User:SlRubenstein (archive 2)

---

this text below was moved from the old user page to here by Jheijmans 06:59 Jul 22, 2002 (PDT)

---

User:Slrubenstein

Welcome to Wikipedia!

I enjoy your writings on Judaism.

Also, I have questions regarding some of your changes to feminism and your deletion of misogyny. Would you please explain what you are doing? Ed Poor

thanks, and thanks. I added more to the misogyny /talk[?] in response to your comments -- I hope I am clearer now. As for my changes to feminism, they were motivated by two things. One, I wanted to communicate that there are different kinds of feminisms, and second, what some of those feminisms are. I had hoped it was clear.... SR

---

Nice working on Homo sapiens with you today. It's so refreshing to work through differences with someone who is also truly committed to being npov. --Dmerrill

---

So many people to welcome, so little time. Anyway, you've been doing some good work recently. Thanks! Welcome to the project. --LMS

---

Thanks for improving my work on mythology -- Cayzle

You're welcome -- but it was a pretty minor addition! It is a huge topic. Good luck with it -- if I can figure out other things to work in, I will give it a try....

There is a new entry on Religious_Pluralism. Much of your work in the "Talk" section of some of the other articles would be great to incorporate into this new entry. RK

--- Hi, slr --

Although you weren't speaking for me, I appreciate that someone seems to have understood so well what I was saying. I thought for a bit I'd lost my ability to express myself clearly! JHK

---

Bad news over at the end of User talk:Brion VIBBER about the missing article you were talking about. --maveric149

---

Re your comments on my userpage about The Graduate: I'm an old hand at misunderstanding things. I've been making an effort to avoid it--but fail still. Perhaps I should take some valium. ;-) Thank you for being so gracious about it.

Oh, and the talk pages aren't really meant to be part of the encyclopedia proper--they're more like the inter-office memos. I'll see if I can clean it up anyway, maybe by removing old comments. --KQ

---

Thanks for chiming in at user:Andre Engels. Perhaps we should slow down our own edits, lest an "edit conflict" frustrate the dialogue. --Ed Poor

---

slr, I owe you an apology and thanks for your help with seid last night. I have been having to fight off a lot of patent nonsense recently on the Norse related pages and I was feeling particularly put upon. Again apologies and thanks. user:sjc

Hi, SLR. I just saw your note. Unfortunately, for some reason I haven't been able to get on for well over a week, so I do not know what has been happening with the biblical canon page. I will take a look at it and see what I can do/suggest. Danny --- Re: Carolingians: looks like we had the same thought at the same time! Get out of my head, durn it! :) -- April

---

Hiya, SLR. Very much appreciate your thoughtful comments on Talk:Anti-Semitism - I think you've gone quite far to bridging the yawning gap between viewpoints, there! And you've helped me see the source of some of the (to my mind) confusion of terms, which will help me greatly in the future. For this, I am deeply grateful.

And if you wondered, my position is in the anti-gov't-policies, anti-nationalism sort of bent of things. My proposed solution to the Middle Eastern Question is to form a Middle Eastern Union along the same lines as the EU. Since this means many dictatorships would have to become democracies, I don't expect it to happen any time soon, but hey, it's a thought. :) If Germany and France can lie down together, maybe someday.... ;) (Oh, now the German and French contingent are gonna come after me hardcore... ) -- April

• Re: your response: I absolutely agree. And thanks to your thoughtful breakdown on the subject, I will now be a good deal more careful that I express those views in ways that don't trigger sensitivities of which I was not fully aware. Would you mind if I copied your main points to the meta page just created, so's to inform any latecomers to that discussion? -- April

SLR, I will revert and protect any page you want. Just tell me which version you want. For example, "Judaism 18:46 October 31, 2002". --Ed Poor 22:36 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)

---

Yah I agree. It would be inappropriate to define the Arawak, above all else, as victims. Lir 15:11 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)

Slr, when you get a chance please take a look at the new entry on Holocaust theology. RK

---

Don't worry, Slr. Writing the vampirism article is a harmless diversion for Lir, Like Ram-Man playing chess with her. I'll add a few bits about how cannibals believe they are gaining their enemy's power. I consider the writing of this article a teaching assignment. It's an excellent chance to give Lir (and anyone else watching or helping an in-depth introduction to NPOV. --Ed Poor

---

Hi Slru, I doubt that anybody is going to "rework" The Wealth on Nations[?], it was one of the "works" by the banned Lir. I put a note on the discussion when i first saw it, then a couple of week later was still the same, so i added the small line telling that was an interpretation. Probably it would have been better to do then what you did now. --AN 12:32 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)

Re: sex That page is 80% silly editorializing. Why did you stop ? 216.129.198.41 . Perhaps you should go to talk sex.

Hi Slr. Im not sure I understand why the criticisms were removed in the first place. Because they were inadequate? Because Diamond's supporters have responses? That just seems like a way of stifling an opposing viewpoint. I agree with you that the critique should be included. Danny

---

Careful what version you are editing, otherwise, you are just repeating my editing. Vera Cruz

I agree-I think for now the focus should not be to add to the article but simply to get what is there properly edited, 172 seems very opposed to compaction howeverVera Cruz

Hey, Slr. I've been thinking about the problem. There really isn't much that can be done at this stage. In many ways, it's indicative of several problems that have been occurring very frequently in Wikipedia lately. People are assuming ownership of articles, they are assuming authorty over subject matter about which they have have only a perfunctory knowledge, they are confusing the trivial with the essential, they are positing themselves as the central hub of NPOV, any deviation from which is POV, and they are willing to fight to the death for all of the above. Short of getting into a flame war, there isn't much that can be done about it. I think that protecting pages and suggesting bans are radical measures that should be considered carefully before even being suggested. Flame wars only lead to the person with the most persistence winning--and cranks are a persistent lot, mostly because they have so much invested in their pet theories. There are so many articles I would love to trash and redo: Israelites, Schneerson, and anything that divides biblical scholarship into maximalist and minimalist camps immediately come to mind. I don't though, not because I can't, but because I haven't got the time or desire to argue with people who are more interested in hearing their own point of view than in really considering its implications or honestly assessing other views. I still plan on redoing large chunks of the Genocide piece, but there too, I'm not willing to get into major battles. Danny

Adding a chat room or three would be a good start. Vera Cruz

---

Why did you restore the earlier version of the opening paragraph?

I did not restore it, I edited it.

That earlier version I wrote. I agreed with Vera Cruz with regard to that paragraph.

I am glad that you and Vera Cruz agreed. But Wikipedia is a collective project of evolving articles, and no one owns an article. Everyone has a right to make edits.

Please, before criticizing the article, keep an open mind and read the whole thing. You might have read it a while ago, but it's much improved now.

Yes, you are absolutely right here: I shouldn't criticize an article I have not read. But you are being defensive: I did not criticize the article. I made a few editorial changes. Moreover, I made these changes after reading the article. Moreover, I provided an explanation of these changes. What else do you want?

I wish people would read the whole article before criticizing it and editing it.

I do too. That is why I read it before editing it. And I haven't criticized it -- have I?

172

---

thank you for you intelligent input on the IPF issue, regardless of where you stand on any particulars. ---Sv

I responded to your comments on the Bible as history page. Take a look at Israelites, Ancient Israelites, and some of their links for further examples. (This article originally appeared in Israelites and snipped and made an article on its own right). Danny

---

Thanks, Slrubenstein. (re Comments on my user talk page. ) There seems to be general agreement, so I'll make a start on editing New Imperialisim shortly. As regards Guns, Germs and Steel, I suspect that we may, in fact, agree a good deal more than might be plain from the discussion so far. While I think that it is a wonderful book, and certainly believe that it has been an enormously influential one - it must be one of the most-cited works around at present, and forms the basis of any number of tertiary courses - my background in European history/political economy predisposes me to take rather a different aproach to answering Yali's question, one that is more narrowly focussed on the period since, oh, about 1500AD, and relies more on economics, history in the more narrow sense of the word, and above all the changes in the social meaning of things like "work" and "property" and "capital" that led to the Industrial Revolution in Europe, which in turn led to colonisation and the rest of it. I don't think that these views clash to any real extent, however: I see them as complimentary. I will certainly look again at the GG&S entry, and if no-one else does first, flesh it out and try to make the central thrust of it more plain, but probably not until after re-reading it again in a few months time. (I'm fairly occupied with other things at present and I like to let books settle in my mind for a while before returning to them.) Tannin

Am I wrong in thinking that there is some confusion as to what has been deleted on the talk:IPF page? At first i thought it might have been vandalism, but then i thought, perhaps JDT got confused as to what was 'archived'. be well. ---Sv

understood.--Sv

Hi Sv. The page was full so I trying to move a chunk of stuff to the archival page to make room so I could reply to your last msg. I think you came in in the middle, so when I tried to save it, I was told that someone else had accessed the page and and I was sort of stuck in limbo. Everything moved is in the archives. I don't know what happened over your last bit, because when I finally got in again it was gone. I went back to an earlier version including the bits that went missing and saved that, so everything should now be there. Sorry about that. Don't worry, I wasn't trying to silence you at all. Because I was pressurised into trying to cut a chunk for the archives before someone came in again, I just cut a set number of paragraphs. I didn't have time to read through them and make a 'clean' cut. I hope it still is readable, but all cut stuff is in the archives detailed at the top of the page.

JT.

---

Vera Cruz keeps on restoring that redundant version that you reverted. I'm trying to stop him. He's more likely to listen to you though.

172

---

I have re-written the Irish famine pages, including extensive referencing. (I have even used a major quote which I understand should be OK. If question-marks do arise over it, I can contact the publishing company (they are so close I can see their offices from my window as I type this). There is more work to be done on it (some culling and additional info) but this all I am able to do for the present. As you will see, I have mentioned and contextualised John Mitchel's quote. Let me know what you think of the article if you get the chance. JTD 20:40 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi Sirub, I'm sorry if you think you have a problem with me. I certainly don't have a problem with you. I have rewritten the famine pages a number of times to include quotes, references suggested by Sv. I know I have been a bit sharp with some people. I have been battling a bad illness for 6 weeks and that has left me bad-tempered, not just on Wiki but in general. I am normally the easiest going person imaginable. But being called a tory, a crude revisionist & having all Irish opinions dismissed as a British POV would drive most Irish people into a blind fury far stronger than anything I've said. Im only interested in producing a high quality NPOV piece on Wiki. I'm just ignoring Two16. I actually feel sorry for him. I think (quite genuinely) he needs help. But imagine how you would react if a Saddam supporter took over a page on American history,' agendized' it and then accused all Americans unhappy of being nazis & rascists and insisted that only their version (though factually rediculous) was NPOV. It would lead to bitter exchanges. I really am fed up with this row and as I have said, I am simply ignoring Two16 and Sv. Sorry if I offended you, though. You are one of the people (like Mav, Zoe, Camembert, etc) whose opinions I do take very seriously and respect. JTD 20:26 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC) 20:25 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

I do agree that Sv and Two16 made some interesting points and I have tried to include it through quotes from John Mitchel and Seamus Metress. I will try to rephrase the point about the differences between the views of the Irish diaspora (specificially Irish America) and local Irish opinion. I guess the point is that whereas in the past Irish history was often agenda-laiden (understandably as Ireland used its history in the struggle for independence), post-independent Ireland re-evalued its history to separate the agenda-led semi-propaganda (which was notorious in how it appeared in Irish primary (junior) schools until the 1960s) from an accurate factual account, reliant on primary sources. (All states do this when history becomes just that, history, and not something to be used in a fight for independence.) In particular, during the 150th anniversary, a broad primary-sourced Famine rethink took place. The local Irish view is that whereas their analysis is based on primary sources and not black and white goodie and baddie agendas, Irish-America's view is based on folk memory, on images of Ireland frozen in time and the propaganised history Ireland used in the 1930s. Seamus Metress reflects this from a different angle, where he thinks such re-analysis is motivated with robbing Ireland of its heroes. Except we view that approach as believing history is about cardboard cutouts of Cuchulainn and Padraig Pearse, singing 'A Nation Once Again' and shouting 'Brits Out' while drunk on guinness. And it irks Ireland when Irish Americans come to Ireland expecting a Brit-hating, guiness-drinking, gaelic speaking, all white conservative catholic state, and find a liberal, gay friendly, Brit-tolerant, budweizer drinking, english-speaking country with motorways, divorce, black-Irish, Chinese Irish and MTV, more likely to be listening to Brittany Spears than singing 'A Nation Once Again'. Many Irish Americans view that Ireland as a betrayal of the real Ireland that in reality hasn't existed outside New York Irish bars and their 'folk memory' for generations. So we generally see them as living in a gaelic dreamworld of black and white revenge-seeking, stuck in the 1930s (if it existed even then!); they see us as betraying our history, culture & identity. That is the crux of the problem. (I've cut out some of my earlier comments to make room, as my browser is limiting my space to write here. Hope that is OK with you!) JTD 22:29 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

SIrub, just read your experience with Two16 on the Revolution page. Scary, man! So obviously I'm not alone having the Two16 Experience. (Poor Mav is getting a rough time from him now because he sought to defend me on the Famine page.) JTD 04:29 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

---

I wish to apoligize for primarily describing the Arawak as victims. As I would like to add some information on Salim I al Sabah[?], Kabbar[?], Abdul Aziz ibn Abdul Rahman ibn Saud, Najd, Faisal I[?], Political Titles of the Ottoman Empire[?], Warba[?], Abdulla II al Sabah[?], the First Kuwaiti Crisis[?], Abdullah ibn Hussein[?], Mashian[?], Failakah[?], Auhah[?], al Khalifa[?], al Jalahima[?], al Sabah[?], Abdul Karim Qasim[?], Jaber III al Ahmad al Sabah[?], Muhammad I al Sabah[?], the Second Kuwaiti Crisis[?], Zaki Arsuzi[?], Salah al Din Bitar[?], Ghazi ibn Faisal[?], Bakr Sidqi[?], Abdullah II al Sabah[?], Ahmad al Sabah[?], Abdul Ilah[?], and Percy Cox[?], as well as (obviously) the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of October 1922[?], the Turkish Petroleum Company[?], the Basra-Baghdad Highway[?], the Berlin-Baghdad Railroad[?], and the Abudllah Khor Waterway[?], Nuri al Said[?], Abdulla III al Sabah[?], Aramco[?], the Kuwait Oil Company[?], and the Anglo-Kuwaiti Treaty of 1899[?]; I would like to inquire as to what objections you might have to my doing so? Vera Cruz

Hi VC -- I had no idea it was you who characterized the Arawakans primarily as victims (I thought that was Lir). In any event, do not apologize to me, if you have regrets, apologize to them. Why do you bring this up now? The last time I looked at the Arawakan article was in November 2001 and at tha time it looked fine. As for all the other articles to which you would like to contribute, it is not for me to say whether you contribute or not -- and frankly I do not care whether you or anyone does contribute. I will as always look at articles on topics I am interested in or knowledgable about, and continue to make suggestions when I see problems with the atyle or content -- which is what I think all of us are doing, right? Slrubenstein

The aspect of banning people disturbs me somewhat, especially colorful people with a valid history of contribution. This is especially so in a system where the rules are a bit amorphous to begin with. SL, you often show a humility and intelligence that are both shin (han) and insightful, and for you to admit a mistake of prejudice; "I thought that was Lir", is evidence of the quality of this community and its future as a repository of widely accepted substance.

Let me add: If we apply the analogy of the cockroach law[?] ( 1 on the kitchen floor means 50,000 in the walls ) to this, how many misconceptions does a community operate under in any frame of time? -Stevert

Hmmmm. I am not sure I follow Sv's comment. First, the reason I thought that the person who identified Awarwakans primarily as Lir is because according to the history of that article, it was Lir who wrote the section I had been refering to (and, after I made my comment on the talk page, it was Lir who made the appropriate revision). Second, I really do not care who wrote it, or who revised it -- there was problematic text, I made a comment, someone revised it. It doesn't really matter to me whether Lir or VC wrote the offensive (in my opinion) passage, or whether it was Lir or VC who revised it to its current (and, again in my opinion, improved) state. Sv, I genuinely appreciate your compliment, but although I might be disappointing you, I wasn't apologizing because in this particular instance I did not, and do not, think thee is anything for me to apologize about. I was really just expressing my surprise that VC was refering to the Arawakans, given the history of that page. Third, I do not understand why Sv is bringing up the issue of banning. I have never suggested that anyone be banned, and as I am not a sysop I have never banned anyone myself. Slrubenstein

Well, Im not going to take back the compliment either way. -Stevert p.s. I was simply expanding on a point you made, SL, not saying you were advocating anything.

Got it! I may be slow, but in the end I will always accept a compliment, Slrubenstein

---

I kind of like the mapping analogy in genetic code, and I think with a bit of tweaking that first paragraph could be good. The rest of it explaining about codons and so on (the part I wrote) still needs a lot of work, though... The problem I keep running into is how to avoid a didactic tone, which helps get the point across better, but doesn't seem sufficiently "encyclopedic" to me.

I envy you the VC post, by the way. Graft

I’ve been busy lately, but look forward to making further contributions. I’m looking forward to working with you on that history of capitalism article.

It’s a massive endeavor, so I’ve been compiling some of my old articles (don’t worry, they’re not copyrighted).

Britannica has a good article on economic systems. An ideal article for Wikipedia would be a sort of abridgement of an article that detailed.

172

Hey, Slr! You been busy! Danny

Okay, I stand by my contention, btw. Danny

Do you disagree? Inquiring minds wanna know? Danny

Hey, Slr! - Im about to dump a fresh version of idolatry into the databaste, Im wondering if you can take a look at it. Gracias, 豎眩

Lunch - bbl.Thanks -豎眩

---

All I know is that RK reverted my edits and nobody cared. And now, days later, you are asking him about changing something which I had attempted to change earlier. It would be nice if there was some more effective communication regarding editing.

RK is carrying on a campaign against me based purely on personal issues, that is unacceptable. Susan Mason

Fiction to fact? Indeed, you are attached to your idols of static concepts, and disconnected, defined, and dictated terms. -豎眩sv

---

"I think you are projecting! I am attached to my own desire to understand how other people use their concepts. Thus, when asked about something like psychological theories into "attachment," I try to find out how psychologists use the term (and why). I guess one thing I am not attached to is my own navel! ;)" Slrubenstein

Well, projecting or not, Im pleased you can admit to a bias toward the standard and banal, even if it is the lovely subject of the brain. Im disappointed that your imagination couldnt handle the notion that being attached to something flows into the idea of holding thins up as idols. Symbols are a corrolary - making these static denies the value of the symbol to work its magic in the human imagination. Not to mention the wacky idea that attachment might mean something more than just, well... (despite its debunking-ness) Freudian .) Tie things together Stanley. -豎眩sv

Ah, youre weight was due to your attachment to your "concerns", causing you to dismiss the point altoghether. The interesting part of your statement dealt with the perhaps inadvertently implied notion that my explaining a connection between these, somehow made static the concept itself, which is still utter nonsense. Perhaps attributable nonsense, but nonetheless baseless. Im not denying that your contribution was valid; its not easy to retype and reword a whole page of text out of a psych journal - but it does need some color, as Im sure you agree. ;) -豎眩sv

Of all of that I have no doubt. It certainly takes every kind of people to make what life's about. -豎眩sv

I apologise. I am in one of my very sarcastic moods (well my computer did start to playing John Denver singing Take Me Home, Country Road and a man has got to react somehow!!!). I should not have said it and I apologise. I simply do not understand what the problem is putting standard christological images with deliberately NPOV descriptions that make no theological claims whatsoever onto a page on christ. Only two of the images are in any way denominational, and that they are denominational is clearly explained in the captions. The other images are of agreed aspects of Christ's life and death are used by billions, across the denominations with no problem. (One of the images I received on two christmas cards last year, one from a Southern Baptist from Memphis, the other a Lutheran in Frankfurt.) They need no description, no definition, no exhaustive paragraphs of art analysis, simply a one line caption saying what are. It is frankly incredible that any publication that can include pictures should choose not to, and be dogmatic about not doing so, in an article about the most illustrated figure on history, dreaming up all sorts of dubious arguments about hidden POV, about supposedly required explanations forn any art included. You are not talking about pictures that are POV here, to be analysed in 15 paragraphs and 18 links. You are simply taking about a couple of standard bog-ordinary illustrations, used by many denominations, and put in to improve the visual appeal of the badly laid out, convulated page. Sometimes people on wiki seem to forget that if you want people to use a page, you do need to make it visually appealing. And the more complex the page content, the more you need to add in 'visual breaks' (ie graphics, headings, quotes, etc). That is all those pictures do, and they made a very badly structured page in terms of layout and communication, more visually appealing, which is the sole reason they were put there originally. Sorry if I sound a bit dogmatic or rude; I am not trying to be. But while wiki can be a great source to worth with, sometimes it becomes like a bizarre monty pythonesque joke and having to state the bleeding obvious is getting to be annoying, Or maybe it is just that as a writer and someone who has worked in graphic design and page layout I can see the obvious, whereas people who haven't dont. STÓD/ÉÍRE 05:47 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)