User talk:Slrubenstein
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is currently 23:04 where I am
Please place any questions or comments for me at the bottom of this page. Thanks.
[edit] Colleenthegreat
Hi, I've looked over about a couple dozen of her contributions. The funny thing is, she edits a lot of obscure articles of which the added content is quite difficult to verify. She seems a little strange, but at the moment I think she's still tolerable... until paths cross again of course. Chensiyuan (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- FYI, after this bad decision of hers, I reblocked her to autoblock her IP addresses. Given the time delay, I've added a few days to your block as well. I also protected her talk page (for only a day) so that she will realize that this is not appropriate to do. If you know of what particular articles she was playing with, we should go looking for the other account she mentioned. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Given her last comment, would you object if I unblocked her? She has a different tone, finally. Perhaps she could use a mentor? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sahansdsal
I am new to wikipedia and have a ton of questions. I want to add a new "Alternative Views" addition to the Jesus article, which is semi-protected. Can someone give me some guidance? Is there a way to PM users here? Sahansdal (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] French people
Hi, don't know how interested you are, but Epf is now saying that he will start a "proper" French peope article called "French people (ethnic group)" which will be about "indigenous ethnic French". I have warned him that this constitutes OR. I also think it is a clear pov-fork. He has not managed to get his way in the French people article, he wants to remove people who he sees as not "ethnically French", but no one agrees with him. I'd appreciate it if you could find time to comment here and here. If you don't have the time then I understand. Thanks. Alun (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Rubenstein. I suggest you ignore these accusations by Alun since although I intend to create a separate article, I have never used the words that it will be a "proper" French people article. The new article I am proposing will be created by users who support it and wish to take part in it, working from a neutral POV and valid references. It will be distinct from the "French people" article since it will focus on the ethnic group and be appropriately titled "French (ethnic group)", simialr to Dutch (ethnic group). The "French people" article focuses on all French, nationals and citizens, regardless of ethnic origins. Most others in the discussion recognize this and so far no one else has opposed my proposition. I had made complaints about the inclusion of people in the photo selection who were not ethnically French, of non-French descent or those who were not born or raised in France (Marie Curie and Josephine Baker) with regards to the current "French people" article but have since retracted them. I have support from one other user in terms of these complaints about that specific photo selection, but again no one apart from Alun has opposed the creation of a separate article on specifically French ethnicity since there is no valid basis to do so. Ciao, Epf (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's not the same though is it? Dutch people redirects to Dutch (ethnic group), they are not different articles. You want to create two distinct articles (French people and French (ethnic group), based on your belief that ethnicity is primarily defined by ancestry. But French people do not all share a greater degree of ancestry with each other than to people from different groups, they share the greatest degree of ancestry with the people geographically closest to them. For example someone from Marseilles will share a greater degree of ancestry with someone from the proximate regions of Spain and Italy than they will with someone from the very north of France. Alun (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Guideline
What do you think about my suggestion for having some sort of guideline for ethnic groups on Wikipedia? I seem to be having the same dispute with Epf over and over again at different articles. I think it would therefore be a good idea to have a guideline about ethnic identity that could be used when it comes to discussing ethnic groups or ethnicity here. I'd rather have this argument in one place where we can really thrash it out. I don't pretend to be any sort of expert on this, and it may be that sometimes I am talking a lot of nonsense, which is another reason why I think it would be a good idea to have a guideline. Epf is really annoying me now and I'm increasingly loosing my temper with him, obviously this is a bad thing because it is difficult to remain civil when one's temper is up. You know me, sometimes I get carried away and end up "feeding the troll" when it would be better to keep quiet, old habits die hard. Maybe the guideline is a bad idea, I don't know, but it seems stupid to me to be having the same debate over and over again at different articles. What I don't understand is that Epf is using more or less the same argument and applying it to different ethnic groups, but surely all ethnic groups use different criteria for identification? Or am I just hopelessly ignorant? Anyway I'd very much appreciate your thoughts about whether we need a guideline or not because I have a deep admiration for the solid work you do here and the lucid analyses you provide. Hope all is well with you. Cheers, Alun (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pov-pushers
If someone is truly a POV-Pusher, then evidence to that fact from either community consensus via an RfC or an ArbCom case has proven it. Even so, I don't think name-calling would ever help. Saying such a person's edits seem to be pushing a pov has much less sting and is less hostile than saying "you're a POV-pusher". If somebody tells me that it looks like I'm pushing a POV with such-and-such an edit, they'll get a much more positive response than if they accuse me of being a pov-pusher... I think those criteria are what needs to be put into place. The essay "call a spade a spade" has been abused time and time again to attack edtiors that are being disagreed with for having a different POV than the accusing editor. A majority of the time, the worst pov-pushers are the ones accusing others of being the same. It's an ugly situation that really needs to be addressed. NPA and even CIV say to talk about the edtitorial content of articles and not attack other edtiors. Civil comments about someone's behavior are allowed, but name-calling and hostility are not welcome. If ArbCom identifies an editor is a pov-pusher, and makes sanctions or restrictions - then violations of those restrictions should be pointed out..but what's the point of name-calling and saying "oh, you're just a pov-pusher". Too easily abused. That's the point I'm trying to make on WP:SPADE. I think you were making a similar, but perhaps slightly different point here. Dreadstar † 17:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Accusing someone of violating a policy or guideline is fine, but too many times I've seen editors accuse other editors of being pov-pushers while pushing a pov themselves. I don't see how name calling helps. When someone is pushing a pov, that means they're violating WP:NPOV, so saying that the person is violating NPOV with such-and-such edit is fine. But who decides an editor is a pov-pusher? Some editors regularly use it as a weapon to try and disenfranchise or ridicule other editors. So far, I've seen individual or like-minded editors making this decision within their own limited group. Hell, I've been called a pov-pusher, but I'm not...how do I get them to stop calling me that? By filing an RfC or RfArb? Why put the onus on the falsely-accusd to have to prove they're not a pov-pusher. I say put that onus on the ones wanting to engage in name-calling, make them RfC or ArbCom suspected POV pushers and have sanctions applied.
- Here's another example of an unfair attack, one that seems to have driven a good editor from editing an article that she has expertise in...it's these types of attacks that need to be dealt with. Giving anyone an excuse to engage in hostile name-calling, like "pov-pusher" or "woo-woo" or "crank" is against civility, there are other ways to identify and deal with problematic editors. Dreadstar † 19:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Say, did you mean that name calling doesn't help: in the beginning of this post? Dreadstar † 19:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Talk: French people
Wow, resorting to personal attacks and insults with no factual basis whatsoever. It seems that you are both the ones who lack credibility in these discussions. Just because I interpreted a source and its information differently (and clearly more accurately if you look at the description of demographics in other countries of the US Department of State's background notes, which deals with the ethnic composition) from yours does not mean I am "lying". Honestly, I don't really care if you think "I haven't made a good argument" and it is quite obvious that neither of you have made a valid response to them. My conclusion is that both of you have resorted to personal insults (please see WP:No Personal Attacks) because my POV and arguments strongly challenge yours. You are both abrasive and ignorant users and I am personally fed up with your "ganging-up" method of dealing with very supported viewpoints from other users that challenge your own. When someone interprets an issue differently with strong reasoning behind it, it does not merit you to make ad hominem arguments. Whatever relevance you had in this discussion has evaporated. Epf (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Clearly you and Ramdrake make good contributions to Wiki like the rest of us, but these latest slew of insults towards myself from the both of you (but not from anyone else) on Talk:French people and Talk: Franz Boas are unacceptable. I have made clear and concise arguments. You disagree with them, fine, but groundless insults are not needed or acceptable to Wikipedia. I don't know what your problem is, but give it a rest and stop acting like you have the moral or intellectual "high ground", because its ridiculous.
"...nothing will prove Epf wrong - he is like an unfalsifiable experiment, just not science"
"Epf is a joke."
"...he has returned to his pattern of lying and misrepresentation."
"...his reading comprehension skills are so deficient that one just cannot assign any value to his research."
"My only conclusion would be that he seems to live in a world where the rules of logic differ in significant ways from the ones they have in this world." - Ramdrake
One more thing, I never intended for or stated anywhere that the US Department of State definition of the ethnic composition of the France is alone justification for the creation of a French ethnic group article. Read correctly before you make ignorant comments. You, Alun and Ramdrake disagree with me, fine, but don't resort to "ganging-up" tactics and personal attacks. I have made a valid concern and argument regarding 'French people' but no where made edits about those without consensus or agreement, so please do tell me what the hell is your problem ? I know my research and knowledge in anthropological areas is solid, so your insults don't mean anything, but it is still unacceptable. If you have a personal problem with me, what can I really do about that ? Epf (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] My two cents on a question which seems to have been nagging you
To me, it is clearly anti-Semitic, and I would hazard it's personal. The fact that his edit went up very shortly after you chewed his head off one more time for his POV pushing IMHO confirms the fact. Sorry, just had to put in my tuppence. Don't care if Jagz tries to use it as evidence of collusion; to me it ain't, and I'm not going to worry about it: not worth it. Have a good one.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Went back to ANI, and raised the flag once more.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Talk:Judaism
many thanks for your understanding. Yvantanguy (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 |
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
| Your idea for reorganization of the R&I article is brilliant. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC) |
[edit] Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Reorganizing_the_article
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. •Jim62sch•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 [1][2][3][4] 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. OrangeMarlin 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] Glossary of Christian and Jewish terms
Another editor has added the {{prod}} 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 Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia: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 {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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.
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 [[5]] 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.
[edit] Opinion
I offered my views here . Hope this helps, Brusegadi (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Request for mediation not accepted
 |
A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Race and intelligence 2. |
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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 [6]? 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] "WP:DNFTT Slrubenstein | Talk 18:50, 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. •Jim62sch•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)
No page is the proper forum for a troll. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- LOL. As you noted, WP:DNFTT •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 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??? •Jim62sch•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. •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I shall work on your suggestion. :) •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 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 Wikipedia:FTN#Lead_line_of_feminism). 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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,[7] when he decided to put images of Martin Luther King and a Japanese woman into the White people article. [8] 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)
[edit] "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)
[edit] 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? OrangeMarlin 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
