (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Caution, please
Hi, please be more careful in your discussions, including those with Die4Dixie. Using the word "trolling" is rarely helpful. I wish you the best.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Around -> under
I would say that the Earth moves about under the pendulum rather than around it. --Ettrig (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

White Brazilians
Could you please take a look at this?...

Ninguém (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

As a suggestion
User_talk:Collect Debresser (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Brazil and "race", culture etc
As a Brazilian, I can tell you that I regret the government, the IBGE, etc, at the XXI century, still use these categories. I would rather prefer the French model where "ethnicity" is not reported. The "white" construct is a construct all over the world, not only in Brazil. In other Latin American countries, as well as in the Anglosphere, being "white" is a social construct. Therefore the Brazilian social construct on "race", even though I do not agree with it (I think it should have been abolished long ago; without giving up protection for those who need it), is no worse than any other, and no better either. Different researches have given different results, and they should not be used as the "final say", even the genetic studies, especially given the heterogeneity of the Brazilian population in particular. "White", "black", "pardo", are words invented by the Western Eurasian invaders of the Americas, Africa and Oceania to suit their agendas. The perpetuation of these categories means the perpetuation of the colonial mentality. Having said that, the current definition is that a person who says he is "white" is "white" for the government, as the main criterion is self identification. Of course not all people who say they are "white" are pred. European or fully European. The opposite happens, many of those who say they are "pardo" or even "black" are in fact pred. European (in many cases overwhelmingly European, like Tiazinha, a "brown skinned", not so Euro looking, celebrity who turned out to be 99,9% European according to her autosomal DNA test results). In social use the appearance can be an important factor for identification, though not always. And ancestry and appearance do not always correlate. There is a wide subjective area here as well.

As a Brazilian who is interested in the history of his own country, I am familiar with how "race" and the "underdevelopment" of Brazil have been associated by Europeans for centuries (and still are). From Count Gobineau (there were many others before him), who said our population would become sterile, to Gregory Clark, contemporary Scottish economist, who said there is nothing our government can do to improve our socio-economic figures, given our "race", we have been the target of all racialists. Instead of blaming the brutal European colonization, which meant the decimation of the indigenous populations, and mass importation of slaves from Africa to work to produce basic goods for Europe, they - the European racialists - rather blame our "race". Of course they - the Europeans - have never apologised for what they did to other peoples, nor were (or are) they willing to pay the appropriate compensations.

cheers Grenzer22 (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits to Boas article
You might want to keep an eye on this editor. His edits seem to be targeting articles related to Jews. I reverted all the Boas stuff he added as it was just a pov insertion in the lead of an old, rebutted claim. Dougweller (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He seems to be on a campaign of added 'Jewish' to the lead of articles. I'm thinking of bringing this to ANI unless you can suggest somewhere else? Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if this might be a returning user. I'm trying to figure out who it might be.   Will Beback    talk    10:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to intrude, but regardless of vandalism ornot: Boas' jewishness was a factor in the massive anti-Boas campaigns, not only the anti-German campaign in WW1 (see e.g. the book by L. G. Moses on the BAE and James Mooney), but see also the strong antisemitic taste of Leslie A. White's anti-Boas campaign. See also White's lifelong friendship with vicious revisionist Barnes.--Radh (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There are people who made an issue of Boas's Jewishness, no doubt. But his most serious opponents (when control over the AAA and AA were at stake) identified im and his followers as "huns."  In any event, he did not identify as a Jew so in the intro we should identify him as he identified himself.  I think we deal with anti-Semitic smears, whether by Leslie White or Kenneth McDonald, later in the article - we certainly should... Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it was only one issue, although I like the remark (around 1916?) that Boas by supporting blacks tried to pass for white...
 * Beside his vicious ad-hominem attacks on Boas, not all antisemitic, Leslie White certainly had serious arguments against Boas' anthropology, which even some Boasians like Esther Schiff Goldfrank agreed with (evolution, history etc.), but he also asked publically, why so many of his pupils were jewish etc.. After his attack on Boas at a professional meeting White received many ugly smelling thanks from anthropologists who liked his anti-Columbian stance...
 * If Boas did not identify as a Jew as you say, there is certainly no reason to insist on it.--Radh (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think any anthropologist who was trained in the latter half of the 20th century denied White's importance as a theorist. Service and Sahlins - both Columbia poducts - wrote a book trying to synthesize White's view of evolution and Steward's.  But as for White's personal attacks on Boas and his followers, his anti-Semitism revealed itself in his inability to distinguish people accurately.  For example, he lumped Kroeber along with Boas's "Jewish" anthropology.  Kroeber of course was not Jewish.  What was just charcterizing people he di dnot like as Jewish. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, I did not know that.--Radh (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Heterogeneity
Hello, thank you four your input. It is good to know that there are places and peoples where our heterogeneity is not seen negatively. I appreciate the heterogeneity of the US too. Cheers Grenzer22 (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Hi Slrubenstein! I know that we've had our share of disagreements in the past, and I can get a bit passionate about writing techniques. I apologize if I allowed this passion to bring out a bit of rudeness in my behavior. While there are issues that we may never see eye to eye on, that doesn't mean that I don't respect your opinions and admire your intelligence.

I would like to wish you a very merry time this holiday season, filled with happiness and joy. Zaereth (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Judaism under Roman rule
Hi! An anonymous User made a very valid sounding point on Talk:Judaism about information missing from the Judaism article re: Judaism under Roman rule. Since you seem to know more about Jewish history than I do, would you be interested in adding this information to the article? I really respect you as an editor, which is why I'm asking you. Thanks, and Happy New Year! -- AFriedman  (talk)  04:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Origins of Judaism
What do you think of this rewording for the DYK hook? -- AFriedman  (talk)  01:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as good as pointing out that "Allah" and "Elohim" are related (cognate). Collect (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Still, I wouldn't expect there to be such a strong connection between Judaism and the faith its holy text calls an abomination that shouldn't be emulated. Most people don't know about ancient Canaanite theology.  -- AFriedman   (talk)  04:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think a major purpose of the DYK appearing on the main page may be to encourage people to improve articles. The new articles can be at any completion state, I think. I don't think the completion state of the article is an issue for a DYK. Do you think there are any specific tags to be added to the article, about issues such as bias? I've answered the other part of your question at the bottom of where the hook is being discussed. -- AFriedman  (talk)  17:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks, but (Re: Culture)
Thanks for the nod/invite, but I'm pretty busy these days.... WP is a migthy low priority. But thanks! :) --Smilo Don (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Charity
Some time ago you left a point on the talk page of Saint Paul re references to the maxims of Seneca, and Charity. When I discover these in my travels I've placed comments in, but a little late! I disovered the exact comment of Saint Augustine from his Article page, which I have referred to at the point you made under: Charity. In my study of the life of Saint Augustine he used his work and spoke of Seneca's work/maxims before his conversion but not after. I have found the exact statement of Saint Augustine re this.

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A discussion that might interest you
Hi SlRubenstein - I think this discussion of a proposal seeking to introduce a unified citation format across wikipedia may be of interest to you.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Scientific opinion on climate change
I have opened up a discussion about the current status of the article Scientific opinion on climate change, whose title, lack of subject defintion in terms of reliable secondary sources makes me believe it to be a content fork, so I have initiated a discussion which can be seen at Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change. I don't expect much support at this stage, but I am concerned that criticism of the articles title and definition are not being taken seriously, and need to be opened up to a wider range of editors capable of viewing this article from a broader perspective. With this in mind, I would be greatful if you contribute to the discussion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that this topic falls outside your scope of interest, but I would be grateful if you would examine this statement and let me know if I am mistaken in this view, as I think you have a very good grip over how sources relate to their subject matter in relation Wikipedia content policies. It may be that I am barking up the wrong tree, and perhaps I need to reconsider my criticisms of this article's status. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

review an ani thread
Hi SLR. Sorry to bother you but I opened an ANI thread about User:Caesarjbsquitti's soapboxing about 2 days ago. He's made an allegation of COI on my part. Could you review the situation. I'll be asking another couple of people too in the hope that the wider community might show a little interest. The thread is here-- Cailil  talk 22:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

archived you post
I just wanted to apologize for archiving your post on the race and intelligence mediation. I think we're close to a consensus, and I don't want a new debate to throw us back into the argument unless it's needed. if this was inappropriate, say so, and I'll de-archive. -- Ludwigs 2 19:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Merging Ashkenazi Intelligence back into Ashkenazi Jews
Hello, I've reopened the merge issue on the AJ page, and was wondering if you could weight in. Thanks, A.Prock 21:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Max Warburg
I don't know if you are interested, but the article on German (Hamburg) banker Max Warburg receives endless antisemitic vandalism or at least dubious editing. I had thrown out the a lot of stupid stuff, but it never seems to stop. Perhaps the latest edit was not done in totally bad faith, but I doubt it. Could the page be half-protected or something. I am not relly active on en WP at the moment.--Radh (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Evolution
Thanks for that excellent summary of the situation. Please put Introduction to evolution on your to-do list! Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC) ..Hmm, thanks. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Slrubenstein - I'm waiting for you to return to the evolution talk pages and apologize. You should be eating your words by now. You were offensive and quite wrong.Thompsma (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesus
I took a look at what you added to the article on Jesus, and I really have no objections to the content, but don't you think that two uncited weasel phrases are not exactly the way that it should have been phrased? Just a thought.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Keyboard trouble
You recently mentioned having some trouble with your keyboard. I'm assuming it's a wireless. If so, try locating your signal receiver and moving it if necessary. Whenever I have trouble with mine, that seems to do the trick. -- Aryaman (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!
 * You're welcome. An additional tip: Have you tried using the Firefox browser for editing Wikipedia? One of the great features (besides the fact that it's free and has excellent security) is a built-in spell-checker in the editing window: Just like in MS Word, misspelled words are underlined, and you can right click to get suggestions as well as to add new words to your personal dictionary. Personally, I think it should be mandatory for working on WP. ;) -- Aryaman (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, as far as browsers go, Firefox is one of the better ones in terms of memory usage. (You can check out a comparison of various tests performed here.) You can reduce some of the memory usage when you install Firefox through the set-up process, such as whether or not you want to transfer your bookmarks file (my IE browser was kacked up with a positively enormous bookmarks file, and as Firefox has a really good top-10 list integrated in the address bar, I never transferred it, saving me a good deal of space.) I don't know if other browsers have an integrated spell-checker. I don't remember Opera having one, and I never tested that feature on Chrome. -- Aryaman (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The Christ Myth Theory in the Jesus Article
Hello Mr. Slrubenstein, thank you for your support. You explained it better than I did. I really don't like having to resort to the Admin noticeboard, since it is unpleasant for everyone. Anyway, thanks again. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Please see WP:ANI. I was very busy in Cambridge between January and March, so did not see the chaos on this page. (You did send me a message at some stage about this.) I am surprised that is acting as a mediator. That seems totally inappropriate, given his editing history on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

R&I mediation
there 's a draft of an outline at Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race_and_Intelligence. You have not yet commented on it, and I am preparing to give the outline to David.Kane (per current agreement in mediation) to enter a draft of the article in mainspace. There will be a review/revision period after the draft is entered in which any issues can be addressed, so if you have no immediate comment, or can't get to the mediation page to make a comment, you can participate in the review and we can address any concerns you still have there.

sorry for the bulk message. -- Ludwigs 2 11:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Race and intelligence, new draft
A new draft of the race and intelligence article is being edited into mainspace, based on discussion in mediation. It should be completed sometime on 4/1/2010. I am posting this notice to mediation participants in the hopes that those who have not contributed recently to the mediation will come back to review and comment on the draft, and help discuss any revisions that need to be made. You may make any reviews or comments at the mediation page, and we will discuss any revisions that need to be made.

I'd also ask you to leave a note for on his talk page. Whatever your opinion of the draft itself, I think he deserves thanks for putting a lot of time and effort into making the revisions. -- Ludwigs 2 18:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

oops!
re: this. everyone else missed that. -- Ludwigs 2 18:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

ah, you faked me out! adding material and using the edit summary 'removing unsourced material' on the second edit. . funny. If you want to add this material, please bring it up on the mediation page for proper discussion. That's what the mediation page is for. Thanks -- Ludwigs 2 20:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Keynes
Hi, I am writing for some help related to an issue concerning historical evidence of possible antisemitism. I'm having an issue on the Keynes page where I am seeking to include an actual quote from Keynes using his exact words: "I do not mean that Russian Communism alters, or even seeks to alter, human nature, that it makes Jews less avaricious or Russians less extravagant than they were before." But, someone reverted that inclusion. I re-added it because it is historically accurate (the chosen words of Keynes). None of the articles that are references to Keynes mention or state this source or this quote. It is not intellectually rigorous to exclude this hard fact, if anything, it is revisionism and historical manipulation to exclude it. Thank you for your looking into this and/or your assistance. Bull Market 22:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

r&i
hi,

i also left a comment at Ludwigs2's talk page.

best regards mustihussain 02:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustihussain (talk • contribs)

as you know the health and nutrition chapter has been removed. can i reintroduce it? i made some points on the talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Where_did_the_nutrition_section_go.3F) but no one cares.mustihussain 12:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustihussain (talk • contribs)

advice on R&I
Thanks for taking the time to provide advice on article writing. Appreciated! I think that I get what you mean. Are they any specific (controversial) articles that you think handle this especially well? I learn best with an example to study closely. David.Kane (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI - I think DK is referring to the fact that I stole the advice you gave to mustuhassan and re-offered it as an editing strategy on the mediation page. I credited it to you, but it may have looked like a signature (I'll fix that).  I hope you don't mind.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Before I go too far down the rabbit hole, do you think my current approach is fruitful, or at least not obviously stupid? I am using Nisbett's Appendix B as a way to organize the article. This requires some twisting and shuffling but will, I hope, allow future editors to make changes in specific sections as they see fit without generating endless rancor. Thoughts? David.Kane (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your advice on this. I would enjoy being in conversation with you off-wiki. Care to drop me an e-mail at dave at kanecap.com? Anyway, you also mentioned somewhere about a new race/iq article with sibling data. Alas, I can't find your note right now, but if you point it out, I will add it to the article. David.Kane (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

someone edited your talk post
A link to a message. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion: Comparison between roman and han empires
Hello. You are invited to take part in the deletion discussion on the redirect Comparison between roman and han empires. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

talk back
-- Ludwigs 2 01:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
For your help and comments. I think I will stick around a bit-- hopefully this web site won't suck me in though.

B —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpesta22 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

R & I


SLR, you’re edit warring. You’ve just reverted the article four times within less than 24 hours, which is a violation of 3RR. I’m not going to report you about this yet, but I will if you continue with this. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Link You also need to stop making personal attacks, both on user pages and on the article talk page. I also recommend that you review WP:NPA.  I don't know what's caused this recent burst of incivility from you, but I intend to post about it at AN/I if it keeps up. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ashkenazi intelligence
Currently there is a discussion to either merge to Ashkenazi Jews or delete this article. I see you made some opening remarks about the validity of the article in August of last year. I don't see any major changes made to the article in that time. I actually marked the article for deletion in 2008, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashkenazi_intelligence_%283rd%29, but they voted to keep the article. What is your current opinion of the article? ScienceApe (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did do some major changes. I would still support it being merged though.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

a bit harsh, maybe?
just as a thought, re: to mikemikev. I think his edit was as off-base as you do, but if you get him riled up you're risking an edit war. who needs that? might be worthwhile to sit with it for a few minutes before the situation gets any more wound up. -- Ludwigs 2 22:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I've clarified things with mike, at least partially. we'll see what happens.  what do you think about the revision I made (deleting the regression section and wrapping it into the test scores section)?  also, what other analytical problems are you seeing on the page?  I'm slowly going through the page looking for misinterpretations of the research that need to be clarified, but I'm happy to focus first on anything that currently concerns you.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Expanding discussion
I tagged Ashkenazi intelligence, and Ashkenazi Jews with merge tags. I want to expand the discussion you started, and get more opinions in, but I'm not sure how to do that. I heard something about village pump? I'm not too familiar with it, do you know anything about it? ScienceApe (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Eugene (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Excuse me? Where does "marxism" enter into any of this? I hope Admin's will take note of this, because it is indicative of why MathSci has expressed NPOV concerns on the talk page about Mikemikev as well as Captain Occam. How can you improve an article on race and intelligence if, whenever you insist that a reliable secondary source be used, you are accused of being a marxist? This is clear evidence of disruptive editing." Really? After what you said about me? Eugene (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

A bit of advice: you might wish to try saying less, it will make you look better. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Your request.
I took a look, and commented on the unblock request. Sorting through the stupid 'christ myth as pseudoscience, or not' thing is asinine. History isn't a pseudoscience - it's factual research. There aren't many facts supporting Jesus' existence, outside of the bible and a couple of Roman documents. Given the heavy editing of the Bible, it's useless as proof of anything, esp. since now, most people read something five to ten steps away from the original hebrew and aramaic. I'd suggest that it's controversial to discuss EITHER reality, that he did exist, or that he did not. It's not worth categorizing, unless someone can explain a specific scientific principle being subverted there.

I'll try to read through it, but to be blunt, I got tired of fighting on Wikipedia. The push for agendas of and by various extremist thinkers has dulled my joy here to the point where I'm on less and less. This is the sort of thing that pushes me away more than endears me to it now. The holy rollers SO want Jesus to be the only reality, and the atheists want him to be bunk. The reality is that if it's not a science topic, it's not a pseudoscience candidate. ThuranX (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I already weighed in on the article talk, before your message. It's a mess there, full of hate, not article-writing, really. Even those 'trying to be neutral assistants' are, at this point, combatants. 67.84.155.228 (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ehrman & CMT
For what little it's worth, I asked Ehrman what he thought about the mythical Jesus idea recently (since I had seen all the activity around the article, but studiously avoided looked into it until today), and he said that he was tempted to write his next book about it. It's hard to say how serious he was, but his annoyance at the issue was apparent. Guettarda (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Your note
I posted a comment, but may still be missing the point, as I have been a bit busy IRL. Crum375 (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I noted in my talk page post, I think that we should not be trying to define or distinguish "fact" from "opinion". A few years ago, it was a "fact" that Pluto was a planet, today it is a minority opinion. That Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is considered "fact" by many, minority opinion by others. For NPOV, all we need is to fairly summarize the reliable sources, citing them as needed per WP:V. I don't see how making the "fact" vs. "opinion" distinction (which is controversial by itself) helps anything, and I do see it adding confusion. Crum375 (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that "cite facts, including facts about opinions, but not opinions themselves" is ambiguous. The way I have always read it is to mean "don't make opinions sound like they are facts", but that's pretty poor terminology too. I think that entire ASF section should be whittled down considerably, if not eliminated. I fail to see where it adds anything valuable that is not already stated by other parts of this or other policies. Crum375 (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I just got the ball rolling, and it seems that while I was gone all the good work was done. It certainly seems much better now. Thank you for your support and the kind words. Crum375 (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Sorry I missed the first issue, I hope everything turned out ok! I've been very busy, out of town for most of March and have been trying to catch up on things ever since. Thanks for the second note, definitely something I'm interested in and will check it out and see if there's anything I can do to help. Good to hear from you, hope you're doing well...! Dreadstar ☥  05:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV edit
If what this is referring to is "in-text attribution", that issue is handled elsewhere. In general, we only require in-text attribution to support contentious or controversial material, but it may be used in other cases too. Crum375 (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are referring to "in-text attribution", that issue is already described in WP:NPOV (bold added): "Where a statement is controversial or subjective, use in-text attribution—"John Smith writes that"— rather than publishing the material in Wikipedia's voice." Crum375 (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In-text attribution is not a new concept; it's always been required for controversial or contentious views. And SV did not remove it &mdash; the words I quoted above are from her rewritten section. Crum375 (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks again for all your help. Crum375 (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Assert facts" means nothing to me. Even the word "fact" means nothing on Wikipedia. All we have are bits of material, which must be properly sourced to appear in an article. There are no special classes like "fact", "opinion", "idea", "thought" or anything else. If it's properly sourced it can go in, otherwise it stays out. If it's controversial, we may need to use in-text attribution, or to quote the source verbatim. That's all there is to it. Crum375 (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Why don't you respond to the people who have made arguments justifying keeping it? I just do not get what you are trying to accomplish": I am trying to explain my opinion about this point to you, to make sure we are on the same page. If that language appears in the policy, we'll have to deal with it. Crum375 (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I try to deal with issues, not people (and am typically not very successful at either. :)) In this case, it seems others are in agreement that there are no special classes of material on Wikipedia, only different levels of sourcing and acceptance by the mainstream. Let's hope everyone can eventually see that point. Crum375 (talk)
 * I do watch the policy pages, and generally follow the conversations. When it gets to a point where I feel can contribute, I often do. In this case, I am hoping things will end up OK. I think your contributions are very important and help counter a lot of misconceptions. Crum375 (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a comment there. Crum375 (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on the talk page of History of R&I controversy
I don't understand your comment there. Which edit warring were you referring to? Why do you mention Richard Lynn? Is it something Captain Occam wrote elsewhere? Mathsci (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you should be far more careful in verifying what this editor claims. He doesn't seem to respect most wikipedia rules. But why did you mention Richard Lynn on the talk page of the History article? Please explain yourself as I have no idea what this about. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why did you start a section headed "Richard Lynn"? You haven't given any explanation of that so far.. I understand that you could have made a mistake, but then perhaps you should be more careful. Mathsci (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's more or less what I thought. I have been incredibly busy in Cambridge with undergraduates, graduates and exam setting -so much for my wikibreak :( Bonne nuit, Mathsci (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If they are reverting sourced edits, then they can be reported on WP:ANI. At the moment all I see is tag-teaming. Mathsci (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV
Yes, I have been following. I honestly don't understand the point. I would wait until something changes in the text of the policy, then address it if needed. Crum375 (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Handled?
"Wasn't this how ethnic-conflict e.g. Israel-Palestine conflicts were handled?" Not really. Instead, ArbCom put it's "discressionary sanctions" regime on them per Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles. This has done approximately nothing to solve the problem, rather just kicked it to a different forum. Hipocrite (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The way I see it, there are two solutions - either a very popular admin decided to just start blocking lots of people for POV pushing across many different topics or we get embarassed by some PoV pusher offending an individual who buys ink by the barrel by creating a totally biased article about something (see WP:BLP). Hipocrite (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation (s?)
I have deleted your recent article Getta Bloomin' Move On as a pretty blatant copyright violation. I notice that you also have on your user page two Bertold Brecht poems, where the copyright status is unclear but which seem more likely to be copyrighted than not. Perhaps these should be removed as well. Fram (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

IP at Talk:Franz Boas
I've just reverted him and told him I'll block him next time he makes an anti-Semitic attack against an editor. Dougweller (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Race and intelligence
I left a comment here, though I'm not sure it's in the right section so feel free to move it. Looking at it only from a policy perspective (I only glanced at the content), I would use both the primary and secondary sources, partly in the interests of BLP. "Historian A writes that X. Jensen writing in 1997 argues that Y," but making sure Jensen isn't allowed to overwhelm the others. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 10:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment request
I left a generic comment about avoiding reliance on primary sources to create our own version of history. I hope this is relevant. Please let me know if more is needed. Crum375 (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings


wait this picture isn't correct isnt it supposed to be Abraham and ....i forgot the other person,but im pretty sure it wasn't a monkey!--Eikipitiki (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Eikipitiki

Thanks for Getta Bloomin' Move On
Delightful to have access to those lyrics — I only wish my Cockney rhyming slang were a little more sharply honed. Thanks again! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * April 29: Sorry to see the page scrubbed. I understand the joint's nervousness about copyright violation, but we sure lose a lot "nice things to have around" that way. Thanks for trying, anyway. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Your request
Hey SLR - at the moment, I'm really busy, and don't feel like I have time to delve into disputes on Wikipedia. I think I agree with you, but in general I'm wary of weighing in on disputes because somebody asked me to on my talk page - that often lends itself to accusations of canvassing and such, which might be counter-productive. Anyway, just thought I'd leave a note here to let you know that, for the foreseeable future, I probably won't be in much of a position to engage in talk page arguments on wikipedia, especially not ones I haven't gotten involved in organically. john k (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

local NPOV maxima
I saw that you're interested in NPOV policy, so I wanted to share my essay on local NPOV maxima. Cheers, --DJ (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Judaism, again
Would you like to weigh in at Talk:Judaism? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll add another comment, but frankly I think the latest version is probably the best compromise we're likely to see. The latest contributors to the discussion seem to be on a jihad and nothing is going to change their minds. Somebody who dismisses the definition of Judaism from the Encyclopaedia Judaica as a mere "claim" is not a person who can be reasoned with. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll try.
 * On a related note, please don't edit-war over the article. Please see the note I left at Talk:Judaism. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I do like the current lede. Hopefully we'll come up with something everyone is okay with. :-)EGMichaels (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll keep my eyes on it! I'm in intensive engineering training this week, so I may not be able to do much for a few days, but I'll keep a watch on the page and do what I can.EGMichaels (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Keeping an eye
Hi, I will keep an eye on the page though I am not an expert on religion. Maybe I will learn something. A.Cython (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Middle path
I look at WP:NPOV as the Middle path of the Wikipedia philosophy. Wikipedia is becoming a way of life and some editors approach zealotry. For me NPOV is the prime directive as I edit or try and reach consensus. Your proposal for the new section on the NPOV page is interesting but it fails to address the creation of a numeracy for calculating the size of a faction promoting certain POV's. A majority of Wikipedia is based on the fallacy of appeal to authority and we spend so many hours arguing about who is the best authority or who has the most authorities. It would be nice to at least interject some science to the source accumulation and numeration. Alatari (talk) 09:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV
Yes, I did drop out. I get that kind of behaviour at work - I don't need it in recreational settings as well, so I thought I'd pull out of the discussion rather than risk getting bad tempered at someone. Unfortunately it coincided with a busy period generally (seems to be the season for conferences and I've been doing a lot of travelling), so I haven't been around for the last few days at all. I'll take a look if I get the chance. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Marriage
. I could also use some more help at R&I. ·Maunus· ƛ · 15:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thx for the comments. I have Leacocks article and her review of Goldbergs patriarchy and I'll look into some of the others you mention. ·Maunus· ƛ · 07:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I printed it out and will have a look when time allows :) Douglas R. White (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Patriarchy
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Hammy64000 (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This is your second warning. You have been edit warring in the Patriarchy article.Hammy64000 (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A note from AN3: revert can be construed more broadly than simply pressing the undo button; particularly, as I read it, reversing the effects of another editor's contribution in whole or in part may be a revert for the purposes of 3RR. Actually defining whether an edit should be counted as an edit or a revert only comes into play once a revert war starts, but I would appreciate if you stay a little further from the WP:EW line. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 03:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hammy has now been blocked for 24 hours and says Wikipedia is a sham and he's leaving. Dougweller (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

R&I
Excellent change and thanks for the credit. I continue to believe that editors of good faith can work together on these articles. David.Kane (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:CFORK
I appreciated seeing your recent work in cleaning up the lead of WP:Content forking, which I just now noticed. It's been needing clarification for quite some time. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * At some point in the past (do you know how long ago?) POV fork was in the WP:NPOV article and so I'm finding subtitle broken linking for POV fork. I corrected a couple and not sure how to find more because what-links-here function doesn't work on subtitle linking.  Is there a tool?  Alatari (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thirteen principles of logic
I don't really have an opinion one way or the other about whether the 13 principles are included. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree that it is too detailed for an article on "Judaism". The passage should be included in the article on "Oral law" or "Torah study", and then one sentence could be added to the Judaism article, in the bit about oral law in the "Jewish religious literature" section, saying that oral law is sometimes said to be handed down on Sinai in parallel to the written law, and sometimes described as the result of applying to the text certain principles of exegesis: "for these, see" (cross-reference to relevant section of Oral law article). --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Draft new ATT proposal
Hi SLR, in case you missed it, you may be interested in this draft. Your comments on the talk page would be very welcome. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * At this point it's just a draft. I think we should let the community decide whether this could help address some of the thorny issues in the current WP:V and WP:NOR (which I believe stem from poor terminology and overlap, and which I describe here). I don't blame you for being worn down. Feel free to ignore, or look at it at your leisure. Crum375 (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Case
Rvcx recently filed a request for arbitration on Race and intelligence and the related articles.

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Captain Occam (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Judaism
i am exhausted! but good luck to you. i'll be around. cheers, Maysara (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Twain
You archived the talk page before an answer could be given, I reverted and added an answer to Wikiwatcher1, an edit conflict appeared and you had reverted again. So I reverted again after copying the text and added the reply. I thing the page should not be archived again for at least 48 hours to give Wikiwatcher1 ample time to reply; cheers. Victor9876 (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I must have missed your question to Wikiwatcher, sorry Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

add diffs, please
You wrote: "David Kane has produced a good deal of content that violates SYNTH and misrepresents sources." In the context of something as formal as ArbCom, you ought to provide diffs to support such an accusation. I bet that you will have trouble doing so. It would be fair to accuse me of, for example, deleting many Jensen related quotes that I view, perhaps, incorrectly, as violating BLP. But I don't think that I have ever misrepresented any sources. You should either support that accusation with diffs or withdraw it. David.Kane (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We do this during the "evidence" phase. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

RFAR Race and intelligence
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Monotheism
I'm not very happy with the entire first section (I mean the one immediately after the lead) - it's shallow and written from a rather uninformed mental viewpoint formed by the concepts inherent in Christianity, particularly the assumption that a religion is a set of beliefs. So that definition of Judaism as "ethical monotheism" shouldn't be seen as a definition so much as a characterisation - Judaism is undeniably more than this, but I don't think it can be reduced below this.

So what else could be added? The idea of Israel as a godly community is pretty important. What else? Covenant, torah... one could go on for quite some time. I think these are the terms that need to be introduced in the first section, not thie present shallow and misleading history-based discussion.

I think the present editors on the article sound like a pretty sensible, reasonable group, and I'd be happy to float these ideas there. PiCo (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't do much to the article at all - I divided the first section, Religious Doctrine and Principles of Faith, into two subsections, and I added the initial sentence about "ethical monotheism".


 * I like your re-written version of that fist subsection (I repeat, I didn't write it, I just separated it as a subsection and added a first sentence).


 * Here it is again (your new draft):
 * The Hebrew Bible takes God's existence for granted. Unlike other ancient Near Eastern gods, the Hebrew God is portrayed as unitary and solitary; consequently, God's principal relationships are with the world, and more specifically, with the people, He created.[2] Judaism thus begins with an ethical monotheism: the belief that God is one, and concerned with the actions of mankind.[3] The Hebrew Bible commands the Jewish nation to love and worship only one God; that is, the Jewish nation is to reciprocate God's concern for the world. The substance of Judaism is the body of law that constitute this covenant.
 * Judaism has seldom if ever been monolithic in ideology.[4] For example, monotheism was not always followed in practice. The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) records and repeatedly condemns the widespread worship of other gods in ancient Israel.[5] In the Greco-Roman era, many different interpretations of monotheism existed in Judaism, including the interpretations that gave rise to Christianity.[6] In modern times, some liberal Jewish movements maintain that the Bible was written by human authors and do not accept the existence of a personified deity active in history.[7]


 * As I said, I'm pretty happy overall with that. Can I suggest a few points for your consideration (up to you):
 * Add "Judaism does not debate the existence of God: the Hebrew Bible simply takes this as granted." (Or words to that effect - just trying to underline the point you made on the Talk page along these lines, since Christian readers, as you say, will bring with them the presumption that religious faith must be about the existence of the deity).
 * "...unitary and solitary..." Solitary? Makes it sound as if he's lonely. How about "unitary and unique"? {Just as an aside, the uniqueness of the Hebrew God had some interesting unintended consequences in the last half of the first millennium: if God is One, what's to happen to the pantheon of lesser gods? They might have simply vanished, but instead they turned into angels of various kinds, from the mal'ak to the seraphim and cherubim. But I wouldn't suggest going iinto that).
 * Last two sentences in that para are very good, and incidentally bring up some additional defining characteristics, namely Scripture and Torah, and maybe Covenant - these might be dealt with in more detail in further subsections.
 * Second para is the one I meant was shallow and confused. First sentence covers a lot of territory and illuminates none of it. The rest deal very superficially with ancient history of Judaism - personally I wouldn't keep any of this.

PiCo (talk) 09:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just checked up on the edit history to see what I've done. Today 2 edits, just to add some books to the bibliography section (see what you think - delete them if you think they're not suitable - but I think the article could do with some decent, easily accessible sources). Yesterday 4 edits, one to add yet another book to the bibliography, then I divided the first section into two subsections and added headings (you can turn the first into your Monotheism subsection), then replaced the existing first sentence of that section, from "Judaism is generally considered montheistic" (written by a master of understatement, obviously), to "The basis of Jewish religious belief is ethical monotheism: the belief that God is one, unique, and concerned with the actions of mankind" - probably a tautology, as I'm not aware of any form of monotheistic God not concerned with ethical behaviour, but I think the Blackwells book is a more solid source. And my last edit was to take the word "however" off the sentence "However, it has seldom if ever been monolithic in ideology," because the statement wasn't really qualifying anything (as in: "statement A is true, however, statement B is also true").
 * Please feel free (from my point of view anyway) to write whatever you like in your proposed Monotheism section - I might edit it, but I won't revert it. PiCo (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I deleted a comma that seemed to have wandered in off the street. Also, here: "The Hebrew Bible commands the Jewish nation to love and worship only one God; that is, the Jewish nation is to reciprocate God's concern for the world. The substance of Judaism is the body of law that constitute this covenant." (1) Insert a mention of the shema, as in "The Hebrew Bible, through the shema, commands..."; and (2), you talk about "this covenant" but this is the first time the word has been mentioned: what covenant? Maybe say something like: The substance of Judaism is the covenant between God and Israel through which Israel, the community of those who follow God, agree to keep his torah (law, instruction), in return for..." (I was always a little hazy about what God's side of the agreement is). For consideration. PiCo (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(Undent) So I should concentrate on improving "religious movements"? Nice little project :). Of course, I'm slightly handicapped by beginning from a position of complete ignorance. I'll view it as an education. Do you know I actually visited Israel once? The guys at the airport didn't know what to make of me - I gather most of their Christian visitors want to go see Christian holy places - I visited a goat farm. Why not, goats are nice, and they belonged to a hippy-philosopher with a beautiful view out over what I was assured was Cana, that place of the best of all miracles: water into wine. PiCo (talk)