User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 16

Hello there

Can you do me a favor and take a quick look at White People when you have a moment and see if you have some comments you wish to make on the article? Knowing your interest and knowledge in things about race, I figured I'd ask you for input. Thanks!--Ramdrake 13:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I did chime in, to the point where I was eing systematically tuned out. I almost retired from WP because of this, so sick I was of it. I'll go butt heads with some of them again. :) --Ramdrake 11:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I've opened a MedCab case for this one, here: [1]. Thank you for your input!--Ramdrake 14:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, some of the points you guys managed to come up with are over my head, but your input was oh-so-much appreciated. I don't know what I can do to add to the discussion. In the meantime, I'm looking up some of your refs. I know Jeeny should be coming back soon, as she is now sitting up a trumped up block related to this article (based on dubious accusations of vandalism and incivility).--Ramdrake 14:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Black people

Seeing your comments on White people, can you look at Black_people#The_human_race. It seems to be written by the Afro-centric editor User:Muntuwandi. I believe that section is a complete POV fork...KarenAER 20:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I do agree to some extent with Karen, but I wish we could divorce these two topics from a quid pro quo competition. It's just not healthy. --Kevin Murray 20:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Standards

While perfection is laudable, I think that we should be practical and be willing to settle for what is possible rather than what is perfect. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 20:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. I think that in a way we are both right. I do wish for better possibilities in the world, but sometimes I'd take some order and closure over perfection. Your Microsoft analogy is so true, but as I get older I just want the security of something familiar and functional. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 23:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits

I didn't mean to get so frustrated in the Talk:White people article and while I would stand by most of what I said I just wanted to check in and see if we could diffuse some of the animosity. I'm interested in discussing at least in a cursory sense the benefits of hybridization (and some drawbacks as I see it).

I also wanted to say that while I am not morally opposed to "racism" and would even be proud to promote some varieties of it for some purposes, I am personally not racist or xenophobic in any way against Jewish people so if that might be an underlying point of tension between us I would like to assure you that I genuinely am not. In fact despite my past objections on wikipedia to characterization of the Nazis as evil, I do find their violence against European Jews, and especially against women, unconscionable and bizarre.

Anyway, thanks for putting in the time and thought on the talk page; that was quite a volume of potential resources. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 11:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 12:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeeny's help

I don't know if she'll help with the white people page. A couple of days ago she retired because of something that went on there. She has since come back, but she isn't on as often. She has said in her history that she didn't even want to come back to it because of the stuff happening there, but she always ended up back at it. Seth71 14:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if she'll come back to the page, I'm not speaking for her, it's just that she may decide to not be apart of the page anymore, but the thing just upset her and if you want to know what happend go to my discussion and go down to Jeeny leaving and click on the 4 or 5 links and read what had upset her. Seth71 14:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal Case

Hello, you have been listed as a potential participant in an informal mediation regarding a dispute over White people. The case page is listed at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-08-19_White_people. I am looking over the case, and am willing to offer my assistance in this. If you are willing to participate in the mediation and willing to accept my offer to mediate, please let me know. Thank you, Neranei (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to get everyone to work out their disputes over the article, as there are obviously bad feelings over the article. Thanks for accepting the mediation! By the way, I am a new mediator, so please be patient with me! Thanks, Neranei (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will post at RFPP. Thanks for the heads-up! Neranei (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it's ok. I just made a request, so hopefully someone will reply. Neranei (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your note

I agree that Fourdee is a problem. He turned up at The Holocaust a month or so ago and added to the article that it was an "eradication project." On talk, he argued that calling it mass murder and slaughter was POV and possibly libelous, because most of those involved in the killing had not been convicted, and that "extermination per se does not imply wrongness." When we pointed out that Holocaust historians routinely use these terms in academic texts, he replied that "It seems peculiar to me to cite mostly jewish sources and other sources with a personal fixation and agenda regarding the holocaust as the standard for what is a "neutral" what [sic] to phrase killings."

I've learned that there's no point in arguing with him, because nothing seems to penetrate. Whether it's racism or something else, I've no idea, but whatever it is, it's impermeable. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Some background

I saw your note to Jeeny and I'm not sure if you fully understand what she meant by Fourdee being the reason she was blocked. You may want to see this - I'm quite confident that Jeeny was trolled into an outburst. Just for reference. Regards, The Behnam 23:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

On another note

[2] You have been called the "Jewish head of inquisition." That doesn't strike me as appropriate. It was soon removed but not for the right reasons [3]. The Behnam 19:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks. I am sorry we had a dispute in the past, I also consider you a tremendous asset to Wikipedia. All the best. Alun 05:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As per discussion on my talk page

E-mail sent. :) --Ramdrake 15:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I wonder what you think of Karen's comment here? She seems to be saying that European people are an ethnic group and also that indigenous is an equivalent term to ethnic group. I have left a response, but if you don't mind having a look as you are far more qualified than me to comment. Cheers. Alun 05:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at the article about the film mentioned by the troll on your talk page. What a thoroughly obnoxious thing to do. I must say that since I have been on Wikipedia I have learned much more than I would care to about the terminology and beliefs of the tiny racialist/racist blob of humanity. A year or so ago the word Nordic meant something like Scandinavia to me, now it has a more sinister significance, and another little bit of my innocence has been lost. I'd never heard of Jim Crow or the One Drop rule, I didn't know what miscegenation was, or even that a word meaning such a thing could exist, nor did I have any sense of how racially segregated North America still is. A year ago I could not imagine that anyone who holds the sorts of opinions that are frequently expressed on certain talk pages would ever express them publicly. Whatever problems we have in the UK regarding race (and we have our fair share), at least most people who do hold these opinions are too embarrassed ever to express them, maybe it's got something to do with the anonymity of the world wide web. Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or cry about it. I console myself that this really is a very small proportion of people and they just shout loud. Sorry for going on, I just needed to express this somewhere and I thought you'd understand. Take care. Alun 19:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I think you are spot on. I didn't mean to imply that the USA is bad and Europe is good, we certainly have our fair share of extremists. Like you say, maybe I'm just lucky to have been born in the right place at the right time. You're right about pre war Britain though, the views of my grandparent's generation could be quite offensive. Alun 20:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've been moving the sections about a bit, I thought that it makes sence to have a discussion of evolution first, I thiink an understanding of theories of evolution is important in the context of how variation is distributed. I've also started to make some changes to the "race as subsepecies section. I can probably only work sporadically, but I will do what I can, when I can. I have quite a good idea of what I want to say and how I want to say it, and I have some good sources to back up my changes. If I make any blunders I know I can rely on you to let me know. Cheers, Alun 11:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment to Alun at Talk:White people

Was it you in a fit of irony, or was it someone else impersonating you? If the latter, is it worth investigating?--Ramdrake 12:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

me+irony. I was hoping that me+irony would = funny Slrubenstein | Talk 12:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It was funny, but as with all good impersonations, it made me do a double-take, so convincing it was.--Ramdrake 13:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Whew, I'm glad my comment is gone. I was just going to take it back when I got sidetracked by RL work. Whoever did, thanks. - Jeeny ^Talk 19:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Irony

I know! Del the heading at will - it's just that scrolling down enormous lenghts of text is boring... The Ogre 13:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Race, White people, European peoples and stuff...

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Well Slrubenstein... the smoke break was much appreciated. Thank you. And I also wanted to thank you for your contributions. I'm a sociologist and could not agree more with your positions. And the patience you have! You see... I have sort of given up (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!). Even if you all manage to produced good balanced article at the end of all odds, "new" racists and people who have no understanding of what an encyclopedia is, will always pop up... I'm being a derrotist, I know! Still, thank you for doing what I haven't the patience to do - Fighting for truth (in a very non-normative, skeptical, phenomenological but racionalist and critically realist sense of the word!)! I hereby award you this barnstar for your tireless, invaluable work here. Keep up the good work! The Ogre 13:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation request

Slrubenstein, I would like to raise dispute resolution to the next level. I don't think consensus actually exists on the BCE/BC issue. I just think there are some very tireless reverters on the BCE side. Would you be willing to sign a request for mediation with me? I don't know who else to involve, and I don't see much point in having a whole batch of folks in on things. The page is at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jesus. If you don't sign the mediation request there will be no mediation, but I would see seek arbitration if we can't cooperate on mediation. Preston McConkie 20:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want to take part in mediation, please formally reject it - you appear to be aware of it. If you do not approve it, it will eventually fail anyway so please don't string it along. John Smith's 12:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if your comment on Preston's talk page under "Jesus" were about BC/BCE et al, we've already had an RFC on that. We don't need to have mediation cabal before formal mediation. They are both options once things like RFCs and informal discussion have taken place. John Smith's 12:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

NOR

Well said! Dreadstar † 22:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a great policy and very clear to me. I'm amazed at the number of editors who don't seem to get it and don't understand its broader implications. I'm happy to help defend and improve it, it's an excellent and important part of policy. I've also enjoyed your comments on other articles, such as The Holcaust. Nice to meet you! Dreadstar † 02:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Replying to your interesting comments of Aug. 12

Slrubenstein, I'm sorry that I never responded to your lengthy and insightful comments on my talk page a little over two weeks ago. I just didn't have the capacity at the time to reply in a way that was worthy of your own effort.

I appreciate you sharing your outlook and experiences. I am sympathetic to your view and respect your reasons for choosing to use the "common era" tags.

I'm a journalist trained in AP style and I find that stylebook to be eminently reasonable. It's purpose is to help newswriters communicate as clearly and consistently as possible. It is quite conservative, in that it does not encourage innovation, but that is a good thing in my view. A conservative language--one that does not change the meaning of its core words--is one best suited to vigorous and clear communication. But if our language becomes impoverished, our much-valued freedom of speech becomes correspondingly less useful.

One of the singular strengths of English is its readiness to grow. English speakers, Americans in particular, create or borrow unique words suited to new concepts and terms that arise with the addition of new technologies, events and concepts--rather than trying to stretch existing words to encompass new things, which is what the French are determined to do (and which is why French is becoming an irrelevant language in the international community).

But the weakness of 21st century English is the increasing rate at which basic words are having their meanings altered or diminished. Part of the assault on language comes from bafflegab, the syntax used by public relations and marketing professionals, politicians, ideologically motivated academics, and others whose purpose is to distort or obscure meaning and avoid clarity. Because so much of our daily language input comes from these sources, people are beginning to both think and speak in nothing but catchphrases, cliches and idioms.

The purpose of language should be to communicate as clearly and concisely as possible. I am completely in love with real, meaningful English. It is the tool of my trade, the ethereal lifeblood of my mind. And with my love of clarity and elegance, seeing dates expressed in TWO notations--simply to soothe the feelings of authors and forcing the reader to stumble over acronyms--seems to me an assault on the true role of language.

I'm not saying the AP style guide should rule everywhere, just because it happens to disinclude the common era for anything but quotes. But I am saying there are good reasons for the choices it makes; I'm also saying that there is a good reason for all publications to have a style guide that governs how words are used, and for it to also include rules for when exceptions are permitted. Because of such style guides, we can know far more accurately what is meant by a particular word in a newspaper, than we would if words were chosen simply by the author's preference.

I hope you and I can get along and see each other's points of view. In any case, I think you might enjoy reading something I wrote about a year ago for the newspaper I was with at the time. It will at least show you that I'm not being a purist about language just in this instance. Here's the link: A Conversation With a Dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prestonmcconkie (talk • contribs) 06:22, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

edits at WP:NOR

Did you realize that policy has been edit protected since the 23rd?[4]--BirgitteSB 16:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not an admin on this project so I can't. The edit was so casual, I thought you must not have realized that. It is an easy mistake when you are only looking at a particular subsection.--BirgitteSB 17:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, have you seen this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#KarenAER_blocked_as_sockpuppet_of_Lukas19. I have suspected that KarenAER is a sock of Lukas19 for some time. Her request for an unblock has also been denied User_talk:KarenAER#Request_for_unblock. I am relieved. commie scum 12:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey!

Hello Slrubenstein! Sorry for the delay in replying to your questions. And no, I'm again sorry..., I do not feel competent to do what you propose...! I'm mainly a Family/Gender/Social classes sociologist - that has been my main area of research in the past decade (specifically, kinship systems/networks and the reproduction of gender and class inequalities). I am not at all proficient in the subject of Ethnic or Racial differentiation - of course, as any sociologist or anthropologist, I have knowledge about it (and yes, Anderson and Gellner are very well recieved "here" in the "continent")... but, well, you see, my main question is that my participation in Wikipedia is a hobby. I do not edit in my areas of expertise - that would turn my participation into work! I essencialy do small edits, even if in a considerable amount(?). The level of engagement you propose goes well beyond my intents! And well beyond my availability given my professional demands (I lecture and research). Furthermore, I'm quite skeptical if certain topics, suc as race, nationality and ethnic divides, will ever be presented in a proper encyclopedic, NPOV, manner in Wikipedia, given that, in many ways, it is a battleground for identities and "imagined communities"... Sorry if I dissapoint you! I'll check stuff, hit and run once in while, but no more. Life calls me elsewhere! See you around. The Ogre 13:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Not at all irritating, I assure you! And yes, I'm based in Europe - it's just funny for "us" here in Mainland Europe to be refered to as the "continent". And I agre with you that those kind of editors do require serious hobbiests or actual social scientists. And that should be an open organized commitement and participation. Sometimes I feel that there is just a a small bunch of isolated people like us fighting an enormous mass of biggots or just plain and simply misguided people... The Ogre 14:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Race-related articles

Is there a cloning machine somewhere that I'm unaware of?--Ramdrake 14:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Seriousness

True, but as you know, chimps aren't the only tool users: at least manatees and dolphins ar known to routinely use objects as tools of sorts, when the need arises. However, you're right that our species is probably unique in its obsession to remake the world around it as they see fit, rather than just trying to adapt to it. To me, beyond intelligence, beyond self-awareness (I think a good case can be made for several species besides our own to possess a certain level of both), it's this one obsession to change the world around us that probably most starkly contrasts us with all other species on this planet. The worst of it is, I can't really think of a good reason why this obsession would have any obvious evolutionary value. Food for thought, I guess.--Ramdrake 14:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that now. A will to change the environment is the ultimate survival tool when the environment would otherwise turn deadly (such as during an ice age).--Ramdrake 15:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

NOR 2

What do we do about this stalemate over WP:NOR wording? I think we should have the article unprotected with the understanding that the pre-editwar version be put back into place until a new consensus is found for changing the wording. If the edit war is continued, then the editors trying to make the non-consensus change should be censured. What are your thoughts on it? Dreadstar † 17:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I have expressed my general views at length. But there is a lot of talk and I do not know what specifically started the dispute - could you tell me? In any event, the next step would be a Request for Comment and an attempt to get more administrators and seasoned editors to comment - policy is not like other articles. There should be NO change to the content - the actual specifics of the policy - without clear community consensus. If the dispute is over style wording, not the substance of the policy itself, that is another matter and the threshold for changes is lower. But policy is different from an article and cannot be changed (I mean the principles, not the specific wording but the substance) because five or ten of even twenty editors feel strongly - the substance of a policy really requires a huge announcement and very public discussion by hundreds of veteran Wikipedians. if you are unsure where to draw the line, an RFC is a start. If you do an RFC frame it initially not as who in the dispute is right, but is this a superficial dispute (which calls for just more opinions and discussion)or a major dispute (which calls for a whole other scale of involvement and seriousness) Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The dispute is not over style, but substance. The dispute started here, when Cogden changed the wording of the policy without consensus, because he claimed it was "added by stealth-editing without consensus". His edits were promptly reverted and disputed. The dispute centers around these two sentences, which have been part of the policy for about a year. Last year, discussion on including these reached a consensus recently discussed in this section, and as Vassyana pointed out:

"It's ridiculous to assert a lack of consensus for a policy statement that stood for almost a year. "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus. That means since it stood for a year after the initial controversy, consent has been clearly established. Consensus can change, as it did over time leading to the current position on primary sources. It can also change in the other direction, but it has to shown that consensus has changed again. That also means that you cannot revert to a year old version and claim that is current consensus. There was not "stealth change" recently or last year. The changes last year were extensively discussed. Recent fine-tuning was also discussed with only one objection after the fact. These changes weren't done by "stealth" as you'd claim. They were discussed and debated on a very highly watched page, not in some dark corner. You may not like the changes and you're welcome to say so, and even to solicit general opinion from places like the policy village pump, but you just can't walk in and turn back the clock because you disagree. Vassyana 05:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Cogden believes just the opposite, that because he and a few others are currently disputing it, that the wording has no consensus and should be removed. From my understanding of how consensus works, he's got it backwards, he needs consensus to change wording that has been in place for a year and had consensus at the time.

I think that's the dispute in a nutshell...or maybe that's a nutty-shell...;) Dreadstar † 21:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sharing my 2 cents: Cogden first started a thread asking about citing quotations to primary sources in preference of secondary due to possible distortion through removal of context. He stated "I think saying in this policy that secondary sources are preferred is an over-generalization, and does not reflect consensus. There's no such consensus, at least, in my area of the Wikipedia (controversial religious history)." Then he gave some examples showing stable articles on early Mormon history that use primary sources and I gather his belief is that in the area he edits there is consensus for preferring primary sources to avoid the controversy of using the secondary source written by a Mormon apologetic vs. a Mormon critic. He has continually worked to see the policy is edited to reflect his belief that consensus does not support any preference for secondary sources. Twice in this time period the page has been protected due to edit warring. I believe he honestly does not understand the problem with primary sources and does not understand that those opposing him are not actually opposed to primary sources being used in article. He is in good faith, but unfortunately does not have a clear understanding of what original research is. He seems to be focused mainly on how he uses primary sources and not able to clearly see the larger picture and the problems that are being addressed by the policy.--BirgitteSB 21:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I should add that the current status of the policy is that it was protected on the non-consensus version that Cogden has been edit-warring to preserve. So it should be unprotected and reverted back to its pre-editwar state. Any changes would then be made by standard practice, consensus. Dreadstar † 22:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes! I remember that version very well from last year, it was very good. I agree with the principles you've outlined, as well as the idea of keeping the policy as simple and straightforward as possible. The November 2006 version you linked to is similar to what I believe the policy should say now. IMHO, the pre-editwar version is actually ever-so-slightly closer to that Nov 06 version, especially in the ideas expressed in the last paragraph of the 11/06 "Sources" section about the use of primary sources.

I think there should indeed be a discussion on simplifying the policy and its examples, perhaps even creating a detailed guideline that compliments NOR and V on sources (modifying RS?). Right now, the dispute is whether or not a few editors can come in and edit war their version into place. That needs to be addressed in a very clear way. Once that is done, I think it will help to bring all the players to the table in earnest to discuss changes to the policy.

We need a consensus moving forward, and I think the clear starting point is to first end the edit warring and revert back to the last version. Or do you think we can ignore all that, and try to write a new policy as Vassyana has been working on? I think the current environment makes a total rewrite difficult. Dreadstar † 02:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have any problems with the things you outlined. However the main underlying problem in all this is that it is not clear what qualifies as "primary source" or "secondary source". And by clear I don't mean that I do not understand what is intended, but that ten different people reading the policy have at least three conflicting ideas on the issue and can provide source to support each idea. My best case scenario would be to not use these problematic terms and just describe what the real issue is and when it comes into play in plain English. That said I support any effort to make the policy more clear than it is currently such as your line of thinking. Also I think the examples have been allowed to breed uncontrolled and probably should be cut down before people start thinking it is a conclusive list.--BirgitteSB 12:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • BTW I have not been editing the policy myself but trying to shepherd the discussion towards mutual understanding. Obviously I haven't been very successful at that, but I wanted to say that I am open-minded about where this could go and do not have strongly set idea what the policy should say in the end.--BirgitteSB 12:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with you about the intended meaning primary/secondary source and have no confusion on the matter. However please read the policy and explain to me how the average reader (either new to the concept or familiar with the concept in field that defines these terms in conflict with how we define it) could ever pick up the point that it matters how the source is used. I understand the policy, but the policy in not made clear to editors. As I said before it would be easy to find a source to claim that peer-reviewed research articles are primary sources, or that anything contemporary to the subject discussed is a primary source. I know that those are not the definitions we intend but it is not made clear to editor who are familiar with those definitions that they must be discarded. But this is all beside the point. It is a long-standing difficulty that leads to confusion and makes things difficult, but not likely to be addressed in the near future.--BirgitteSB 13:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't have any proposed changes. I can accept that the policy is imperfect, yet it is still the best we have come up with so far. I wish Vassyana's proposal could have gotten fair look from everyone as I think something along those lines could work out. But I am afraid it's chance of that is marred by the timing. I have been trying to explain the intention of the policy to people on the talk page, because it is misunderstood. I am still assuming good faith on that point. That is all I have been doing. I don't know what you think I have been "contending".--BirgitteSB 14:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• " don't know what you think I have been "contending"." - Brigitte, I do not follow you. Where do I say I think you are contending something? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• When I ask if your position is under contention, I mean, are there people who disagree with you, who are contending your point? You seem to be defensive and I do not understand why. Have I in any way attacked you personally, or your position? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Any perceived defensiveness is frustration from not understanding what you are expecting of me. I expect it has been mostly misunderstanding on my part.--BirgitteSB 14:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks, and again I apologize if I troubled you. My efforts to get everyone on the same page have not been successful and I think any idea to try something different is a good one. I am not sure why I reacted so badly earlier, I guess I am a little stressed out in general today. Reading over your comments, I don't know what was going on with me. I think I will have to blame it on a "bad day". Sorry again for causing your efforts to get a rough start. I am going to take a peek back tomorrow and if I can be of any help at that point. I appreciate what you are doing and am sorry I did not give you my full support earlier.--BirgitteSB 15:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you two have been busy. It looks like you two may have worked it out, but my $0.02 is that you are both bright, thoughtful, caring and excellent editors trying to do the right thing. I hope you've cleared up what I believe is just a misunderstanding...you both have my utmost respect - and I think you two would make an awesome team..! I think we all have the same thing in mind...making Wikipedia better..! Dreadstar † 16:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I just want to make sure I have things clear: is it primarily a conflict between you and Cassyana on one side, and Cogden on the other? Can you summarize who is on whose side, or is it more complicated than that? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the underlying conflict is actually between those that want to get rid of NOR altogether and those that see its enormous value to the 'pedia. This is a skirmish that I think needs to be nipped in the bud. Right now, there are several veteran editors who are on my and Vassyana's "side", SlimVirgin and KillerChihuahua being the notable ones. On Cogden's side we have some fairly new editors, such as Squidfrychef, who only came to NOR because of a dispute over...of all things...jelly bean flavors...he wanted to add that the black ones were flavored with Anise, but had no sources; he had a general statement that some 'candies' were flavored with Anise. Definitely OR. Silly, I know, but a simple example. I believe that is the basic view of all those that want to remove limits on using sources, they want to add what is now considered OR, and want to change the policy to allow them to do so.

My other main concern is that I don't believe editors ought to be able to do what Cogden did, claim "no current consensus," make disputed changes, then edit war to keep those changes in place. Dreadstar † 16:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in the discussion up to now, though I've read the conversation on the policy talk page. I think Dreadstar's being a bit unfair in his/her characterization of the two sides; Cogden at least is certainly not trying to get rid of NOR altogether and I'm sure he would not agree with anyone who tries to make that argument. From what I can tell, there are disagreements about (a) what constitutes a primary, secondary, or tertiary source, (b) to what extent Wikipedia policy should discourage use of (or reliance upon) the different kinds of sources, and (c) whether consensus ever existed for the changes to the NOR policy that Cogden disputed.

I think the whole issue admits to no easy answers, as there are probably edge cases that are unsatisfactory under any possible formulation of the policy. So, I hope everyone involved in the conversation will relax a bit and not start to assume bad faith of each other; in particular, I greatly respect BirgitteSB, Slrubenstein, and Cogden as WP editors, and think the disagreement about NOR is an honest one among people who want to make WP better but are still trying to find common ground on those particular points. So, if it's worth anything, I urge you folks here to try to give Cogden the benefit of the doubt as to his good faith at least, even if you don't accept his arguments. Cheers, alanyst ^/talk/ 18:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, thanks for your most excellent advice and analysis! I'll definitely try to follow your suggestions in this matter.

Alanyst, you may be correct, the mention I made about the 'underlying conflict' was sheer speculation on my part, and I certainly didn't mean to tar the reputation or motives of our most esteemed colleague Cogden or any other editor. I withdraw that statement entirely. Dreadstar † 18:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this correct? From the history, the content he disputes had consensus, and has been in the policy for about a year. Now that he claims there's no consensus, should it be removed as a matter of course - even though there's no consensus for its removal? Which means almost anything that's disputed should be taken out, immediately and until consensus for its presence is found - if I'm understanding the point correctly. Just wanted to get your opinion, because it seems to go against what other senior editors have told me. Honestly, I'm not even sure how he comes to the conclusion that there isn't 'broad' support for the version he disputes... Dreadstar † 20:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'm pretty sure your emphatic comment is about what I pointed out, not what I said I thought..or was told...right? Dreadstar † 22:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, that's exactly what I thought you meant..and we're on the exactly same page with that..I'm glad I brought it to your attention..! Dreadstar † 23:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't want the article unprotected unless the edit warring is stopped. The only reason I've brought this up is because the current version is not the last consensus version. I was trying to see how much support there was for unprotection, reversion and discussion instead of continued warring..but at this point in time, I do not feel the article can be unprotected and that the war will only be continued if the previous version was put into place. I am not advocating unrestricted unprotection. There are clear conditions to my proposal. Which I will now go and withdraw, since it seems to be misunderstood in addition to it being a failed effort. Dreadstar † 22:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've significantly revised my proposal, in an attempt to reflect legitimate concerns raised on all sides on the policy talk page. A major change is dropping the language discussing primary, secondary and tertiary sources. I try to rely on the "reliable third-party publications" distinction made by Wikipedia:Verifiability that has a clear and exceedingly broad consensus. Please take a look over the new draft and let me know your thoughts (User:Vassyana/Sources proposal). I'm interested in soliciting some feedback before submitting the revised proposal. Thanks! Vassyana 23:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I really like the historical perspective you've brought to the discussion. Interesting background and very helpful to see how we got to where we are today. Dreadstar † 01:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

You are right, thanks for your warning. I lost it a bit there. I hate it when people get really aggressive like that. The bloke reverted my edit and accused me of removing sourced information. I had not removed his edit at all, I had only mdified it to be more accurate. He also removed the whole of my cited info, and so was guilty of removing sourced information. This was blatant hypocricy and pov pushing. I just got angry. I'd appreciate your input. Cheers. commie scum 18:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Fourdee

Look, I am completed offended by this guy. He's one of the reasons I tell my kids that the difference between Nazis in Germany and the USA today is just a few words and a couple of laws. I don't know if you're Jewish or not, but I am, and I am only defending Fourdee because he has the right to be a complete ass if he wants. I don't believe in nor follow WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA because I think it's a censorship tool by certain individuals. And I know that Fourdee is the biggest whiner about the way he is treated, then proceeds to bully around everyone else. Anyways, I'm going to shower after this experience. Supporting a racist makes me ill. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Jimbo Wales stepped in and indef-blocked him himself. No, how grievous would that have to be considered for this to happen? Just wondering.--Ramdrake 20:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I'd agree with that decision, but really, I'm not going to jump on a grenade for that creep. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Mediation

Thank you for the notification. Neranei (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have posted a notice about the attacks, but the editors who I noticed making the personal attacks have all been indef-blocked. I will go take a poll now. Thank you for your suggestions, I appreciate them. Neranei (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Afrocentrism

I need a second opinion: do you think this: [5] is within the limits of what has been discussed at today's ANI as coming under the purview of needing a revert on the grounds of Wikipedia not being a soapbox? Your input would be appreciated. :)--Ramdrake 23:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

New policy

I will respond on this when I am better able. Right now I am, in KarenAER's spirit, being stubborn and unable to think properly. - Jeeny ^Talk 00:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Also wanted to add that I'm working on resources and reading scholarly articles, rather than concentrating on policy at the moment. Since I've been so distracted lately. - Jeeny ^Talk 00:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Brotherhood

Hello, I recently started editing the Race and Intelligence article and, something I fear would happen, happened; I received an email from some guy who claims to belong to the 'brotherhood' which I presume is the KKK. Is there something that can be done about that? It is not that I am scared since the message was mostly incoherent, but it feels like harassment. Brusegadi 08:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have disabled the feature. I guess is better to prevent. Brusegadi 20:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Humm...

The Shuar seem interesting! The Ogre 13:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine

May I quote you (the reference to reliable source) on the NOR discussion page?

Reliable sources is a guideline, not a policy. It sure looks like all the reliable-source-related material is an attempt at an end-run around that. I (obviously) question if that language works in the manner intended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minasbeede (talk • contribs) 23:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just this

Answer (1): see Wikipedia:Reliable sources

Thank you. (Sorry I forgot to sign last time. Obviously you could tell it was me.) Minasbeede 23:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've done it

and it's short. Minasbeede 23:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the second answer

It appears the whole thing is a can of worms. You've got reliable source guidelines, you've got the NOR policy, you've got those who claim to perceive violation of NPOV if you define reliable.

While I think NOR is enforced too rigidly or too broadly I can disregard that for now (and possibly forever. If that injures Wikipedia I can accept that.) My solution to the current conflict would be to move all source categorization into the "Reliable Sources" guidelines. You and many other editors clearly don't want to do that. I think the can of worms will remain a can of worms.

I actually have learned from the NOR policy and now do far less editing (with all that implies about my former editing.)

Best of luck.

Minasbeede 00:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Of potential interest

I thought that this discussion on the village pump may be of particular interest to you. Just wanted to make sure you were aware of the topic. Cheers! Vassyana 02:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion

Hi, I've been looking at the section about subspecies in the Race article. There is considerably more information in this section about different subspecies concepts than actually occurs in the article Subspecies. We also have an article Race (biology) which should probably be either deleted or redirected to "subspecies". I think this is absurd. So I think the answer is to cut down on the amount of discussion about different subspecies concepts in the "race" article and give a general overview of what a "subspecies" is and how biologists usually identify them. With this in mind I have written a section for the "race" article that I want to use to replace the whole "race as subspecies" section. I'd appreciate your thoughts, it's not too long and is here. In doing this I will dispense with concepts like "race as lineage" and "race as clade" because race as lineage does not seem to be a very accurate description of the concept and "race as clade" seems to be a specific conceptual framework that is not generally used in taxonomy. I then think I will then split the "Race and molecular genetics" section into two, one dealing with clustering analyses and another dealing with Y chromosomes and mtDNA. Much of the material in the section "Race and population genetics:population and cline" can probably be incorporated into the clustering analysis section, these sections tend to overlap in their scope. I'd probably change the title of the Race and population genetics" to "something like "Extent of human genetic variation" and have a discussion about how genetic and physical variation is distributed, discussing things like the greater variation seen in Africa, and how F_ST may or may not be a good indication of how genetic variation is distributed in the human population. I'll do the section on Y chromosomes and mtDNA first though as it is probably the most urgent. I'd appreciate your comments first on the subspecies section though. If you think it is OK then I will simply replace the current section with what I have written, it should make it considerably shorter. Alun 11:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think I follow your logic. I agree that we need to have sections that emphasis different concepts of "race" rather than different way that biologists think of diversity. With regards to "race as clade" I've just read this section and there appears to be no actual source that supports any such concept. Indeed the section does not give any description of how a "race" would be defined if races were clades. If a "race" is any clade below the species level, then it would mean that all non-Africans are one race (because they are descended from the same ancestral out of Africa group), and all subclades of this would also be "races", so there would be many races and sub-races. I mean like this, in cladistics we are part of the same clade as fish, but in conventional taxonomy there are five equal vertebrate classes, for example Mammals are one and Fish are another. But in cladistics Mammals are not an equivalent group to Fish, they are a sub clade of Fish, because our distant ancestors were Fish. Fish are a paraphyletic group for us. I can find no reliable source in the article that supports the concept of "race as clade". Later in the article Levin (2002) is cited for the "race as clade" concept, but there is no reference for this in the references section. Also a look at his Wikipedia article page gives him as a psychologist and not a biologist, and one associated with right wing racism(what is it with psychologists and racism these days?). I don't think a psychologist is qualifies as a reliable source regarding taxonomy. If this concept is not supported by a reliable source then I think we should remove it. Most of the definitions given in the article are from Long and Kittles (2003) who test four subspecies concepts and give definitions and cites for them all, but they do not have a definition or a test for subspecies as clade.[6] I think part of the problem is that none of these subspecies concepts are that well defined, so they are quite difficult to understand. I am not a taxonomist and I don't fully follow the reasoning. I think concepts such a evolutionary lineage are best discussed in the "models of human evolution" section. I still think that my section discussing subspecies better reflects what a subspecies is than the article does at present. I don't really know how else to improve this section. Alun 12:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your message. It's a great help that you give such thoughtful feedback, and you are helping me to see things in terms of context. I'll have a little think about this and maybe see if I can find the paper about "race and cladistics" to see what he actually says. Cheers. Alun 13:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

NOR talk page

Hi. I have another point I'd like to bring up on the talk page about an apparent contradiction on the current policy page itself. It doesn't easily fall in either of the two categories you started, and also stated that the page should be limited to. Any objection if I add it, as for a relative newbie to the NOR "discussion", this apparent contraction seems to part of the cause for several previous discussions, though I don't remember it specifically being pointed out. wbfergus 11:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. The point in question that I (and evidently a few others) seem have is with the word "explanatory" in the policy, as it applies to "Primary Sources". In one part of the page, it is noticeably absent, while it does appear further below and apparently in the same context. I've seen a few discussions the last several days where things (at least temporarily) seemed to revolve around that single word, but I don't remember anybody ever pointing the contradiction with how the actual "Policy" page itself was worded. I think pointing this out to others and trying to get this one point addressed may go a long way towards resolving at least a few of the other issues. But, as I've said, I'm a relative newbie to this particular point, but as newbie, reading the "Policy" page with this ommission or addition is confusing at best. Thanks for thinking about this and your previous reply. wbfergus 12:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will defer to your approach, thogh I think this may "creep" back into the discussions about primary and secondary sources. In light of your last reply, how about if I (or you), add something to the top part of the discussion page stating something like "If you have other questions or problems or points of contention, please "Watchlist" this page, be patient, and address it after this discussion has been laid to rest."? wbfergus 12:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

And from me…

I mentioned WP:SCLASS purely to give context to the point I was making; I wasn't shilling for it. I hope my further reply clarifies how my point is relevant to the discussion. SamBC(talk) 12:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is that it's not binary, there are more than two results for each question. The qusetion of "whether or not we do X" depends entirely on exactly how X is going to be done. Also, feel free to reply here rather than my talk page, it keeps the discussion in one place and I keep user talk pages watchlisted when I've having a conversation on them. If you prefer to reply on my talk page, though, feel free. SamBC(talk) 13:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Confession

No, I hadn't thoroughly read it.

With all that implies. I did read it last night.

Nonetheless I don't feel any urge to withdraw or modify or apologize for the "WHAT! ..." language. The editors who wanted source distinctions to be outside and beyond (and in a policy, to create some illusion of enforceability) "reliable sources" are the ultimate creators of this whole mess.

With "primary" and "secondary" having fairly established meanings in the real world it was a very poor choice to use those same words for a different purpose in Wikipedia. (Does this remove the onus on me for not having thoroughly read the policy? I don't think so. Just keeping track - and making clear this isn't a "yes, but.") I'd say the first order of business ought to be choosing a better pair of words, ones that don't conflict with other established usages. Wikipedia forbids neologisms. This isn't quite the same thing, but the underlying reasoning may be similar.

I still don't think that source classification belongs in policy. For most of what Wikipedia calls "primary" the flaw is "unpublished." That's already covered in the policy. If some group of editors just won't let go of classifying sources in the policy then at least please use different words than "primary" and "secondary." I'll mention that I notice that "reliable sources" is a guideline (and seems to be where source classification would be covered) and "no original research" is a policy. I suspect I know why there's such a strong desire to classify sources in the policy. Whether that works I have no idea, but I tend to doubt it. If it really does work then Congratulations! - and I'm a lot more willing to rethink the whole matter, or at least be more silent on the point.

I might also mention that the wrangling seemed to almost disappear when I stopped posting. There's useful information (for me, in particular) in that. (I haven't yet looked this morning.)

Thanks for your message. Minasbeede 13:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I've replied on my talk page, to keep things together. Minasbeede 14:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OR

Dear Slrubenstein,

I share your concerns about clarity regarding NOR. What do you think of the text I wrote for the last post on this page[7]?

Thanks, Renee --Renee 15:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 15:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply

on my talk page. (Is this type of notification unnecessary? I see no problem with your removing these messages once you've read them, for the sake of neatness.)

Minasbeede 16:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites FAR

Ebionites has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Avi 18:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You really helped us out with the Ebionites Peer review. Could you lend your opinion to the FAR as well? The article has recently been beset by problems. BTW, the Jewish-Christianity template was created as a result of your suggestions. Just thought you would like to know. :0) Ovadyah 17:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

NOR Talk

I just suggested a compromise. Is it acceptable to you?--BirgitteSB 19:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If it is not relevant it will not be responded to and do little harm. If it is responded to than someone must find it relevant. If it really is harmful to the attempt to resolve the focused issues, it can be re-directed. But I think it is best not assume any thread will be harmful at this point.--BirgitteSB 20:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

PS I think it is more important to have everyone's faith at this point than a perfectly streamlined talk page.--BirgitteSB 20:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your ideas on focusing discussion are wonderful. I am going to direct side-topics elsewhere. I think it will take everyone a day to catch on and then things will go smoothly. Please don't be discouraged.--BirgitteSB 21:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A new day at NOR Talk

I did indeed see your most excellent archiving of the page, I am in total agreement. I also agree with your assessment of the other editors. I'm with you on this. I was actually considering congratulating you on your presence of mind and initiative on the archiving, but I didn't want to clutter up your talk page too much...;) Nice work! I'm watching the discussion, and I think it may be actually starting to focus on the core issues...with a little bit of smoke and mirrors added by some of the others. You're very good at this, btw...glad you're involved... Dreadstar † 19:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You bet! Glad to see you've recognized the power of the Nail Side of the Thumb...;) Dreadstar † 20:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Took your advice

I took your well-reasoned advice and raised the reliable sourcing issues at the appropriate place. I'm still considering the issues surrounding NOR. I may not give a substantive response to some of the issues there for a day or two (though perhaps sooner), until I feel confidant I've reviewed the discussion and ideas completely, and feel confidant in my conclusions. Vassyana 21:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB

Hiya Slrubenstein hope you're keeping well. I've been watching Talk:White people since you left me that message a few days ago. I was surprised at how long it took for Fourdee to get blocked - I was very much heartened to see that Jimbo did it. I don't know if he's given an explanation for this but I think we need one. We need one because there are editors like Phral and Fourdee and MoritzB[8] who are using wikipedia as a forum for hate-speech. These users are making racist remarks but there is a wider problem with users making deliberately malicious attacks not directed at users but at groups of real people. WP needs a policy against this form of "debate" which games WP:NPA. Its beyond citing sources that might be considered racist or sexist, its the use of wikipedia to express / promote hatred. We editors and sysops need a clear position on this. I'm going to contact Durova to see if she knows of anything or of how a policy dealing with this problem could be proposed. I know you made some comments along these lines at ANI, & I would strongly support introducing warning templaes for WP:SOAP.

After I made my comments on Talk:White people I warned MoritzB with {{uw-chat2}} and explained WP:TALK and WP:SOAP to them. If this behaviour does not change MoritzB will be in line for a block for tendentious editing. I share your opinion that some users on that page have feed the trolls. I think its almost time to RBI - revert, block, ignore. Give me a shout if MoritzB's bad behaviour at the page continues--Cailil ^talk 21:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my page. I talked to Durova and she recommends making a test version of WP:SOAP templates. I'm okay with code so I'll open up a page in my user space for this and when I get a start at making them I'll drop you a line--Cailil ^talk 21:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As always SLR your comments are very helpful. An interesting Arbcom ruling just came down today. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine dealt with similar issues, such as propagandist soapboxing. There was no extraordinary finding, just an endorsement of WP:SOAP.

I do think there is a clash between the templates for WP:NOT#FORUM and a would be set for WP:SOAP, but only in so far as there is a clash between the editing test warnings ({{tl|uw-test1]]) and vandalism warnings ({{uw-vand1}}). The first, "lighter" policy is assuming a good faith mistake. The second is for use in obvious an blatant circumstances. I think there may be a case for upgrading WP:NOT#FORUM templates in light of the serious situations with soapboxing on WP. I'll have a meditate on this for a few days and unless I see some sort of glaring problem we could make a proposal - the worst that would happen is a rejection--Cailil ^talk 00:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)