User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 9

Just a friendly comment...

... I'm not trying to cause offense by what I'm next saying but:

If the person answers yes, I know they will understand why the fact that I think the Bible was written by human beings and that many parts of it are not historically accurate does not mean that I think it a fraud or an anachronism, nor does it mean that I am a blaspheming heretic, but on the contrary that I believe it to be a divinely profound and truthful work. And if the person answers yes, they will understand why as a scientist I think that research with living people, whose aim it is to understand how they make meaning of their lives and their world — something that cannot be measured and subjected to statistical analysis, and research that is not reproducible — is nevertheless among the most significant and valuable research one can conduct and learn from

I feel that this misses the point. Those who believe that the Bible is the true and inspired word of God (like myself) believe that the Bible has a collection of historical documents, but also contains many documents that are from different genres such as poetry and prophecy. Those parts that are recounting historical events, such as the birth of Jesus and his death and resurrection, are seen to be inspired and therefore if they are historically inaccurate it affects the way you view the Bible. What it strikes at is the authority of the Bible, and if the historical bits are inaccurate then there is a good chance that it wasn't inspired at all!

Sorry if I'm rambling and that doesn't make sense. I just thought I'd make a comment, more to foster discussion than anything else.

Incidently, I got it wrong before... you are a scientist! Sorry about that, no offense was intended - it's just I have always seen you on articles about history and stuff like that.

Ta bu shi da yu 01:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semitic threat?

Well, the statement is anti-Semitic, and indeed a threat, but the anti-Semitism is subtle, and the threat is not personal. Not many people are going to understand what the references to Kevin J. MacDonald means, nor will they recognize the typical "blame the victim for anti-Semitism" approach as a classic anti-Semitic misdirection. I'd just ignore it, if I were you. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Leftist threat to real science

My comment is only descriptive science which contains some "obviously" and is according to some theory by a scholar who is accepted by the vast majority of his American colleagues which I essentially consider to be correct having expressed my dislike for MacDonald,too. If you do not acknowledge the virago concept (from Babylonian times to 20th century handbooks) it is indeed an unprecedented leftist "counterfeiting" on the basic level of scientific documentation.Now some people complain that the lexigraphic stuff should be deleted. I have not edited it.Why haven't you read the sources? The concept is all too obvious and cannot be denied.

BC/AD

You can read my response at my talk page, and if you're interested in reading what I'm interested in, as per your comments, you can see so at my main user page. Thanks. PatrickA 20:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind answering my new question, it's posted on my talk page. Thanks. PatrickA 22:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC).

Another motion to move Yom Kippur War

I just wanted to notify some of the people who voted in the previous poll a few weeks ago that another motion to move Yom Kippur War has been made. See Talk:Yom_Kippur_War#Requested_move - Raul654 23:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I wish to clear my debt to you: I owe you a favor

In October 2005, I asked you to perform a Lexis-Nexis search for some terms regarding the "1973 Arab-Israeli War", and in doing so, I promised a referenced, content contributing edit on an article of your choice in return. You graciously provided that service.

I would very much like to pay my debt to you. My other similar "payments" to other Wikipedians have been the creation of the George Powell article, and expansions of the Sigurd Syr and Roy Walford articles.

If you name an article or topic, I will add a referenced, content contributing edit. In doing so, I hope to spread good will between us, improve Wikipedia in a meaningful way, and learn something in the process.

So, give it some thought, and name my assignment! I expect it will take about two weeks for me to complete. Thanks! Unfocused 00:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I have deleted a nonsensical comment by an anonymous user who asks if I am "too scared to answer." I will answer on two conditions. First, create a user-page so I can answer on your page. Second, tell me under what conditions if any (or, through what kind of argument, by what criteria) I could change your mind.

An Invitation

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

A.J.A. 22:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Era Notation Proposal, take a look

Slrubenstein, I thought you may be interested in an era proposal that I posted here. It is a simplistic method that encompasses both Christian and non-Christian beliefs. I think you may find it a good solution. Cheers, PatrickA 15:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

Evolution

Hey SLR,

I replied to your comment on Talk:Evolution as requested, though no one seems to have noticed.

Happy New Year's, unless you are still using the traditional Roman calendar. In which case, a belated "Io Saturnalia!" to you. Graft 02:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Fish with eggs

Would probably be termed gravid. Shyamal 03:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Virago

Thank you so much for sticking around and helping to bring this matter through its resolution. I appreciate the time and expertise that you've brought to the discussion. It's editors like you who make Wikipedia the success that it is today. Cheers, -Will Beback 11:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

A Favor

Dear SL: Would you do me a favor and examine my words and actions on the talk pages of Martin Luther, Martin Luther and the Jews and On the Jews and Their Lies? I'm thinking about speaking to user Doright about his words on these pages, but before I do, my training tells me to look at my own words and behaviors before I confront someone and be sure to correct any of my own failings first. Since I respect you and you come from a very different background than I, I would appreciate any feedback you might have for me. --CTSWyneken 12:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No rush. I very much appreciate it. Happy settling in. I hope you love your new setting. --CTSWyneken 15:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Marx

You wrote "Marx explicitly made historical claims and specifically claimed that capitalism emerged at a certain point in human history" This is one of the greatest mis-readings of Marx. please take some time out to read this: marxmyths.org website with various essays on misinterpretations of Marx

--max rspct leave a message 15:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Unable to notify you

In your role as an Administrator, I need your help with Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SEWilco blocked from commenting on William M. Connolley, which forbids me from issuing to you and other Wikipedians a notification required by anti-spam procedures. (SEWilco 05:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC))

Talk:Virago

The {{deletedpage}} template is to be used only on protected deleted pages. It should not be used on pages that are not deleted or that are not protected, like Talk:Virago. Also, you should not remove the {{oldafdfull}} template from the talk page. --cesarb 17:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It is common to delete talk pages when articles are deleted. This makes sense, since the purpose of a talk page is to discuss improvements to an article. If there is no article, there is nothing to discuss. To keep the talk page active is only to circumvent the deletion. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but {{deletedpage}} does not mean to delete the page. It is used as a marker after the page has been deleted, if there is a need to protect it while it is deleted (since deleted pages cannot be protected, it has to be recreated with something on it). If you want to delete the page, you should use {{delete}} or its variants (the best variant for this situation would probably be {{db-g8}}). --cesarb 20:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Boas and anthropology

I found an inter-article discrepancy regarding Boas and his views on his Jewish heritage. Mentioned here. Just thought I'd bring it to your attention, as you seem to be acquanted with the pertinent information. --Ringtail Jack 04:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Please Speak to User Doright

Dear SL:

Because I disagree with him, I suspect user Doright will not listen to me. Would your speak to him about his behavior? What I'm most concerned about is his disregard for careful citing of sources. The most recent example is on Catagory talk:Antisemitic People,but I have documented similar problems on talk:Martin Luther and the Jews, talk:On the Jews and Their Lies and talk:Martin Luther. The first shows a complete lack of care for the necessity to cite properly. It's gotten as bad as passing off the words of a database abstractor as if they were the words of Robert Michael! I'd prefer not to go to a formal warning, attempt at mediation or, finally, an RfC. He is close to leaving me no choice in this matter. Perhaps someone he might respect will get through to him. Thanks for thinking about it. --CTSWyneken 17:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. When Cecropia took a look at my copyright analysis of the online versions of On the Jews and Their Lies, Doright went quiet for awhile. He's even trying to find a definition of antisemitic people that would allow for us to list Luther and his writings in good conscience. And he's close, but won't hear that from me. Personally, I find both antisemitic and anti-Judaic as appropriate labels for Luther's words and recommendations. If my point of view counted (since I've not published on this topic, it really doesn't), I'd be content to have Luther labeled either or both. Luther had a dark side, which, perversely, is in the interests of Lutherans to admit. Luther's doctrine of simul justus et peccator (righteous and sinner at the same time) is confirmed in an all too uncomfortable manner when his uncontrolled temper is chronicled. This is why I've left the label alone on any of the Luther pages where it has appeared.

As far as the category debate currently in swing. I think he got impatient with the debate on exactly how people who are antisemitic should be listed. So he jumped the gun and created a second category. This was received as attempting to find new ways of branding all manner of people with the label "antisemite." Doright then returned to the old habit of attacking his opponents on Antisemitism (People)'s talk page, rather than argue the issue. He did this by digging up a few paragraphs of StanZegel's musings (a fellow also with a hot, but somewhat controlled temper), claimed they were from his talk page, and essentially dismissed his views. When I removed these comments in an attempt to keep the lid on things, he started to attack me. (an issue I'm not pushing. If I can't take that, I'm in the wrong profession) He then in triumph pointed out that the words were not from a user talk page, but another talk page. THAT'S the kind of behavior that I'm objecting to.

But it extends further. He then went to the talk page of Antisemitic People quoted Martin Niemoeller to equate the elimination of his category with appeasing Hitler, and didn't source it. When StanZegel pointed that out he said, in effect, citations are not necessary. This combined with the habit he had when he was actively adding to the Luther pages of misciting, misquoting, etct. causing me hours of time to correct, leads me to believe he will do so in the future.

Sorry this is so long. I'll let you know if this continues.

Stop personal attacks

Personal attacks against other users are against Wikipedia policy. Please do not do it again. Swatjester 10:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Rollback

Just out of curiosity, why did you rollback Gator1's edit on Jesus, seeing how it was not vandalism. Both times you added it to the article and you never provided relavent edit summaries, nor did you explain the second time why it is a good addition to the article. Pepsidrinka 15:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, granted you believe it makes it more NPOV. You have not justified your use of rollback in both situations. From Wikipedia:Revert:

Rollbacks should be used with caution and restraint. Reverting a good-faith edit may send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanatory edit summary." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor; do not abuse it.

If you use the rollback feature other than against vandalism or for reverting yourself, be sure to explain on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted.

As both these situations clearly were not vandalism, from my understanding, your usage of the rollback was clearly inappropriate. Pepsidrinka 16:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Doright Defends Not citing Work He's Quoted

Just to note, on page [1], Doright defends quoting a Martin Niemoeller saying by attacking me and still not providing the citation. --CTSWyneken 02:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Virago by another name

Our friend has been hanging out at Asian fetish lately, claiming to be a German Anthropology professor, and has managed to get some of his stuff into the article. Some of the folks there were reverting him, but they seem to have backed off lately. One guy has even checked out his references and edited some of his stuff. You may want to look in on this. Sunray 08:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Names and titles of Jesus

Hey, would you be willing to look at some recent insertions and edits by an anonymous editor at Names and titles of Jesus? I tried removing the worst of it, but have been swiftly reverted. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Saddened

SlRubenstein, I'm saddened that you appear to have been persuaded, perhaps unwittingly, to play an unfortunate role [[2]] in the ongoing crusade against me by a small but well-defined group of editors. Perhaps the insight rendered by another editor [[3]] made after yours regarding User:StanZegel’s and User: CTSWyneken’s current attack was not as obvious at the time you made your comment responding to CTSWyneken’s solicitation. I wonder now that the discussion has ripened if you would take a look at it [[4]] and respond appropriately. Best Regards, Doright 03:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Asian Fetish vandal

Hey, you might want to have a look at User:Infinity0/Vandal_report and this. Infinity0 ^talk 14:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

A.J. Arberry

Hello - I was archiving my talk page and realized that I never responded to your question (long ago) about the best translation for the Quran into English. From my end, I have never needed to read a translation as I read the original Arabic ;) Although I'm no religious scholar or anything like that, I took a look and compared A.J. Arberry's translations on the internet and found them quite accurate, and as such this seems like a pretty good source. I also am told that the translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali] is a reliable translation, although I haven't read it myself. Sorry for taking so long, and I hope it helps. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Please Look at my Archiving Efforts

I've taken the time to archive the talk on the Luther pages. Would you take a look and see if I've done it right? Thanks! --CTSWyneken 03:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Doright at it again

Please take a look at Talk:Whitewashing If I speak to him again, it will be in an RfC. Note that he once again claims that Robert Michael said something he did not. When he first put this quote from a database abstract online (I can document from talk pages) he quoted Michael, referring to an article by Michael. I looked up the article and discovered the words nowhere to be found in it. In fact, as is his practice, Dr. Michael did not at all insult Luther scholars in the way the abstract suggests. He lays out his case for what he sees as wishful thinking on the part of Luther scholars, vigorously presents what he sees as evidence for a darker Luther and judges some editions of Luther's antisemitic/antijudaic works as leaving out some of the worst material.

I thought that Doright was going to play by the rules, but he appears to wish to insult people who do not agree with him (Including you and Humus) Would you like to approach him, or is it time for me to initiate action? --CTSWyneken 02:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Legacy of Jesus

I'm not that happy about your statements in Jesus about anti-semitism of "Christians". Firstly, it may be a legacy of the "Church", but definitely not of Jesus or anything taught in the Bible. Perhaps it belongs in another article - or shortened at the very least? Secondly, the statements imply that this was a major legacy. I think perhaps it was a minority of "Christians" who were anti-semitic. In fact, I would go further and say that most of it was from political / power hungry groups who were Christian in name only. ^rossnixon 10:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

SL, perhaps it would help to cite a scholarly viewpoint here. Then, if others wish to balance it, they can add their own scholar.

BTW, I appreciate you putting back the paragraph describing scholarly views of Jesus. --CTSWyneken 11:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's fair to mention anti-semitism as a legacy of Jesus (it really isn't, although it's been a sad legacy of his followers) and not to mention the millions of people who have been helped as part of the legacy of Jesus...transformed lives, the hungry fed, medicines created by Christians, the great literature, music and art inspired by Jesus, etc. KHM03 11:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note...I don't think I cut anything about Jesus' legacy (I may be wrong), but if we fairly list positives and negatives, the section could become quite large and unwieldy. I ay look at it more later. KHM03 14:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Your Restoration Under Discussion

Dear SL:

Your restoration of the paragraph in the Jesus article intro is under discussion on the Talk page in the section "Streamlining the Historicity Paragraph."

Bob --CTSWyneken 15:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Article "scholars generally hold..."

Would you assist it keeping this paragraph pinned in place and the footnote stuck to it long enough to discuss it on the talk page? I'm more than annoyed by this editor who stays away from the talk page while careful discussion results in a comprimise, only to have him sweep it away because he thinks the scholarly majority crazy. --CTSWyneken 01:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Asian Fetish discussion

Since you stated that the section on testosterone violated NOR, what about the rest of the article? Is there any peer reviewed research to back up any of the other various claims made in the article, especially the section on "sexual crimes", which isn't even backed up by any statistics or research and only consists of anecdotal evidence. Fact of the matter is, nobody knows the dynamics of the "Asian fetish" for sure, so if only scientifically established facts are to be presented on Wikipedia, the entire article should be deleted. If speculations in the one direction are allowed (like the conspiracy theories about Hollywood movies etc. in the present article), alternative hypotheses should also be presented. Basically, the entire present article is just intended to stir up racial resentment and was patched together by people at modelminority.com who are opposed to interracial relationships. --Mr Phil 03:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Article Scholar Bios

Thanks for the help here! You've saved me quite a bit of time on a busy day!

I appreciate being tipped to Cohen. I dug up his book "From the Maccabees..." for documentation purposes and read some very fascinating things. So I checked it out. Not sure when I will read it...

Do you know of a few other scholars from Judaism that would also affirm this much of Jesus? Neusner perhaps? Also a few atheists would be good, but I have my hands full tracking just the ones on our plate. --CTSWyneken 22:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. We'll make this article work somehow. --CTSWyneken 16:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Page name for temperature articles

To avoid flip-flopping between 'degree Fahrenheit' and 'Fahrenheit' or 'degree Celsius' and 'Celsius', I propose that we have a discussion on which we want. I see you have contributed on units of measurement, please express your opinion at Talk:Units of measurement. Thanks. bobblewik 23:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Removal of someone's comments from an article talk apge is usually considered vandalism if not done in good faith. Consider putting a test2 warning on Rob's talk page to make that clear to him. I'd do it myself, but he'd take it personally and a war would ensue. Just a thought. I saw his removal nd thoughtit was over the line. Have a good one.Gator (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Slrubenstein, right now I don't know what you are talking about, having just come back, but I can assure you that I know and agree that deleting comments from talk pages (except for outright personal attacks) is wrong and that any deletion from my kind was inadvertandly. Sorry, Str1977 23:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

...Especially since I totally agree with every word you have written in that passage. 100% I am just as annoyed as you are. Str1977 00:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

On the Jesus Article...

NOW we have people trying to delete the minority view and to get under Rob and Sophia's skin. Will it ever end? --CTSWyneken 02:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about others... I was just trying to shorten, not delete it. Sure it was a risky move, but if it is a fringe view, should it be included? As I mentioned previously, only about 3 scholars are mentioned on the Jesus-myth talk page that hold this view. ^rossnixon 09:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added a section to the talk page to see if we can get a consensus on what the paragraph should say. If enough of us then are satisfied, we can avoid endless debates with proponents of one view or another, revert with a polite reference to the discussion and be done with it. Everyone is invited to come. --CTSWyneken 14:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've moved your response to Rob from "Reject" to "Further Comment." Where it was, it was messing up the vote count. archola 10:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we should try not to engage Robsteadman's every argument. If he makes a new argument or proposal, let's respond. If not, let's not reply. This worked somewhat with Doright. Maybe it will work here. --CTSWyneken 14:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Me, too! Well, we both have more important things to do than argue with him. So, when the vote's done, let's update the page and set guard over the paragraph. --CTSWyneken 15:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Because you have been involved in the Talk:Jesus conflict, I would humbly request that you view this section on Rob Steadman's talk page concerning the recent war that has transpired. I do ask that you do not edit or add to / add comment to this material for the sake of clarity and conciseness. You are free to leave any comments on my talk page if you so desire. Thank you. --Avery W. Krouse 00:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've tried and I've failed. There is only one thing left to do. --Avery W. Krouse 20:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I was starting to analyize what I could about Rob's professed worldview, but when I saw Avery's remark I turned it into an editorial on the "one thing" page. I first heard of the Bright movement in an Wired article a while back, which explained it as kind of a scientist unreligion. Well, I've tried hard not to make personal attacks, but there were some things I needed to get off my chest--or fingertips as the case may be. I hope the controversy dies down to a more civil level soon ;) Arch O. La 02:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please help with wage labour

I just started wage labour. Please help if you can. Thanks! Infinity0 ^talk 23:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And there it is

When he gets painted into the corner, he refuses to address the issues, accuses others of twisting his words, attacking, bullying, trolling etc. and then threatens to "report" whatever that means... Was waiting for it to happen and there it is. Why bother anymore. He's got more faith in his religion than I do mine. lol.Gator (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Is OK

That's fine. He did write a reasonably non-confrontational version of his opinion above. It is useful to have reasonable answers to him on record. It also strengthens our hand when we enforce the consensus. --CTSWyneken 14:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, part of that was mine. archola 23:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Vote on natural selection intro passage

As a contributing editor of the English wikipedia article on natural selection, you are being invited to vote on two different versions of a controversial passage of the introduction. Please see details on the talk page, Talk:Natural selection#Vote on intro passage.

Yours sincerely,

Samsara _contrib ^talk 01:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit for Jesus Paragraph

Is your edit just adding to the footnote? If so, I, for one, will take all the help I can get on it. I don't think if the notes themselves as a part of the concensus. --CTSWyneken 15:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

A Request for you

Would you create a capsule bio article for Shaye Cohen? I'd like to link to it. I suspect it will considerably more pleasing than the recent war. 8-) Bob --CTSWyneken 04:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Could we create a regular wiki article to link to from my footnotes? --CTSWyneken 15:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the Revert

SL: I'd prefer to not have rolled this back, but I have to be good to my word, if we have any chance of keeping the lid on things. Also, I've been trying to document these dates; moving them has the effect of messing them up.

Also, Rob's opinion here has no weight whatsoever. With the exception of the Testimonium and a few other small passages, Josephus is universally accepted as accurate. --CTSWyneken 12:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean about the testimonium, although there is a text of this passage recently discovered by an Israeli scholar that does not sound like a Christian commercial. 8-) In any case, the dating of the birth of Jesus does not depend on this passage at all. It depends on Josephus' account of the life of Herod. Rob is claiming that one gloss invalidates the whole document. --CTSWyneken 12:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, on moving the dates. I do not have an objection to it, just that we need to talk it out on the talk page first. I'd love to demonstrate that my behavior is not censorship! 8-)

When it comes to moving the references, though, it will not be easy. My references in the second note depend on bibliographic data in the first. --CTSWyneken 12:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Jesus

Slrubenstein -- I was not referring to you in my post and I apologize if I came off that way. We've had some editors in the past few weeks resort to namecalling when their (fringe) POV has been challenged. You may know about this, as well as a few others. No offense intended to you or your hard work on improving the article. Sorry again...KHM03 15:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

When Rob is Back

Just a reminder: do not respond to Rob at all if he repeats old arguments or gets abusive. If he changes a consensus paragraph, revert it. Keep track of your reverts and only do it twice. If we can do this, nothing will come of it except frustration for Rob. --CTSWyneken 20:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Article Vote

SL: Good to see you. If you would, put your vote in. With any luck, this will be the last full blown discussion of this issue. --CTSWyneken 11:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote! But they want you to vote for only one and make no comments. Protectionism, you know! 8-) --CTSWyneken 11:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion, but please remove one of your votes. For the sake of simplicity, I have moved all comments out (we get into conflict by having comments on the vote table). Thanks! --Avery W. Krouse 16:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Synthesis?

My remarks were meant to synthesize the debate so that we can move past conflict and do exactly as you suggest, respecting NOR, NPOV and all other Wikipedia policies. "Conundrum" is a reference to how the issue of historicity is handled at the Socrates article. Arch O. La 17:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

PS:This reflects my own radical centrist philosophy that if we synthesize the debate, we can move past those who are pushing their own POVs (I choose not to name names). But of course, that is merely my own POV:I presented it in hopes that it would help resolve the ineffectual, uncivil conflict that I have witnessed. This may not work, but there has to be a solution somewhere...Arch O. La 19:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

On Verifiability

I wrote:

I strongly disagree with the current formulation of the policy. It strongly fails to Assume Good Faith.

You replied:

Indeed, the policy as it stands precisely assumes good faith.

Well, we can't be *both* right (hopefully both of us are partially right and partially wrong) and since both of us are intelligent and reasonably wise to the ways of Wikipedia, I suggest we work together to figure out what the policy should be to make us both happy and to ensure a happy Wikipedia.

I have only mild disagreements with the "policy in a nutshell":

Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

I think your response to my complaint,

Indeed, the policy as it stands precisely assumes good faith. If an editor adds something controversial (and let's be frank: it is only in controversial cases - where one editor challenges another - that this is even an issua), but in "good faith," then it would be easy for that editor to provide a citation. If he or she cannot, thehn - and only then - do we have evidence of bad faith. I agree that there are collective responsibilities. In fact, I added something to the Jesus article can though I was able to provide verifiable sources, several other editors started providing other good sources. To me this is collective editing at its best. Be that as it may, if someone adds something to an article, and one or more editors believes it is baseless, it is utterly reasonable for them to ask for a verifiable source. Asking is the sign of good faith, because the alternative is to revert the questionable edit. Let us remember that the main job here is to produce a quality encyclopedia. We must have standards.

refers accurately to the "policy in a nutshell".

However, the above does not accurately reflect what is denoted as "The Policy" (focusing on points 2 and 3):

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

The verifiability subpolicy as currently stands permits people to delete any non-sourced entry without any discussion. That is too far in the wrong direction.

a) The Policy says nothing about controversiality.
b) The Policy says nothing about making challenges.
c) The Policy says nothing about asking for a verifiable source.

Instead, the policy as stands says that unsourced entries can be immediately and officially deleted. The policy should reflect the "policy in a nutshell" that *all* editors have a responsibility to cite a source (what's "reputable", really?) whether or not they were the one adding material. Removing valid information just because it wasn't sourced smacks of distrust of fellow editors and paranoia. I think that both neutrality and full sourcing are critical ultimate goals--that is, the Platonic Wikipedia is one which is perfectly comprehensive, perfectly written, and perfectly sourced. But the Wikipedia in actuality is only an imperfect approximation, but as long as the statistical effect of all edits is in the right direction, we can be happy (if not satisfied). We don't expect that *every edit* improves the encyclopedia, but we expect that most will. And our policies should reflect that approach. --The Cunctator 05:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty bold, but what do you think about MyRedDice's original version way back in 2003?

The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete, accurate encyclopedia. We can't be sure of our accuracy if we include information which cannot be verified. Therefore: Include nothing that you cannot verify. If you try to verify some information in an article, and cannot, raise the problem on the talk page (you may wish to temporarilly remove the information). Someone else may have additional resources and be able to verify it. You should make it easy for people to verify your information by citing your sources. They don't have to be online - books, newspapers, etc - all good. Verifiability is one problem with articles on obscure subjects. By concentrating on verifiable subjects, we also concentrate on important subjects.

A little help

Not sure these days how the process for collaborating is -- make a subpage of Wikipedia:Verifiability ?

Also, what do you think are the motivations for the new rules? I'm trying to understand what Sarah/Jguk want in particular. --The Cunctator 14:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Please hack up/criticize Wikipedia:Verifiability/Proposed revision. It's a bit radical, but I feel it's good to start with a clean slate. --The Cunctator 03:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability/Proposed revision? I think one of the most important changes is to make the policy page be *just* the policy, not the extended, discursive material that really belongs elsewhere, as guidelines and such -- some of which I've put at Wikipedia:Try to verify....

Hi, Slrubinstein, I like what you say over at Wikipedia talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards.

It seems you were involved back in 2004, but is this a currently active project?

I am currently trying to organize my own thoughts on encyclopedic goals, the Wikipedia quality control problem, and possible short and long term responses, including migration to some venue (hopefully a new Wikimedia project) more amenable to scholarly values, yet retaining sufficient techno-political features of the Wikipedia model to render the new project viable in terms of encouraging high quality edits and recruiting more knowledgeable editors. I added some comments outlining my ideas into the FES talk page. ---CH 03:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi. I recently nominated myself for adminship. I would appreciate it if you voted and/or commented. Thanks! Infinity0 ^talk 20:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Piss Christ

Thanks for the comment, and your own contribution to the debate. Paul B 17:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The Road to Damascus

I have not read Boyarin, but I will look into it. Arch O. La 11:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The first three pages on Google Books were interesting, Now to find a sample of Cohen... Arch O. La^TalkTCF 06:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

A note on length

Actually, Wiki being not paper is a reason to be biased against length -- whereas paper has natural pagination, electronic documents do not. It's much more difficult to read and process long text on the computer screen than on the printed page. Instead of pagination, wikis/websites offer the possibility of breaking up information into distinct thought chunks which are interlinked. --The Cunctator 21:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

New Language on Jewish Authorities Proposed

See talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate --CTSWyneken 22:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Scientific peer review

Wasn't sure if you were aware of this, but I figured you might be interested. Guettarda 16:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Scholars, scholars and scholars

Just to clarify, I never said that astrophysicistts, historians or other scholars are not scholars if they are not called scholars. These are all included in my Venn diagram of scholars, which I've reposted to Talk:Jesus. Instead, I was commenting that other people have made that objection because we only refer to Bible scholars as scholars. Saying "Bible scholars, historians and philosphers" is exactly like saying, "Texan Americans, Iowans and Californians." Of course Californians and Iowans are also Americans, but by only referring to Texans as Americans, there is a false implication that the others are not Americans. The implication comes from poor phrasing rather than literalism. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 16:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It may be illogical, but people have made the implication. It's like trying to clarify "eats shoots and leaves": where do you put the comma? I tried to clarify with my Venn diagram, and now I'm trying (unsucessfully) to clarify the wording.

"New Iowan": Well, I was a new Iowan when I moved to Iowa in 1984.

It's probably a poor analogy, but it's only illogical because it's demonstrating an illogical implication. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

I have filed a request for Arbitration with regard to Marcosantezana here.KimvdLinde 06:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 18:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Natural selection

Hi Steve. I haven't paid enough attention to the article the last couple weeks, and the talk page is a mess to wade through. Does this diff pretty much outline the two positions as they stand right now? Guettarda 13:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian Jews

Hello, Steve. Long time, no see. I was wondering if you have the time, to please review and comment upon the discussion over at Talk:Persian Jews. I don't know if this is an area in which you are knowledgeable in, but considering your interest in Jewish and Biblical history, perhaps this article and the disputes there may be of interest to you. Sincerely, SouthernComfort 11:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"Insults"

You were being petty, cruel, and unfair. Why don't you say that to Jeffire when he said those awful things about Answers in Genesis? The site gets overly criticized by countless nuts even though it doesn't rant or rave like this one [5]. And I wasn't being "petty" or "cruel"; I didnt' exactly "invent" the insults. He was insulting Answers in Genesis with a baseless criticism. Maybe I was being somewhat "unfair", but it angers me when people bash a perfectly good argument like this[6]. One user called it "silly". Maybe you'll call it something even worse. Well, I guess it's pointless to argue evolution anymore, it does no good. Scorpionman 13:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

A little favour

Hey, I know we haven't really talked for a few months, but I'd like to ask a favour, if I may. I'm having problems with User:RJII over at An Anarchist FAQ with regards to POV editing. Could you come and comment? Thanks. -- infinity0 19:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR

Hi. Sorry if I stepped on your toes re WP:NOR. I unprotected because NM is now blocked for 24h. If you think it still needs protection, please revert me William M. Connolley 18:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend doing so. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and just reverting isn't enough, you actually need to re-protect. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Steve, it is not protected. You need to protect, not just put the protect template on it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Signing

I think you forgot to sign this. Guettarda 18:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus and Neusner

I'll take a look, but the Neusner data is only a sentence long ;) The reference was presented by an anonymous IP, so I'm not sure how to contact that editor. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 20:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I added a paragraph to Cultural and historical background of Jesus#Saducees and Pharisees in the Roman period, based on what 64.169.5.63 (talk · contribs) said about Neusner's book. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 20:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

NOR comments

I never meant to insinuate that you did anything wrong by protecting the page. Indeed you did not. A page is protected at the version it is in at the time of protection and that is perfectly fine. My protest statement was against editing done on April 10th, that was not done with discussion or consensus. Then further edits on April 11-12th based on those edits again done in lieu of objections from other users. The policy states at the top, that no major edits should be done without 'consensus' of other editors. There was none. If it had been a comma, or one or two words here and there to clarify, that is fine - but this was not the case. That said, you did a fine job with your protection. I want to make that clear, because it seems you think I was complaining about that - I was not. I posted there, only because of personal insults and critiquing of my edit to Slimvirgins edit, that was done at the time I was by word or block not allowed to respond. I wanted comments from the community as to how to proceed. I will set up an official RFC once I figure out how to do this (the user page is not very intuitive about this)...with the April 10th edit, my edit to that edit, or the original version being proposed. The community can then agree to one of the three, or propose other options, hence forming consensus for what to do. Once this is done, I will move on and accept consensus of the community. That is all I ever wished for from the beginning, but the insults meant to inflame, the personal attacks about my affiliations (untrue as they are), and insults to others took the entire discussion way off course. So RFC seems the best option. --Northmeister 02:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)