User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 18

About Igor the Otter

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

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

Size matters

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

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

Dude

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

Sociocultural evolution FAR

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

Origin of religion

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

Bible Edit

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

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

Bible Changes

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

Sedition != criticism

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

Anthropology and the origins of religion

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

Edits to Ethnic Group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me know what you think, ciao. Epf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wet alife deleted?

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

Your views?

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

Pharisees & NT

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

Kinship& Descent

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

Photos

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

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

R&I – a new approach

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

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

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

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

---

a question about an old delete

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

thank you

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

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

Theory - Criterion for scientific status

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

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

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

Why the unblock?

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

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

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

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

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