User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 17

Hi. I've been trawling through some papers about subspecies concepts. I've been at home yesterday because I was unwell and I don't have access to some of the papers at home, Helsinki University allows me much more access to papers when I am at work. Still I've come across about ten different concepts. Obviously a detailed discussion of all of them in the race is not impossible, thought many of the concepts are similar. Actually I came across a paper that mentioned Dobzhansky and it supported what you said on the race talk page. Anyway the main subspecies concept used today is the phylogeographic subspecies concept. This seems to be well defined, and there is a good case study on Leopards I can use as an example. Cladistics is a type of taxonomy, and so I think there is some confusion about how cladistics can be used to infer subspecies, cladistics can only be used to classify subspecies once their phylogeography has been established. There's another point here. The traditional species concept is the Biological Species Concept (BSC), this simply states that different species don't reproduce with each other in their natural environment (or if they do they do not produce viable offspring, ie the hybrid is sterile), even in this concept there is some leeway for zones of hybridisation between similar species, but they are very marginal. The thing is that a new species concept is getting more and more popular. This is the Phylogenetic Species Concept (PSC). This concept more or less states that if two populations do not occupy the same geographic range, and also display some derived characteristics, then they can be separate species. This has led some former subspecies to be classified as separate species. One thing about this concept is that it does not allow for the existence of any subspecies. So I am having a think about this. I am thinking that it is worth having a brief description of the two species concepts, then a discussion about three of the subspecies concepts 1) morphological subspecies (traditional) 2) lineage 3) phylogeographic. I would include all of the definitions of subspecies but not go into detail about all of them, many are similar anyway. How does this sort of setup sound? I appreciate your opinion because I now realise that I think and write like a biologist explaining a biological phenomenon, rather than a person writing an encyclopaedia. If this sort of organisation seems OK to you I'll have a go at writing something along these lines. I hope I'm not bothering you. Thanks for any help. Alun 11:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your point about arbitrariness is very prescient. I think it is the fundamental difference between, let's say racialists and realists. Racialists seem to believe that concepts like "race" and "species" are fundamental units of biology, whereas by any objective view these concepts are merely a convenience, in part due to our natural dispisition as a species to compartmentalise things, and in part because scientists like have conventions because it reduces confusion. For example if I say Escherichia coli everyone knows exactly what bacterial species I am talking about, because it is an international convention. These specific concepts are mainly used by zoologists so they are relevant. Also there is much discussion about the PSC at the moment in zoological taxonomy. Clearly in biology it is the norm to use "race" and "subspecies" as synonyms, I'm just not quite sure how much detail we should go into regarding biological subspecies concepts in the race article, after all there is consensus in the biological community that humans are a single subspecies. Alun 11:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on my page.

Also, I should tell you how pleased I was with you yesterday. First you posted something about how since I couldn't come up with different terms the existing ones would just have to do. My response got blocked because of another edit by someone else. By the time I was ready to edit again you'd changed my title to be a question on the issue, indicating you weren't as inflexible as the original message indicated. As a result I made a completely different (I think far more useful) response. I appreciated what you did. --Minasbeede 14:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must see that I have been appreciative and supportive of your efforts to keep the discussion on track and to keep the talk page pared down to a reasonable size. I again thank you for those. I also agree that if the main page is locked there is a situation that demands immediate attention to the issue at hand. There, I might observe, I present no problem since I don't intend to ever edit the policy page. I'd think that if a change is needed the proper procedure is to discuss it first and not start an edit war. Even if I did decide to edit the policy page I'd never do it in a way that (as far as I could tell) would start an edit war.

If I had it to do over I'd ignore Jossi's post. I have to admit he almost certainly means well. --Minasbeede 15:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer in my talk pages.

Could you at least get that off-topic marker out of the NOR talk page? It seems ridiculous to see the entire article flagged as having off-topic material in it (and of course hilarious for it to say "move it to the talk page.") If something I've written disappears along with it, bye-bye to that. --Minasbeede 15:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I will copy things back to my sandbox then, and change the "stuff" on the NOR talk page accordingly. I do think NOR should be a policy, though with a few minor changes. wbfergus 16:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Relevance of content/Content policy analysis is the beginning of a discussion for coordinating content guidelines as an outgrowth of discussions at Wikipedia:Relevance of content. Based on some of your comments at the Pump and elsewhere, it seems you have much to offer. --Kevin Murray 09:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up the NOR talk page. I wasn't quite sure how to go about it properly, so the proper "flow" wasn't lost, and you did a good job. Since it appears you've been active (more or less) with the policy for quite a while now, am I way off track, or do you any merit in what I'm proposing (moving the contentious isssues to their own pages)? Thanks. wbfergus 11:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I agree with the policy in principle, but think it needs some cleanup as well. To me, a policy should able to be easily read and understood by the majority of all users as simply as possible. It appears (as you suggested), that things got added over time that "cluttered up" the policy with definitions and terms that really had no bearing on NOR at all. Cleaning up the policy with those "add-ons" moved to their own respective pages would simplify things quite a bit, and keep the discussions more focused strictly to NOR, not on what type a source is or what synthesis is. Thanks again, your opinion is valuable. wbfergus 11:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just left a message over on his talk page for the "Sources proposal". I'm thinking about editing my version of the NOR policy to link to his, so others could more easily see how things would look separated, and any problems with sources or the wording, would be handled there instead of within NOR. I need to think about how to word the section on the NOR page though, so there is a smooth flow of thought. Maybe later today (I'm in Denver, CO, and it's only 6:30 am here) I'll have an idea of how to get it accomplished. wbfergus 12:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<RI>Would you mind if I comment on User:Slrubenstein/NOR. And if so where? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind at all, in fact I welcome it - but would you mind if I first run it by a few people who have been most vocal in the debates over NOR in the past couple of weeks? I want some time to tweak it, and then I would love your comments/edits. (It would just make it easier for me to keep track of changes) Slrubenstein | Talk 15:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry just leave a message for me when I can comment. One point however. Primary sources in Science are not "facts". Science does not work on facts, just theories and tests of those theories. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal attack with the statement "You commie anarchist hippie!" on this edit against User:Wobble is against Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks.----^DarkTea© 17:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was a joke... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed obvious incompatibilities with content policies that were stated at Wikipedia:Guide for Indymedia authors. Could you take a look and see if all the bases are covered? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jesus. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 08:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for alerting me to these matters: I appreciate your valuing my input on this website, cordially, --Drboisclair 17:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been following the NOR discussion lately, how are things going? Any closer to a resolution? Dreadstar † 21:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your invitation to discussions pertaining to NOR issues. At the moment I am travelling in some remote regions of Russia, so, as you can probably imagine, I do not have the time or the disposition to get involved at this time. However, I will be back home in 10 days. Thanks again for the invitation.BernardL 08:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I admit my versions aren't the best by a longshot. I created those in the hopes that others (far better at wording than me) would look at them and make improvements to the "base" that I created, which was basically just copying the existing policy and moving out the "stuff" that has no bearing on NOR and which appears to be the cause of most confusion and contention. I like many parts of your version, but again "I" still think the sections on 'source issues' and the part decribing synthesis should be off on their own pages. It's sufficient to on the NOR policy page to acknowledge that those exist and can lead to OR problems, but it's beyond the scope of a NOR policy page to get into describing what those 'subjects' are. I think things would be far simpler for new people to understand and comprehend, and the policy far cleaner, if 'ancillary subjects' aren't redefined on the policy page. That was one of my biggest points of confusion when I first was referred to the policy. I read it, saw the definations on the policy, then followed the links, and saw discrepencies, got confused, then went to the talk page, and really got confused with the big 'debate' that was going on. I think many people like yourself, who have been involved with this for so long, may be looking at this (policy) as self-explanatory, but not looking at it from the perspective of somebody new (like myself). As a newbie, I couldn't understand why the policy was trying to define things (however appropriately) that were outside of the scope of what I though the policy would be about. That's primarily I guess where started getting confused. Just keeping the policy focused solely on "No original research" would go a long way towards eliminating confusion and contention. I really like what you've done with the stuff about history, etc. though, and I also appreciate your comments. Thanks. wbfergus 13:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you re-protect the article? Dreadstar † 15:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would prefer having the article protected in the last version by Mikkalai, which was the last consensus version before Cogden started edit warring to get his non-consensus version in. You should revert back to the last version by Mikkalai instead of reverting back to the non-consensus, contested version by Cogden. If a version is to be picked to protect on, this was the last consensus version before the edit war. Dreadstar † 16:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I didn't put you in a bad spot by asking you to protect the article...I think you did what you thought was the right and neutral thing to do, by protecting the last protected version. I certainly didn't mean to criticize your actions, if it came across that way...But I do have me wishes, don't ya know....;) Your follow-up statement on the NOR talk page was well done. I apologize for putting you in that position, I should have gone straight to WP:RPP. But I thought since you did it before without anyone complaining..it would be good...sorry 'bout that.. I think you're a fantastic, neutral and thoughtful editor..! 17:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What, me worry?..;) Thanks, I appreciate that...I come from a family of worriers.. Dreadstar † 18:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When it's unprotected the source-typing language should come out. This is starting 3 weeks of protection. The source-typing language has been an issue since inception.

Nor should you be protecting the page. --Minasbeede 15:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may be right, since you're now heavily involved in the discussion. Perhaps we should get a completely uninvolved admin to protect? I do disagree about removing or changing language from the pre-edit war version until consensus is reached on any new changes. Dreadstar † 16:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, you extended the previous protection, so it may be fine... Dreadstar † 16:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was there consensus for this? If so, I'll self-revert. Dreadstar † 18:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the current discussion, Cogden's edits should not remain. Is that what you intended to restore? Or did you mistakenly restore Cogden's disputed edits? Dreadstar † 19:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Cogden is the one edit warring, I think Mikka has it right. Dreadstar † 19:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for butting in here. I agree with protecting the page (any version, I don't care which one), until everything is finally agreed upon. Is there any way after that point, if it ever arrives, that "Policy's" are always protected, to stop all this stupid edit warring? It seems that only those elected as Admns should have the authority to edit "Policy" pages, but only after a concensus has been reached. That would be one way of keeping this under semi-control.

I no return you to your previous discussion. Thanks. wbfergus 19:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, you actually are the one who unprotected it. Dreadstar † 20:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I realize I made a mistake when I tried to extend the protection - still, I wish someone would have caught my error and fixed it. Anyway, all taken care of now. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. It still irks me that it was reverted back to and protected on Cogden's non-consensus changes. Does it work the same with policy pages as it does with regular article protection...the version doesn't matter? It doesn't look to me that any new drafts are close to being accepted, is that right? If there aren't, then maybe we need to focus on the issue of Cogden's changes. Do they stay or go. The disputed version has been in place for almost a month, despite repeated statements by most of the editors on the page that they should be removed.. And I'm frankly astounded that Cogden, an admin, is allowed to edit war with impunity on a policy page. Dreadstar † 20:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yeah, I understand about protection on articles..but since there seems to be some difference being described by both Cogden and Mikka about how policy page disputed content and protections are handled, I thought there may be more to it than with a standard article. Dreadstar † 20:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research&oldid=8133133 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minasbeede (talk • contribs) 19:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seemed to be disagreement with with both the concept and the language then. There's a lot of history between July, 2004 and now but I think I see similar disagreement cropping up over and over from the cursory look I've taken at the history. That the disagreement has each time been beaten down seems to neither be consensus nor meeting the "test of time." I guess that, if necessary, the thing to do is to provide specific references to all the times the concept/and or terminology have been questioned. The prospect of having to do that saddens me.

The "test of time" has little to do with now. I think I see substantial agreement among many that NOR would be better off if the entire section on source typings were elsewhere, probably in or as a guideline. End-runs around that possible consensus seem to be just that: end runs around it.

The most apparent difference between a policy and a guideline is that a policy has "should" attached to it and a guideline does not. Given that Wikipedia is a wiki I see little practical difference: who is going to claim that the word "should" (or even the word "must") in a policy actually have a significant effect on editing behavior?

As I understand it the pertinent offense is one of finding primary quotes (perhaps by using Google) and using those to dispute material in articles. Such editing probably reflects a bad attitude, a flagrantly non-NPOV nature, and a basic misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is. There's a need for an educational effort in such cases - but the material can be removed prior to the start of any such effort: the material doesn't belong. If it still happens then all the source-typing in NPOV has been powerless to stop it. If there's anyone who is engaged in the talk:NPOV discussion who favors such editing I can't recognize, with my limited experience, who that is.

The language hasn't worked: the objections keep cropping up. There were initial objections, you said you weren't wed to the terms primary, secondary, and tertiary. Now you seem to be wed.

I don't think the language needs to be in the policy - but as I don't think it makes much practical difference I could tolerate its being there, if the controversy didn't keep arising. I specifically suggested fixing the language. I specifically suggested making the definitions strong enough to stand alone, so that "primary," "secondary," and "tertiary" needn't appear and needn't be the source of confusion and conflict. There was negligible response.

An alternative to the controversy not arising (for me) is to stop looking at the policy and stop looking at the talk page. That can work. but Wikipedia isn't about me. What works (best) for Wikipedia?

Thanks for your time. --Minasbeede 19:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Talk:Feminism: "the fact is Wikipedia has more editors who are experts on Pokeman than on Feminism." Classic. Beautifully worded. Thank you. — Scartol · Talk 12:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"griping about it won't change anything" Oh, I don't know. It can provide amusement for those who agree with you, which makes WP a more enjoyable experience. This, in turn, can make those of us with an interest in making articles like Feminism better want to come back and keep working. I have a lot of faith in the ability of humor to make change. — Scartol · Talk 13:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you didn't follow the link. I'm on your side. Apology accepted.

"As usual, the admin has protected the wrong version."

-- But|seriously|folks  16:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll disengage all sarcasm then for maximum clarity. Any time a page is protected during an edit war, it is frozen the way one side of the war wants it. As a rule, the editors on the other side complain that the admin protected "the wrong version". I was commenting sarcastically, with a citation to a completely sarcastic essay, to highlight the obvious fact that the page had to be frozen in one version or the other, in an attempt to end the fruitless debate over which version should be protected and hopefully move the combatants forward towards discussion of the content itself. In short, I was sticking up for a fellow admin. I hope I've now made that clear. Take care! -- But|seriously|folks  17:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MoritzB seems to be using meatpuppets to revert this article. Look at the recent edit history, many anonymous IP's are reverting to MoritzB's version. It is also a bit odd that this occurred this morning immediately prior to MoritzB's contribution to the talk page. These IP's seem to derive from around the world, I wonder if this is being discussed on some racialist internet group? I really think we need an RfC against this user. His disruption, pov pushing and difficult attitude is making editing very difficult. I don't understand why admins are being so gentle with him, I've seen other editors blocked for far less edit warring and disruption. I'm very tired of this, he's misrepresenting science to claim that it says the exact opposite of what it actually does claim. I don't think I can keep this up. Alun 09:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He may be a trollish, but it's not trolling for the sake of it. I don't think he's going to give up just if we ignore him. He's determined to push his POV here and I don't think anything is going to stop him. We need an RfC where the community can contribute. Alun 09:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll ignore him as you suggest. Alun 09:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've started beating it into the proper form. Are you ok with me as a co-initiator? --Stephan Schulz 15:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has also initiated user-conduct RfCs, I want to point out that you'll need to have at least two people who sign as certifying the RfC, & there has to be evidence that both certifiers attempted to resolve disputes with the person through talk page discussion (on the article talk page and/or user talk pages). Both things have to be in place within 48 hours or the admins will delete the RfC. They've gotten pretty strict about it, so wanted to point that out. Right now you've only got one certifier. --Yksin 16:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to certify, but is it necessary after this? Dreadstar † 18:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certified. I'll add comments later. Dreadstar † 18:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signed on too late to certify, but thank you for acting. Jd2718 23:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:No original research, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

לשנה טובה תיכתב ותחתםWolf2191 17:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to notice you'd put a message at Jayjg's talk page. In case you didn't know, the user has not edited Wikipedia since Aug. 4. --Coppertwig 20:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Slrubenstein. The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I reverted your edits to the case top page since in general we keep the page in the same state as when the case was opened. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 07:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've replied to your question on my talk page. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! I've changed the protection to full, after my initial mistake. Have a nice weekend! Phaedriel - 22:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes, I think it's worthwhile to add it. It helps give a historical perpective, that to many editors would explain why the policy was needed and its evolution. wbfergus ^Talk 12:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm usually on checking some articles out every day, though I may not 'participate' every day. I'll keep an eye on it. wbfergus ^Talk 13:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. This last week has pretty much been exclusively devoted to "Sources". I think the origins of NOR is pretty uncontentious. wbfergus ^Talk 18:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll try to get the "origins" inserted. Since the page is still protected though, it looks like I'll need to contact an admin and then explain that this addition has been present on the page since Sept. 13th with no objections, and it doesn't change the policy, just adds a little background information in how the policy came about and evolved. Is the a list or something on here that shows who the current admins are? wbfergus ^Talk 18:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy page protection expired and was automatically unprotected. As of now, three edits have taken place, one of which was myself inserting your "Origins of NOR". I hope you approve. wbfergus ^Talk 13:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to comment at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Creeping_changes...? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! Absolutely wonderful. And my thanks for your support..! Dreadstar † 20:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very happy to do that! I'll take it slowly and see how things go. I've been having some personal issues keeping my Wikipedia time limited, but everyhing is looking better now - so hopefully I'll be able to contribute more soon. Dreadstar † 20:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thought so... no worries. Blueboar 22:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mind your alternative at all... actually I like it a lot (more succinct than the current language). I'm just not sure if it addresses what others have been complaining about is all. Those who want to change the lanugage of the policy seem focused on the use of the word "source", which your version keeps. Personally, I have never had a problem with that word... I understand what the policy is trying to say and agree with it. But since others are bent out of shape, we are not going to get anywhere by staying still... we have to change the language but keep the intent. If it turns out that the others don't like your use of the word "source", I am thinking of taking your version and doing what I did with the current language... just swapping "material" where appropriate. To me this is all mostly a tempest in a tea pot... it should be easily solved but for some reason it drags on and on. Blueboar 12:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said at Wikipedia talk:No original research: "Do you want to go ahead and make the change to the proposed draft? Go ahead". Thanks. Which draft are you suggesting that I change -- i.e. where exactly is it?

By the way, for good form, I would prefer that you, as a user involved in the discussion, not protect the page. If it needs to be done again I would prefer that you ask a non-involved admin. --Coppertwig 22:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click there to open your card! → → →

Slrubenstein,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 55 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to vote in my nomination. I'm a new admin, so if you have any suggestions feel free to let me know. I would like to give a special shout out to Fang Aili, Phaedriel, and Anonymous Dissident, for their co-nominations. Thank you all!

Dreadstar

Credits

This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor's modification of Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

Thanks for your support! I took the easy way out of thanking everyone by stealing borrowing someone else's design...but know that I sincerely appreciate your support and confidence in me! I can't tell you how much it meant to me to see your vote, I greatly respect you and it was quite a wonderful thing to see! Now let me know how I can support the NOR efforts...I can focus again..! Dreadstar † 07:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:No original research. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 08:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slrubenstein, I have been thinking about your recent addition to the article:

Kabalah refers to a set of esoteric beliefs and practices that supplement traditional Jewish interpretations of the Bible and religious observances. It is held authoritative by most Orthodox Jews, although traditionally limited to married Talmud scholars. Precisely because it is by definition esoteric, no popular account (including an encyclopedia) can provide a complete, precise, and accurate explanation of the Kabbalah. However, a number of scholars, most notably Gershom Scholem, Arthur Green, Danile Matt and Moshe Idel have made Kabbalist texts objects of modern scholerly scrutiny. Some scholars, notably Martin Buber, have argued that modern Hassidic Judaism represents a popularization of the Kabbalah. According to its adherents, intimate understanding and mastery of the Kabbalah brings one spiritually closer to God and enriches one's experience of Jewish sacred texts and law.

I do see some problems that might need consideration. But I do admire your rising to the challenge of trying to define Kabbalah. One thing that would help is if you would add the sources for Buber, etc. Sourcing is almost completely lacking throughout the article, so if editors would get in the habit of adding sources to their new additions that would slowly improve things. It is a real nuisance to try to find sources after months have gone by. Kwork 19:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slrubenstein, would you mind if I remove the red ink for Danile Matt and Moshe Idel? In the past I would have just made the change, because (unfortunately) no article exists for either of these two yet. But after six months of exhausting, on and off, edit war involving another article, I do not want to take any chance of getting into a new argument. Kwork 17:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will leave the names red. Most of the work I have done on the article involved removing things. Removing bad links, moving Hermetic Kabbalah material (it has its own article), etc. Kabbalah is a very big subject, and I hesitate to add material. Kwork 18:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say, thanks much for the book recommendation. Odd I didn't notice it when you first left the note. I'll have my headlights checked.--Mantanmoreland 02:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am working out a new essay at Wikipedia:The rules are principles, and your feedback and wit would be greatly appreciated. Take care! Vassyana 02:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SLR, I just wanted to mention, w.r.t. your preliminary proposal of a brief version of WP:PSTS, the following: Your brief version went:

Most succinctly,

• primary sources are sources of facts
• secondary sources are sources for distinct views of facts
• tertiary sources are summaries of, or generalizations based on, diverse views of facts

I would point out that, for example, works by major authors can also be primary sources. For example, works by Kant, Aristotle, Einstein, Heisenberg are primary sources. Also, the US Code is a primary source, as are any other statutes. There are numerous other examples that also do not fit with this brief version. I think it drastically oversimplifies and would result in great discontinuity of principle and practice in many aspects of the wiki.
Just a thought for the moment. And thanks for the heads-up about the proposal in your note on my talk page. ... Kenosis 02:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a statement in the New Encyclopedia Judaica (entry Jesus) that seemed similar to something you once mentioned:

"Jesus' major polemical sayings against the Pharisees describe them as hypocrites, an accusation occurring not only in the Essene Dead Sea Scrolls and, indirectly, in a saying of the Sadducean king, Alexander Yannai, but also in rabbinic literature, which is an expression of true Pharisaism. In general, Jesus' polemical sayings against the Pharisees were far meeker than the Essene attacks and not sharper than similar utterances in the talmudic sources. Jesus was sufficiently Pharisaic in general outlook to consider the Pharisees as true heirs and successors of Moses. Although Jesus would probably not have defined himself as a Pharisee, his beliefs, especially his moral beliefs, are similar to the Pharisaic school of Hillel"

There is also some interesting stuff there about the paralells between Jesus and the Essenes.

Also Re: Criticism of Jesus, the Talmud refers to him as one who "burns his food in public" (meaning that he burnt sacrifices to idols), he is also referred to as the son of a harlot (though its better not to mention that, for obvious reasons). I'm sure there must have been people who criticised his-not very practical- philosophy (If Britain had "turned the other cheek" to hitler and loved their enemy, we'd be in trouble.) BestWolf2191 14:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind looking at this section that I just added here Judaism's view of Jesus#The notes of the Masoretes. I'm not sure if I wrte it up clearly enough. ThanksWolf2191 19:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just caught your additional comment following one of mine in Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Just_to_be_clear:_definition_of_primary_and_secondary_sources, where you said: "Since I do not disagree with anything Kenosis just wrote, your comment seems a bit like a non-sequitor ... which makes me wonder whether you (Kenosis) misunderstood what I wrote. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)" I think I understood your points. I was attempting to clarify further how these examples fit readily into WP:PSTS. Several seem to be arguing that these various examples don't fit, when all that's needed is to include the examples in PSTS. Scripture is one: it plainly belongs in "primary sources". The other issue had to do with PSTS being seen in terms of the primary source being the published writings being either themselves the origin of the topic under discussion, or that which can reasonably be regarded as the closest sources to the topic under discussion, rather than merely in terms of, e.g., "factual". Sorry I missed your extra comment before-- been busy elsewhere. ... Kenosis 04:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you explain why you unblocked Proabivouac? From the ArbCom parole that he is on "He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by edit warring, incivility, or other disruptive behavior." - I certainly believe that this parole has been broken with his recent edits as they were very disruptive and pointy in nature, as did many other administrators who agreed this was problematic. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His additions to policy pages were very pointy - hence disruptive editing and why he should still be blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded - what the hell? You discuss with the blocking administrator. Not tell them you are unblocking, and do it. Proabivouac was not blocked for 3RR edit warring. He is the subject of an Arbitration Committee ruling stating he is to refrain from any tendentious editing or he will be blocked. If it were not wheel-warring, I would reinstate the block. Neil ム 12:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by blocking admin I opened this page to post a comment to User:Slrubenstein, whom I have worked with and respect greatly, to explain the block, following his courtesy note on my talk page. Please accept the following post also, in the same vein of courtesy :) This is more on the rationale. As described in the block reason, the situation is not entirely a new one. Proabivouac has received a ruling that he is on probation. Rightly or wrongly he is felt to have avoided probation, as best I can tell. He has since made a fair number of postings stating that he is being harrassed, accused others of harrassing him, and used the wiki somewhat as a forum for a soapbox on issues of his harrassment. This conduct acquired him some negative attention the last while, as a result. The problem came to a head recently, and then went quiet for a week. Over the last day or so, Proabivouac appears to be coming close to getting himself into problems again. There were many posts, and all were of a nature that were unconstructive and unhelpful, all on the same theme of his feelings, and all using project, talk and other spaces to make the case that has already been amply made elsewhere that he feels strongly on certain issues. Unfortunately Wikipedia is not for that. Strong feelings have a place, and self-examination is necessary, but applicable to every editor of whatever stance is the obligation to edit constructively, to not edit disruptively, to not use pages in this manner but to try and add to the project. Adding to a proposed policy that "Wikipedia is currently itself an attack site" is not constructive. Proabivouac knows it is not what these pages are for, that the community disapproves of him using multiple pages to repeatedly raise a point that isn't helpful, and that (for whatever reason) his previous conduct was considered serious or long-lived enough to result in a ruling on all incivility and disruptive actions. That's a fairly major step for a ruling. It should not be overstepped or under-estimated. If Proabivouac continues in the same vein, the next step would likely be a harsher one. I have no involvement in the matter, but I would rather see him understand, "you just don't do that and expect it to work out better". A ruling like he received is not a light thing. It signifies there is already a serious history of conduct, enough that a ruling was felt necessary. To then continue to use project and talk spaces to press his viewpoint when he knows it will be less than constructive and merely result in others being irked and a reversion, is to my mind the point where something should be said more concrete than a note, lest he continues and others do worse. And because this conduct is at heart, "not okay", in terms of annoyance, tendentiousness, and loss of communal patience. That said, you have unblocked, and I don't have an investment in the situation. I was asked to review, I have done so, you have viewed otherwise, and that's your right (as indeed it is the right of any admin). I hope for Proabivouac's sake, it was the right decision. That said, all the best, and see you round on various articles! Hope this comment fills in the gaps you were missing. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved outsider, I must say that I support this block and that I find it a little discourteous to immediately unblock without contacting the blocking admin first. These edits were obvious WP:POINT violations and generally disruptive, and we should give less leniency to editors under sanction by the arbcom for disruptive behaviour. "It isn't dsiruptive [sic] if it has not even violated 3RR" isn't really a good reason to unblock, because 3RR is not an entitlement, and in this case, the primary reason for blocking was disruption, not 3RR/edit warring. Melsaran (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slrubenstein -- clarification following your 2nd note: The concern isn't 3RR. As stated above, 3RR isn't the issue. It is possible to be disruptive even with one post, and as I judge it, recent conduct has been mostly posting as described, on the same theme, in places that are known to be inappropriate, known to cause others to remove, known to be unhelpful, and known to be irksome. Knowingly posting as such, to me, is a clear breach of the probation term that states by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by ... [any] disruptive behavior. This to me says, he has had an arb case, and their view was serious enough that they consider him to have acted disruptively on a variety of pages, enough that patience is worn out. It's not 3RR that is the issue. It's the making of multiple edits whilst on probation, that clearly push that probation by posting tendentiously and unconstructively. In the circumstances, a block seemed appropriate, since the evidence of the present course of action is that he is likely to continue to post on the wiki in places that will annoy others, exhaust patience, require reversion or cleanup, and conflict with the requirement to not edit disruptively. Recent contribs as of 26 Sept support that this concern has validity. In any event his then-present course is not serving him well nor fair to others. It needs to change. 3RR is not the issue. Continuing soapbox posts on the topic of his upset, a disruptive activity if repeated as he has done, following breach of probation and breach of probation condition is the issue. My hope as stated is that he will change. I hope your unblock decision works out for the best, for him, regardless though. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on some of our work together in the past, I though of you as good evaluator to assist in the dilemma at Talk:Adnan Oktar. I visited this page in response to a request at 3rd Op. --Kevin Murray 17:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slrubenstein, I directly asked you to respond precisely because you are the last best hope for this farce; you are being fair and objective and assuming good faith, and have no need to apologise to anyone; and I am humiliated that I expressed myself so poorly that you felt the need to offer an apology just in case. Sir, I apologise to you for my inadequate ability to express myself.

I was addressing those who responded to me making this point directly above and you are not among those people. Not naming names seemed useful in keeping this from getting personal, but I failed miserably at that, didn't I? Oh well...

Emotions are so high people are not hearing each other. I give up. Actual practice is reasonable. We are better every year than the last. Maybe in the future improvements in the wording will become possible. As for now, I give up. WAS 4.250 06:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking that much of the material in my sandbox might be used in the Race and genetics article. I'm a little concerned about it's length for the Race article, but might be able to cut some of it down. I also think I'll have a go at including some of it in the Human genetic variation article, this is where much of the discussion regarding clusters vs clines should more properly go I think. I reckon if I can get some detail in these two articles then I can see how best to précis this info into the Race article with a see also link to these other two articles. Does this sound good to you? By the way I've ordered a few books from amazon:

• White Identities: An Historical and International Introduction
• The Invention of the White Race: Racial Oppression and Social Control v. 1 (Haymarket)
• The Emperor's New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium
• The Hidden Frontier Ecology & Ethnicity in an Alpine Valley
• The Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism And White Privilege
  

Thought I'd have a look since this sounds like a fascinating subject and I have a long bus journey to work every morning with plenty of time to read. I might have a go at incorporating some of this info into the "White people" article at some point in the future, though I am a very slow reader. Some of these books were on your list, some I just happened to come across on amazon. Alun 12:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In case you missed a previous comment of mine on WT:NOR, could you fix the ref you included at the end of 'Origins'? It's showing up as [1], and there is already a ref#1. It just strange on policy where I think everything should look perfect. Not a big deal in the grand schem of things though.

BTW, I greatly appreciate you taking to time to be a positive contributor to the discussions there. I only wish that more of the 'people' there who hold the same 'opinion' as you would be more willing to participate constructivley. Jossi, Dave Sousa(?), and yourself are the only ones who seem to be so open to rational discussions, though Kenosis seems to coming around as well. His posts don't seem as adversarial as I interpreted them at first, though that may very well have been my fault. Without the input from 'your side', talks would be prety fruitless, as we would certainly be missing points 'your side' takes as important, this way we can see if maybe we can reach agreement (albiet slowly) on other points. wbfergus ^Talk 15:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]