Science Fair Project Encyclopedia
- Hello, mister, I suggest you to justufy any changes you do in this encyclopedia to be justified in the discuss/talk page. Did you found out what ad verecundiam is?Manco 17:03, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry for not having taken a look at postmodernity, postmodernism, and political economy yet. I've been a bit busy lately... You're both exceptionally qualified to contribute to these articles, so I'm sure that you'll reach an agreement, though. 172 21:13, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I appreciate you making sure that my user page wasn't killed entirely by CheeseDreams vandalism :) It's upsetting she would do this. Ta bu shi da yu 22:29, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I'm beginning to wonder myself. Then again, I'm not exactly what you'd call "stable" either at the moment. I'd have some sympathy if that was the case. You think I should remove CheeseDreams from VIP? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Kevin B. MacDonald
Image on WP:IFD
The word "apocalypse" was not borrowed from Hebrew or the Jews, it is a Greek word.
Hi again, Slrubenstein. I hope you are doing well. I am writing to you because I noticed your above comment, and while I am no expert, still, I'm not sure whether it is correct to simply call it Greek. Please note the following from jewishencyclopedia.com:
- An "Apocalypse," in the terminology of early Jewish and Christian literature, is a revelation of hidden things given by God to some one of his chosen saints or (still oftener) the written account of such a revelation. The word is derived from the Greek ἀπōκάλυψις, "uncovering," "disclosure"; a noun which does not appear at all in classical Greek, and in the later profane writers is not employed in any way that corresponds to the use above mentioned; it seems to have originated among Greek-speaking Jews, and then passed from them to the Christians, who developed it still further.
Also, note that my comment should be viewed as taken completely out of the context in which the passage in question was written by you (one which involves content which I simply am not qualified to comment on). Best regards, El_C
That may well be so but it doesn't excuse the completely untrue material which appeared on the main page, particularly the stuff from Josephus which everyone knows is a forgery. I am going overseas tomorrow but when I come back in February I will take an axe to Historicity of Jesus. Adam 00:39, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Wondering if you want to second the request I made at User talk:Amgine#Your subpages. Amgine has made a practice of keeping records of "misdoings", and I think it's outside the bounds of civility. You are the subject of one of these. -- Netoholic @ 04:33, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
Main namespace cleanup
In an effort to clean up the main namespace, I've moved your old main namespace userpage to User:Slrubenstein/old, as there's some edit history you might want to keep. Otherwise just delete it. --fvw* 12:27, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
Can you please take a look at Madagascar Plan? The author made some questionable comments about the Holocaust death toll on Talk:Holocaust so I'm somewhat suspicious of his motives. AndyL 03:23, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No original research
SL, would you mind e-mailing me with your e-mail address? I'd like to explain something but would prefer not to do it on the Talk pages. Best, SlimVirgin 01:23, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know that you are correct in your spelling change at Wilhelm Windelband: idiographic is in current use. I'm pretty sure that your edit comment at ideographic is not correct, in that my dictionary suggests that this may be an adjective derived from ideogram. It would be helpful if you actually wrote something at ideographic, so that we could take this forward.
Charles Matthews 10:43, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The current discussion is upsetting to me because it seems that many people are defending their own views of [race] and these views hold a position at the center of their pictures of themselves. I got into this discussion after being rather brutally chased off by JDG. At first I wasn't going to bother because I tend not to tangle with people who do not "fight" fair. When Peak got into the discussion I felt that I had to back him up because JDG was doing the same kind of "Get lost, squirt!" thing to Peak that he had done to me. Your name kept coming up in JDG's posting as a presumed co-conspiritor, along with somebody else who was included among what JDG called "the three principle contributors" to the article that had merited such high praise that it was never to be changed.
Later, you came into the discussion, and we tangled at great length. I may have given you less credit in my own mind as someone with an open view on things because you were so firmly bonded in my picture of this rather strange little world to JDG. My objection (then as now) was to the first sentence. Back then it was, "Race is a taxonomic principle used to group living things based on common heredity, physical attributes and behavior, where all members belong to the same species yet appear to warrant further classification." You defended it and JDG defended it, and I thought that I could never get you to see what is wrong with it or to change it. Looking back at that sentence now, after mulling this problem over and over again, I think it has the same defect that it originally did, but that purged of that defect it would be the best way to define things.
Much of the problem stems, I suspect, from the simple fact that the word "race" in the title of the article is singular. The reality is that whether or not there is one true (Platonically speakingn, of course) account of [race], there are about as many accounts of [race] as there are thinkers who try to deal with the question of whether to sort people out and, if so, how to sort them out.
As soon as we start talking about [races] it becomes clear (as I think you have said, at least implicityly, very many times) that there are many [races] and they all involve different people's ways of grouping people. So couldn't we say that [races] are groups of people that are aggregated by various people in various ways? I think Rikurzhen's idea of setting forth the various "schools" of [racial] classification is very helpful, and am rather dismayed that he seems to have a favorite scheme and seems ready to proclaim that that [race] actually exists. To go back to your (?) original formulation, couldn't we say:
- Races are groupings of living things on the basis of several competing rules of categorization, for instance, hereditary connections, physical attributes, language and other such cultural acquisitions, where all members are acknowledged to belong to the same species yet appear to warrant finer division yet failing to meet the relatively more rigid requirements for subspecies status.
You and some of the other people who have worked on these articles have a finer hand at setting these things forth. But I think everyone could agree that this description fits the facts of what people are actually doing (and it also takes in the borderline cases of, e.g., Chinese views of "race" -- which basically boils down to 2 groups, us and them, which is why they are often categorized as ethnocentric without being called racist).
If we can nail this point, then we can ask who the adherents of "3 races," "4 races," "by marker characteristic," "by genetic propinquity", etc., etc. Also, who groups races by language and/or culture? (I think most of the people I associated with in Taiwan were willing to accept me as "one of them" to the extent that I could assimilate to their culture. My appearance didn't seem to be an issue. In Japan I could be in an "in group" with 10 Japanese, and another Japanese from across the street or from another dormitory could be in their "out group", and all of the "in" and "out" seems to have been built on "aftermarket" factors, i.e., nothing much to do with genetics or language or anything I could ever figure out.)
I hope that we can agree on the basics and work together. I don't like the prospect of another war. On the other hand I don't want to see the article depart from objectivity (even if it is in a way that its adherents regard as "true".) P0M 01:41, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Who said that?
El_C 05:59, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You said: [a]s such, this deserves its own article, linked to sociology – as the title for my comment directly above indicates, it already does. Who said that?
El_C 02:05, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I was being whimsical, sorry for any confusion. More on that at my talk page.
El_C 22:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Critical theory section on Marx article
Hello, I'm wondering if you might be convinced to change your mind on retaining the section on critical theory (by the user "192") in the Marx article. The section is poorly written, reads like a school report, and adds nothing to the article, instead briefly summarizing Marx badly. It's not wikified to boot. Do you think you might be convinced that it should indeed be chopped? --Improv 15:38, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Oops, I must've misread your edits. I thought you re-added it. --Improv 07:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking they should be merged because they are more or less continuous. The only thing that slows me down is the existence of the "validity" sub-article, which is a real mess. I could probably move things around within the main article, but I don't know how to manage the material between the 2 articles. --Rikurzhen 21:51, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with your suggestion. One problem: I think there is a better source than the 1995 source for the POV they were expressing in the other article. I'll move that over and put your quote in the talk page for safe keeping. --Rikurzhen 22:50, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
I've done a little bit. Go ahead and give it a shot if you'd like. --Rikurzhen 23:01, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the arguments against can be cut down and condensed. Don't worry about losing stuff, I copied it from the sub-article. --Rikurzhen 00:11, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the note you left at User_talk:Peak. I would prefer to discuss by email - you can email me from the "E-mail this user" link. By the way, I am puzzled that the Race article still carries the statement that "This article is about race as an intraspecies classification." It seems to me that there should probably be a page that deals with the generic meaning of race in biology, and perhaps a Race (disambiguation) page as well. What do you think? Peak 06:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I looked over the article and I liked your work a lot. Well written, detailed, and organized. I will take a look, periodically, and I let you know if I think of anything...and please do what you can to improve moral relativism. I've done about all I'm going to do on that one; it was taken over a while back by someone trying to promote universism, a quasi religious outlook, and the technical philosophy was a disaster. By the way, I also like the stuff you did on the Jesus article. Best icut4u
Certainly excellent, though I think there will be some issues. You are a bit POV in places (e.g. "...he was making a profound point..."), but it's clearly generally very solid.
My only other issue is that you provide a daunting collection of references but don't make it at all easy to see what statements are cited from what reference. That is to say, this probably calls for some more specific "embedded" citations. I recommend this mostly in terms of defending it from less knoledgable editors in the future.
CheeseDreams has raised a Request for Arbitration against you. 
- Looks like this has already been resolved. Do feel free to keep me posted if it comes up again. Wesley 17:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In short, yes. See my talk page for more. --mav 01:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Give one warning then treat this person as if he/she were CD. See my talk page for the longer version. --mav 19:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Cheesedreams is now editing under User:Cheese-Dreams. I thought all the sockpuppets were blocked? I've blocked this one now anyway. --fvw* 23:44, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
I looked at  but it doesn't look like that ip has edited much besides "Cultural and historical..." lately. Same for Tigermoon. So, I'm left not quite sure what edits you were referring to that you thought I should look at? Wesley 22:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
When Israeli social scientists discuss ethnocentrism in Israeli society, they often, as a matter of convention use the term Arab viz. Jewish ethnocentrism. This should not be a surprise to anyone, no other form of ethnocentrism is more pertinent to them than that which is encompassed in domestic conditions. El_C
Citing sources templates
Your email address
- I wondered if you might have. That's a primary source for CheeseDreams with her Historicity of Jesus. Check out what I've written so far in the article on it. I thought you might be interested. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think you are an admin. If so could I ask you a favour and have a look at Talk:Bahá'u'lláh, subsection "poor command of language" and User:Amir1's increasingly hostile and abusive 'contributions'? I do think a period of enforced cool down would be of benefit for him. Thanks Refdoc 20:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! Refdoc 22:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sorry I got your comment disordered. I was moving a comment TonyS had left in the place on the main page where that section used to be, and I slotted his thing in in time order, just in front of yours. Noel (talk) 18:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am fully aware of the various meanings of the word goy, but the fact remains that if you are walking down the street in either Jerusalem or New York and you hear the word goy (or goyim), there is better than 90% chance it means "non-Jew(s)" and better than 50% chance it is being used perjoratively. You must know that. --Zero 23:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Just FYI, it looks like Tigermoon has requested arbitration against you. I just reverted her on Cultural and Historical... again. Gets tiresome after a while. Wesley 18:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
From Xed's talk page:
Your treatment of Jimbo, who has spent more money on this project than the average person will see in his/her life and is now working on it more or less full-time, frankly sickens me. Pakaran 15:01, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I hope you get better soon. The many who suffered because Jimbo thought a banner was unnecessary may take longer to heal. - XED .talk .
You have such a small, petty mind. Slrubenstein 19:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
placed on my page
- So wanting a link to allow to the tsunami aid is evidence of a small and petty mind? Fuck off you little shit - XED .talk 23:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? When I wrote that message on your talk page, there was nothing there about "tsunami relief," so I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you really not know what I was talking about? You have a small and petty mind because of the combination of ignorance, arrogance, and meanness with which you insult Jimbo. Since this is pretty obvious to everyone else, I thought it would be obvious to you. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You're comment was right underneath a discussion of tsunami relief! I've no idea why you think wanting to provide relief to tsunami victims is small and petty. I've no idea why you support people whose actions in trying to prevent Wikipedia from having a donations section on the front page have caused a great deal of suffering. But I suggest you keep your disgusting opinions to yourself - XED .talk 16:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There is no mention of tsunami relief in this section  (except for my query, posted today). There is however ample abuse of Jimbo, including blaming him for the suffering of others. Please keep your disgusting opinions to yourself. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Clearly, you missed the Ayn Rand link. Even user Pakaran, in the section below, knew what the conversation was about. Only Slrubenstein seems confused. Either you are too hopelessly stupid to work this out, or you loathe the people affected by the Tsunami for whatever racial or bigoted reason. - XED .talk 17:19, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It is simply shameful that you use the suffering of others as a shield behind which you try to hide your own abusive, bullying demeanor. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Speak for yourself. - XED .talk 18:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Uh-duh! I am speaking for myself. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This matter has been accepted and is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed. Evidence to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Evidence. It is uncertain whether or not the offlist email can be considered as evidence in this matter, a ruling on that will be necessary. Fred Bauder 14:50, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Don't move my comments, Rubenstein. You have already indicated on Bauder's talk page that you "do not mind Xed writing comments in my evidence section". -XED .talk 16:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am guessing you are ten years old. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Xed is blocked for 24 hours, please continue to edit your section of the evidence page to suit yourself. Fred Bauder 19:20, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Regarding that material on the talk page you might try
striking through it. Although I see no problem with removing it. Fred Bauder 22:51, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to say, but you caught me just as I was logging off. The most I could do at the moment was to protect the page, which I just did. In the meantime, perhaps you can Rd232, Stirling Newberry, and El C to join in on the discussion on talk. Regards, 172 22:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oh, do you want me to unprotect it? From experience with that user, I'm pretty sure that once there has been one reversion, more will follow until the page is protected. (I never got him to pay attention to talk until someone else intervened and protected the page.) But if you think that it's unnecessary, I'll undo it and later post some comments the next time I'm online. 172 22:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Capitalism is an economic system (theories as to how to interpert it notwithstanding -- it has certain objective charachteristics that most agree to, from all sides of the political-economic specturm) that historically succeeded and superceeded mercantilism, which, in turn, was a successor to feudalism. It involves private ownership over property and the means of production, it involves the use of wage rather than serf labour. Through capital accumulation, Merchant capital can, therefore, be seen to have transformed into industrial capital; then bank and finance capital, and finally, according to Lenin, monopoly capital, whereby the four forms mentioned above are increasingly concentrated and centralized as one. Why is there such an emphasis over trade viz. production, especially industrial production? Why is the intro bulleted? It should be rewritten using normal pargraphs, I think, with the emphasis placed on ownership (private, by capitalists), production (producing commodities for exchange, through wage labour and machinery), and yes, also trade, but alongside, bank and finance, too. These are all changes/factors that should be integrated into the lead. Contrasting it with forms of socialism should come afterwards so as to provide the reader with a clear narrative that, more or less, follows the periodization of the origins of capitalism as an economic system. Does that makes sense to you, SlR and 172? El_C 00:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I noticed the unfortunate results of the exchage between you and RDII. I attempted to chart-out an approach to the intro (which no one has commented on as all of you seem to be engaged with another, more specific subject/section at the moment). I sort of lost track of the discussion, but do let me know if there is anything I can do to help. (an identical comment was placed on RDII's talk page) El_C 23:50, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If you can summarize the dispute between Ultramarine and yourself, I will attempt to moderate. Also, if you wouldn't mind doing the same for me over this Flynn effect paragraph; he insists that I'm somehow trying to argue about genetics when I write that Wicherts found that the Flynn effect is qualitatively different than the BW gap; whereas I don't think I'm making a commitment about genetics that needs to be rebuked. He's also hung up about this conclusion not being mentioned in the abstract of Wicherts paper. --Rikurzhen 00:08, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Prima facia I would suggest the best compromise is to (A) try to reduce the word count on the MMoM section by (1) summarizing points and/or (2) removing content that may be redudant with other sections; and/or (B) give the text some structure so that it can be more easily treated as part of the overall article. Maybe some of the text could be converted into a list, which may be easier to read and give couterpoints to. Anything to make it seem more like a discussion of race/IQ and less like a book review should satisfy the criticism that this material is merely duplicated. --Rikurzhen 18:17, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
- If you do plan a re-write, consider this quotation. At least on some points Murray and Gould agreed: --Rikurzhen 18:47, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Most scholars accept that I.Q. in the human species as a whole is substantially heritable, somewhere between 40 percent and 80 percent, meaning that much of the observed variation in I.Q. is genetic. And yet this information tells us nothing for sure about the origin of the differences between groups of humans in measured intelligence. This point is so basic, and so misunderstood, that it deserves emphasis: that a trait is genetically transmitted in a population does not mean that group differences in that trait are also genetic in origin. Anyone who doubts this assertion may take two handfuls of genetically identical seed corn and plant one handful in Iowa, the other in the Mojave Desert, and let nature (i.e., the environment) take its course. The seeds will grow in Iowa, not in the Mojave, and the result will have nothing to do with genetic differences. 
Elisha ben Abuyah
- See Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves. I'll fix it this time, because I think you may have it to the point where it will take an admin to disentangle it, but in the future, please stick to the "move" tab, and if that won't do it, it's a lot better just to mark the task as needing to be done and letting an admin actually do it. (Unless, of course, you're an admin, in which case you should definitely learn about this in more detail.) -- Jmabel | Talk 19:39, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, these are so hard to fix after the fact. I've screwed it up, I'm going to need to get help. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:53, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
User:Jcbos and "Christian" Bible
User:Jcbos has been removing all references to the "Christian" Bible as a "pleonasm". He insists this was agreed to on Dutch Wikipedia, and that he is therefore enforcing it here as well. Several other editors and I have been reverting his edits, but he seems quite adamant. Much of the discussion is on User talk:Jcbos. He also thinks my recent edits at Bible are "pure lies" which "NEED" to be reverted. I was wondering if you could take a look and tell me what you think. Jayjg (talk) 23:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee ruling
The case against Xed has closed. You are strongly cautioned to avoid even the appearance of a personal attack, even when provoked. Personal attacks even in response are considered unbecoming behaviour for a Wikipedia editor. Please see the final decision for details. -- Grunt [[European Union|]] 04:04, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
Hi SlR, I hope you are doing well. I was away (out of town for a few days, then continued taking a break from WP) for a while. Sorry for having dropped out of the discussion on capitalism; sadly, my help ended up being, at best, rather meager. For reasons which go beyond the scope of this comment, I'm not sure I'm going to return to it right away, though I may revist the topic/dispute in a little while. Please do not hesitate to email me if you wish to speak in private.
El_C 20:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at the dispute at Revisionist Zionism? User:Guy Montag is trying to censor material critical of Revisionist Zionism, particularly documented evidence of fascist sympathies among various Revisionists in the early 1930s. AndyL 23:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
To add to the requests on this page, could you please take a look at the current edit war going on at Nazarene? There are a couple of anonymous editors, apparently associated with a modern "Nazarene" group, who wish to radically re-write one section into a version which another editor and I see as an advertisement liberally laced with original research. The differences are clear from the edit history, and the discussion is on Talk:Nazarene. Jayjg (talk) 16:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I did ask Wesley, but he's not around much any more. I also asked Seglea, but ditto. I've also asked Jfdwolff; I'm trying to find people who are at least somewhat knowledgeable in the area. I'm hoping between a number of editors we can come to some reasonable resolution that is satisfactory for everyone, and not too time consuming for any individual. Jayjg (talk) 16:22, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. My main complaint is that after Doop's edit, there is no indication where in Liptzin's lengthy book one finds discussion of the Bovo-Bukh. My secondary complaint is that once someone cites any other source for this, it will be impossible to know what came from what source. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:20, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Just a heads up that RJII has reported you for a 3RR violation on capitalism. He's wrong (the first is a revert of vandalism), but just thought you should know (in case you didn't notice yet). Guettarda 22:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Because no one reported them and I missed them when going through the historyGeni 21:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
By 3 minutes! That made me chuckle. :D El_C 00:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This use of the 3RR to ban you is unfortunate, and bordering on harassment. I don't understand why so many Wikipedians ignore the purpose of the real, and instead use it like a blind-man swinging a club at any noise. I am afraid that this will only serve to push more serious contributors away, leaving only trolls. RK
Should Jewish mythology include both Jewish mythology and Jewish folklore? How do the parallel articles in Wikipedia (on other mythologies and folklores) handle the distinction (if at all?) In any case, this page is currently false advertising. It does not discuss Jewish mythology. Rather, it only contained a series of religious polemics against anyone who studied Jewish mythology, claiming that they didn't understand Torah-true Judaism. None of the many other Wikipedia pages on folklore do this, and this page should not do so either. That is a violation of Wikipedia policy. People don't come to an encyclopedia to be told that they are heretics are stuck in a Western mindset, even if they are told so politely! I have tried to improve the article slightly, but at present am focusing on the Aggadah article. RK 13:53, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
See the new page on Jewish folklore. This was a redirect page, sending people to Jewish mythology, but ancient Hebrew mythology and Jewish folklore are so distinct as to deserve separate articles. What is here now is from the 1906 public domain Jewish Encyclopedia, but I have been lighty editing the text. (In some ways the text was admirable and scientific, in other ways it discusses many beliefs in terms like "primitive" or "savage".) Any thoughts on structuring, editing, or the like would be appreciated. RK 17:10, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Update: A new proposal
I don't think it makes sense to have an article on Jewish folklore, aggadah and on Jewish mythology. Indeed, one might fairly say that Judaism has no indigenous mythology distinct from its theology and aggadah. Of course, it is also fair to say that the Hebrew Bible is permeated with stories that have all the characterisitics of what is termed mythology. Yet the study of Biblical studies from the perspective of myth is far from the discussion of Kabbalah as myth. It seems to me that we need to remove this particular article on Jewish mythology altogether, as it attempts to combine far too many distinct topics into one article. As such, I propose that we use this scheme: RK 02:09, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Jewish folklore - Studying Judaism's folklore from a historical perspective.
- Aggadah - About the non-legal teachings in classical rabbinic literature.
- Kabbalah - Our present article on Kabbalah can include scholarly studies of mythological tendencies and themes within Kabbalah. If this section becomes too long, it can be spun off into its own article.
- Biblical mythology - A new article that I just created, discussing how scholars analye Biblical themes and stories as myth.
I see from the mailing list that you have been having problems over at capitalism. To try to counter disputes such as this, there is a proposal to have a written policy requiring users to provide sources for information that is queried by other WPians who are acting in good faith. Just wondered whether you'd be interested in offering your comments on Wikipedia:Confirm queried sources. Kind regards, jguk 17:18, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I made the decision to withdraw from the article talk page. Sadly, I am rather confident that the intro will end up glowingly pro-capitalist, representing the views of the Right and Moderate Right, and underrepresenting that of the Left and Moderate Left (again, it should be expected under this socio-economic system called capitalism), as must be the case for such fundamental articles. I don't have the energy to fight a losing battle over this POV eventuality. Watch this flash video for further generic details. [(this generic comment has been forwarded to User talk:RJII, User talk:Luis rib, User talk:SlimVirgin, and User talk:Slrubenstein (that's you!) ]
SlR, I tried to engage the article talk page, but now I think it was a mistake. I continue to hold that the intro needs to depict capitalism (to use a tripple-negative) not ahistorically, as an economic and as a social system, with the views of the L, ML, MR, and R being representative. As you may have noticed, I did not feel your version accomplished this, in fact, I have doubts as to whether this can be accomplished at all under these conditions. You do seem committed to see this through though, which is terribly foolish/courageous (you choose wish). Sorry for all the verbosity, please continue to feel free to consult me on specific items therein, or on anything for that matter. I apologize if I have given you a different impression with my comment in the article's talk page; it was driven largely by profound frustration which I'm certain you're familliar with, but I do need to be held accountable for my actions, too (déjà vu?). El_C 02:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Hi, SlR. This time you have failed to understand my theoretical position on the subject (though I don't blame you), I, in fact, agree with you. Please see my response here. I am going to have to continue my thought in private though, as I am not comfortable speaking freely on the subject at this time (which, I should stress, has nothing whatsoever to do with RJII who has been nothing but civil to me). I will email you within a day or two. Yours, El_C 12:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Might be a good idea for you to step back a little bit from this fray -- this is a case where giving the fool enough rope to hang himself will work quite effectively. Let his hysteria be heard; it hurts nothing but his own cause. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I recommend you put Circumcision and Anti-semitism up for VfD; these kinds of POV forks/personal essays just don't meet the criteria for encyclopedia articles. Jayjg (talk) 18:42, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I see someone did put up the Circumcision and Anti-semitism article up for VfD. It is deserved, in my opinion (but see my comments on the Talk page). However, your practice of repeatedly blanking out the page instead of putting it up for VfD or (heaven forbid) editing it is counterproductive. It's basically vandalism, and doesn't accomplish anything but give fuel to those idiots who think there is some sort of Jewish cabal on Wikipedia. JimCollaborator «talk» 01:20, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Circumcision and Genocide
Hi there. I just wanted to say that despite our heated argument and your seeming attacks on me during the recent vfd challenge that I do not have not ever had any personal bitterness towards you. I would like to encourage you to start an article on the topic of Circumcision and Genocide if you have valid references to back you up. I will certainly support such an article and do what I can to help it, in particulair to make sure both sides of the argument are present. Look forward to working with you in a positive way. Sirkumsize 01:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Since no one in a position of power has tried to force Jews not to circumcise since Antiochus Epiphenes (and there is an article about the Maccabean revolt), it is a moot point. Wikipedia doesn't have to have an article on everything -- we don't have an article on murder, for example. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi, SlR, as per your request, bellow is the lead paragraph (in full) of .he's קפיטליזם which I have translated for you (wikiing in the original) :
- Capitalism is a social and economic system that developed in Europe between the 16th and 19th Centuries and entails principally the right of individuals and groups for private ownership over property and its free use, while relying on the enforecment of property rights through the judicial branch. Under this concept are also included theories whose main purpose is to justify the right for ownership over private property and a direction towards or cancelation of governmental limitation towards its implementation.
I'm not particularly pleased with it (esp. such a heavy emphasis on property rights per se.), while it correctly identifies 'social,' it ommits a pivotal generalization, 'the means of production,' as in the New Webster Dictionary (print) which I cited before: "Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for profit." (p.146) Additionally, there is nothing on relations of exploitation or wage labour: Marx, Dickens, etc., and until recently, a third of the planet who viewed it as such, are absent from the lead. No surprises, I expect this will end up being the case in .en.
Alas, you already know how I feel: a publication dominated by pro-capitalist views is going to present a pro-capitalist view of capitalism, and NPOV be damned — this is too fundamental a concept for NPOV to have any real meaning. Addressing some of the more obvious intellectually vulgar items (which seems likely, though not certain), will not prevent a supressing of anti-capitalist views, while highlighting the pro-capitalist ones. Again, no surprises, it's the nature of the system, I have no delusions. There is virtually no hope whatsoever for a balanced lead.
So, as per the four branches of political-economy: the (revolutionary) Left, the (evolutionary) Moderate Left, the (reform) Moderate Right, and (classical) Right — I expect the latter two (esp. the last one, as the current political-economic neoliberal climate promotes this worldview incessently) to be featured prominently and the former two (esp. the first one, most antithetical to the last along the continuum) to not be mentioned at all, or at best (though this is doubtful) depicted with great POV antipathy and distortion. To sum up, far too fundamental a concept for NPOV to have any meaning. And I think that, deep inside, the contributors on the Right (Luis Rib, Silverback, etc.) know this. But they, too, are bound and chained to have the article's lead shaped along these ideological lines. El_C 19:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Origin of the Hindu
Hi, I read the discussion on your user page about the age of Hinduism and you suggested that Hinduism was created by the British. It reminded me of an article I read recently , which may help you to explain your point, unless the topic has already been settled... AdamRetchless 22:43, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Original research in Israeli West Bank barrier
A few day ago I created a new introduction to the Jewish philosophy and Christian philosophy articles. It deals with the meta-issues, and attempts to put the topic in some intellectual perspective. You want to give it a brief look. RK 23:12, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
Original research at Israeli West Bank barrier
I am having a great deal of difficulty explaining the concept of Original research to User AladdinSE at the article Israeli West Bank barrier. He keep trying to insert a sentence which attempts to make the argument that the barrier is like the settlements in creating "facts on the ground". The problem is, only he is making this linkage, he hasn't been able to find a credible source which does so. He insists that because all of his claims are linked to sources, the overall argument isn't original research, even if the argument is a novel one. Do you think you could help in explaining this? Jayjg (talk) 03:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hinduism and Judaism
This is a 3RR warning
- when you leave a message like "mouse error" and "naughty," it is hard to see you as anything other than a vandal. Who are you? You have never contributed to the Jesus article, and have never raised issues on the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3RR violation on Jesus
- Vedi la bestia per cui io mi volsi
- Aiutami da lei, farmoso saggio,
- Ch'ella mi tremmar le vene e i polsi
- El_C 01:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- SlR, in answer to your question,
- ...pacique imponere morem
- parcere subiectis et debellare superbos.
- El_C 02:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The contents of this article is licensed from www.wikipedia.org under the GNU Free Documentation License. Click here to see the transparent copy and copyright details