User talk:Humus sapiens/archive5

You are aware of WP's policy of not changing date styles, and have had the benefit of a number of other WPians commenting on it too. Please accept that. Also, I find the comment you placed on my talkpage, along with a number of other comments you have made to me to be particularly offensive. Quite why, on a secular site, you are making religiously-charged statements, particularly to someone who has made it clear that in his opinion there is no religious element to the discussion at hand - and that falls well below the standards of civility expected on wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Civility. I ask you yet again to respect the norms of wikipedia, or if you are unable to do so, to refrain from editing it, jguk 07:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have removed my comment for your talk page, I'll reply here. You insist on Christian-centric notation BC/AD which is offensive and inappropriate in some articles (particularly, those deeply related to Jewish history) because there is a viable alternative: denominationally neutral and commonly accepted [1] BCE/CE notation. After your offense, your attempt to pose as "the offended one" is not convincing. Your holy war goes against the ArbCom's "truce", which included an important clause unless there is some substantial reason for the change. You ignore the truce nonetheless with changes like this [2]. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a viable denominationally neutral and commonly accepted alternative. First, BCE/CE notation is only used by a small minority - even google searches (which will be biased towards American academia on this one, which everyone says is where its usage is most prevalent) show BC/AD notation being preferred by a majority of 9:1. BCE/CE notation is simply not used by many in the real world - certainly I just never see it in the UK - not in our museums, not in our popular history books, not on television. The same is true for many other nations - for instance, you won't find too many incidences of BCE/CE notation being used in India. WP is an international encyclopaedia that has the general public as its audience, we should write in language they understand - that is the bottom line.

Is BC/AD Christian-centric? Well, no more that Wednesday is Norse-religion-centric, that June is Roman-religion-centric and by referring to July you are glorifying Julius Caesar. Put another way - no (and whether in the distant past that answer was different is irrelevant to what it means now).

Is BCE/CE neutral? Well in New South Wales it wasn't - changing one instance of BC to BCE in one exam paper led to angry questions in both chambers of parliament, and to the Education Minister accepting that the change should not be made. If the idea of the change was to reduce offence, it fell on deaf ears - NSW religious leaders said they were not offended by BC (and why should they?, its only meaning is as date notation anyway). In the UK, introducing what the terminology meant into the National Curriculum provoked some angry letters to newspapers, and for the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to make clear that it would continue using BC notation itself. In Canada, the Royal Ontario Museum held itself open to ridicule when it made the same change - which clearly was not made in response to what the Canadian public wanted. Even the website you mention (religioustolerance.org, which is a personal blog by a Canadian retired engineer with no training in the subjects he writes about) notes that his choice of using BCE notation is what creates the greatest bulge in his postbag (and I can't believe that's because everyone's praising him for the stance he's taken!). In summary, we can't say that BCE/CE is neutral and commonly accepted - the empirical evidence on the ground is that it is neither.

Maybe in the community in which you live and work, BCE/CE is the most common (or maybe even the only) notation used. The WP community is different though. We have to consider our audience. We don't want to offend the people of Australia, let our work be held up to ridicule in Canada, create angry responses from the United Kingdom or confuse the people of India who haven't seen the notation. Neither do we want to offend those more familiar with BCE notation - although I take comfort from comments by religious leaders that they are not offended by BC notation (even though some of them do not use it themselves).

We have to move on from this - and in so doing we have to be guided by earlier discussions on the subject on WP. Your arguments have been considered before, and haven't gained consensus, so they do not constitute a substantial reason for a change. So we are left with applying the basic "no change" rule. If we are to get back to harmonious editing, as I'm sure we all wish to, we all have to accept that, even though none of us will say it is ideal, jguk 08:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I'm lucky I'm not in S. Wales. Your long passages won't hide that your position has little sense. You won't be able to hide intolerance and insensitivity behind your misinterpretation of WP policies. As it has been proven, neutral BCE/CE notation is common and increasingly accepted. Having this viable alternative, the only reason to insist on Christian-centric notation in religiously-sensitive articles is either chauvinism or ignorance. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's New South Wales, not South Wales. Maybe you'd like South Wales. It seems you won't be moved, but please respect the fact that on Wikipedia your views are in a minority. At the time of the great BCE v BC debate that we had on Wikipedia, there were a number of proposals on Wikipedia:Eras/Compromise proposal/Voting, all of which failed, jguk 09:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jguk, I've seen you say in several places that it's not used in the UK, but it is. I went to university there to do undergraduate and postgraduate degrees, and that's all that was used. I also recently gave you a link to a Guardian article that used it. I can't imagine anyone in Britain not knowing what it means. Thanks for the information about religioustolerance.org, by the way; it's been used a lot at Religious persecution by Christians, and I was wondering what it was. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By "not used in the UK" I mean amongst the general public in general (not that by making internet searches you may find the odd exception), jguk 09:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please realize that you are in the ridiculous position of a person who argues that slavery and the n-word are not offensive and that the majority of "general public in general" got used to them, therefore no change required. Note that I do not advocate of wholesale changes, only in a very few sensitive articles. Your insensitive behaviour (under the disguise of complying with policies while violating it) is offensive. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what would be used by the general public, because they'd rarely have cause to use either. Most people in Britain or elsewhere use it in the context of academic studies, and the overwhelming use there, in any Western country that I'm aware of, is BCE. I won't hash through the arguments here, except to point out that NPOV says we publish what published sources say, not what the general public says (assuming they say anything). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SV, when we say we publish what published sources say, that means we publish the concepts in published sources, not that we mimic their style. As for any publication, we should adapt our style to that of our readers, which will invariably be different to the readers of academic texts. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Humus is doing a good job of reducing his own position to one of absurdity, jguk 09:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

None of our policies say anything about publishing only the concepts of published sources, but not their style. We have only three editorial policies: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. These say that Wikipedia publishes what the majority and significant-minority of reputable or credible published sources publish. (There are arguably exceptions to this: e.g. when what the majority of published sources say is POV, but that isn't covered by policy.) It seems to me that, in the case of BCE/BC, there isn't going to be any significant unpublished opinion anyway. When would the man on the Clapham omnibus have cause to use either BC or BCE? You can argue that we're not here to copy academic-speak (and I would tend agree with you on that point), but I'd say most Wikipedians accept that we're supposed to be scholarly when we can, and use the most respected sources available on any given point. In this particular case, the argument is moot, because academia is where most of the published sources are to be found, and they tend to use BCE, not BC. Even within academia, the terms will not often be used: you'll find them used most often by ancient historians, philosophers, and theologians, and in my experience they all use BCE. In fact, the first time in my life that I've seen anyone argue against BCE was when I saw your arguments here on Wikipedia.

In any event, the arbcom ruling is what we have to stick to, and it says we may change from BC to BCE and vice versa when there is a "substantial reason" to do so. What we have to do now is decide what counts as a "substantial reason." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we do here - as the point was considered in a community wide vote and there was no consensus for the proposal. Whatever a good "substantial reason" may be, it certainly isn't what humus sapiens has been proposing, jguk 13:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should we consider asking the arbcom to clarify what they meant? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. They were thoroughly sick of the case when they finished it, I'm sure they don't want to revisit it, particularly as we already have the community's view on humus sapiens's argument, jguk 13:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jguk, you have to stop saying we have the community's view. There's no consensus one way or the other. Period. We have only two things: (1) the MoS, which says both are acceptable, and which is in any case not binding, so that doesn't help, and (2) the arbcom ruling that says BC may be changed to BCE, and BCE to BC, when there is a "substantial reason" to do so. My understanding of that would be when the editors on any given page decide there is a substantial reason. You disagree with my interpretation, but you don't offer an alternative one. Therefore, it seems to me we need to ask the arbcom for examples of a "substantial reason," or else we need to decide between ourselves what are to count as examples. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration case centred on Yuber, to which you gave comment, has closed. As a result of this:

• Both Yuber and Guy Montag are each placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year from the date of closing this case (9th of October, 2005). Should any sysop feel that it is necessary that either of them be banned from an article where they is engaged in edit warring, removal of sourced material, POV reorganizations of the article, or any other activity which the user considers disruptive they shall place a template {{Yuber banned}} or {{Guy Montag banned}} as appropriate at the top of the talk page of the article, and notify them on their talk page. The template shall include the ending date of the ban (one year from this decision) and a link to Wikipedia:Probation. The template may be removed by any editor, including them, at the end of the ban. If they edit an article they are banned from, you will be briefly blocked from editing Wikipedia, for up to a week for repeat offenses.
• Yuber is instructed to use only this account, and no anonymous IPs. What editing constitutes Yuber's is up to any sysop to decide. If Yuber violates this, any sysop is authorised to ban them for up to a week.
• Guy Montag is banned from editing any article related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the date of closing this case (9th of October, 2005).

Yours,

James F. (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look over at Talk:Balfour Declaration, 1917 Huldra 13:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who is being intolerant and riding roughshod over a rather stupid, but workable, compromise. As to my intolerance - for God's sake I'm Jewish. I would add that my main reason for reverting is as much your patronizing, obnoxious edit summaries as the content of the change. If you would quit insisting in edit summaries that BC/AD is intolerant and that you are following wikipedia policy, I might just let you and jguk fight it out. john k 17:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to believe that it is considered inappropriate, except that you insist that it is. In addition, Old Testament (pardon the potentially offensive usage) history is clearly subject of importance to both Christian and Jewish history. Lastly, I really, really, really hate doing things because somebody somewhere might theoretically find it offensive. I haven't brought this point up heretofore, because I thought you were saying that you yourself were offended. Since this is apparently not the case, I would ask that you find somebody who actually is offended before you declare that something as inoffensive as a date format is offensive.

So as to be constructive, perhaps it would be wise to ask the arbcom to explain what it meant about "substantial reasons" to change the date format. Personally, I cannot think of any substantial reasons to change the date format. But it might be best to ask for advice. john k 03:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am far from being alone: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and many more may be found. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Humus. I thought you might be interested in improving the Religion in Israel article. Cheers. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As noted on one of the talk pages, a couple of days ago I chatted to Raul654 on IRC (he just happened to be the first Arbitrator I saw on there) and he confirmed that the ArbCom really did mean "no changes". Full stop. I appreciate you may wish to double-check this with Raul, and I'm sure he would be happy to confirm to you exactly what he confirmed to me if you do want to ask him. Now we know what ArbCom's intent was, I truly hope we can all agree to follow it, jguk 18:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say we have to go by the arbcom's written decision until they formally clarify it, but it's actually pretty clear, given that it offers the American/British English situation as a comparison. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In cases of American and British subjects, it is quite clear which is to be preferred. In other cases, there is no reason to prefer anything. But what is a clear instance of a subject which should not use BC/AD? "Jewish" subjects before Jesus equally belong to Jews and Christians, I should think. Perhaps specifically Jewish subjects post-Jesus (the Talmud, say) would be appropriate for CE rather than AD - although CE/AD is rarely an issue, since we normally just don't use an indicator for AD dates. I suppose that particularly Buddhist or Hindu subjects might be appropriate for BCE. But there's no especial reason to think this. It certainly is nowhere near as clear as it can be for British/American spelling. john k 19:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually BCE is rarer in India than it is in either the UK, Australia or New Zealand (where it can't be said to be prevalent either). Even google searches throw up very few incidences of Indian usage. So I really see no argument at all in favour of using BCE in articles about Hinduism, whichever way you play it - although, of course, we'll still need to accede to the ArbCom's "no change" ruling even for those articles on Hinduism that do use BCE, jguk 20:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "equal" means, but I'm sure you know that only by originally being a part of Jewish history it was reflected in the Christian narrative. In any case, note that no one advocates using Jewish calendar in History of Poland, for example. If both notations are acceptable, is it really too much to ask to use Common Era?! ←Humus sapiens←ну? 20:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jguk, you seem to think that if you say something often enough, it'll become true. ;-) The arbcom didn't issue a no-change ruling. What they actually said is below. And BCE is very common in British academia, which is about the only group that has cause to use BC/BCE, so please stop saying it's not used in the UK. Theologians in particular use BCE, as do ancient historians, and we're supposed to follow scholarly standards here where appropriate. It seems to me that if the editors of any given page agree that a change is appropriate, and particularly where, once changed, the page has been stable for months, Jguk shouldn't go around changing them, because it stirs up unnecessary trouble, and he's made hundreds of changes since the arbcom ruling, which must be a violation of it. What they said is below. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable.

I checked with Raul654 what the ArbCom meant when they arbitrated on the matter. Raul made it clear that ArbCom had no desire whatsoever to rehear the case and said that it was "no changes". No get outs - just no changes. By all means, don't accept what I'm saying and check with him yourself - I'm sure he'll be just as happy to say to you exactly what he has said to me and if it is in response to questions asked by yourself there's no danger of any misinterpretation on my part. But please do not carry on as if there is any uncertainty in the ruling - either accept my report of what Raul has said to me, or ask him yourself what ArbCom meant, but please do one of those and accept the conclusion, jguk 21:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jguk wikistalked me in Talk:Hebrew calendar where he have never popped up before to bully his preferred style - against the expressed wish by several editors of that article. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Humus, Category:Jewish diaspora has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 16. IZAK 04:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Humus, I note that you are continuing to attempt to change a small number of articles that have used BC notation to BCE, despite now being fully aware that this is contrary to WP policy, as ruled explicitly by the ArbCom. I have checked your point as to whether they really meant "no changes whatsoever" with a member of the ArbCom who ruled on the case, and he confirmed that yes, they really did mean no changes whatsoever. I have invited you either to accept what I have reported, or alternatively for you to go ask him yourself. It's just not on for you to refuse to do either, and I don't really know how we're going to resolve this until you accept this, jguk 09:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You keep referring to nonexistent policies and mysterious communications with ARbCom members who state a "purpose" to their ruling that contradicts the terms of the ruling itself. Frankly I'm getting tired of your disingenuous references to policy which are clearly intended to discredit your opponents in the eyes of those who don't have the time or inclination to research the matter further. AT this point I can't possibly imagine that you believe what you are saying about policy, when we have discussed the issue thoroughly on many talk pages and shown you the falsity of these assertions. --Briangotts (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What the blazes are you going on about? Have you read the ArbCom decision (which to my mind makes the WP policy crystal clear)? If you're unwilling to accept my reports of a conversation with an ArbCom member who ruled on the dispute about what it means, why don't you ask one yourself? jguk 06:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Given your past behavior you have no credibility. We are not obligated to accept your word on this, and your representations as to what you were told by an arbitrator are simply hearsay. That aside, one arbitrator's opinion about what his intention was is irrelevant if it is contradicted by the plain meaning of the arbitration decision as posted, in plain text, for all to read. If an arb feels that the written text does not match his intention or that of the committee the committee should be reconvened and the policy altered. --Briangotts (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wanted to discredit you, Jguk, they couldn't do a better job than you do yourself. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get a handle on how this issue is going to be resolved, in the light of what WP policy is. I'd appreciate a bit of flexibility on your part. By all means do not listen to me, but if that's the approach you are going to take, please at least confirm with someone like User:Raul654, who ruled on the issue before, what the conclusion was. Then we can move on to more profitable editing, jguk 16:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2 has been accepted. Please place evidence at /Evidence Fred Bauder 13:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor and I are having a conflict on this page; would you mind taking a look? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Humus. I believe you uploaded or created the image [9]. I have a simple comment about the Western Sahara which looks blank. Can you please fix that? Thanks in advance -- Svest 00:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}[reply]

That's fine as only the countries members of the AL that are in green. Nothing to fix than as Western Sahara is not a member of the AL. -- Svest 07:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}[reply]

It continues... [10]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor

Check it out. Klonimus 17:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've made substantial revisions to this article, adding a lot of material from Jewish Encyclopedia and elsewhere. It still needs a lot of work and I will add more archaeological stuff when I have time. Thought you might be interested though. --Briangotts (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As there is a great deal of inconsistency in the naming of articles about Jews, I have proposed that they be made consistent. I'd appreciate it if you could commment on this here: Template_talk:Jew#Name_of_articles_on_Jews. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a few articles I thought you might have an interest in. Right now they are largely pastes from the Jewish Encyclopedia, but I've wikified them and made some edits. I plan to do more in the future but I'd be glad for any help you choose to give:

• Talmudic Academies in Babylonia
• Nehardea
• Dosetai
• Anilai and Asinai

Briangotts (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Humus, please take a look at History of Arab-Israeli Conflict. Is it needed since it is basically a somewhat exanded version of the Arab-Israeli conflict article? I put a "merge to" sign on it. What do you think? Thanks. IZAK 09:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Humus: See Location of Jerusalem Temple? It can and should -- after some good editing for removal of "fluff" -- be easily merged into the main article at Temple in Jerusalem. I have indicated that on the former's page. IZAK 11:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at a new article called Groups Exiled from Judaism, and not quite sure what to make of it, I was shocked to see that the well-used Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar has now been "taken-over" by a pro-Mormon user and a new similar-looking Template:Mormon_jew is now being utilised. This Mormon template plagiarises and makes confusing use of the original Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar. The Mormon template must be radically changed ASAP. Your attention is needed. Perhaps we should follow official channels too. Thank you. IZAK 16:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the antics of User:Aabaas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aabaas recently in Israel and West Bank articles. Thanks IZAK 07:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind taking a look at some recent edits to Christianity and anti-Semitism. To me they seem to be inserting a non-factual POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at my response to your comment. I believe that the sentence in question that I wrote should be taken out of the article. I wrote it into the Martin Luther article the day before yesterday. As you can see from the ELCA disclaimer, they use this distinction between Anti-Semitism and Anti-Judaism. Please see comments at the end of Talk:Martin_Luther_and_Antisemitism. I am glad that you have helped me see the danger of Anti-Semitism, and the indefensibility of the horrendous On the Jews and Their Lies. I am ashamed of that document as a Lutheran Christian clergyman. drboisclair 01:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put it in. I think that it was a lead in to the discussion in the Martin Luther and Anti-Semitism page. I agree that you cannot make that distinction. Cheers, Dave drboisclair 21:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for supporting my rather contentious request for adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to do a little dance here *DANCES*. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future, and thanks once again!  ALKIVAR™ 07:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to express my gratitude for your support of my RfA, I greatly appreciated it. And I'll try to hang on to that good humor business (though it's getting tough!). Thanks again! Ramallite ^(talk) 04:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2 case. →Raul654 03:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]