User talk:Slrubenstein

Please place any questions or comments for me at the bottom of this page. Thanks.

User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 1

Mostly Exra Wax, Stevertigo, and questions about Jewish articles and anti-semitism

User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 2

Mostly DNA and genes, WHEELER and fascism

User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 3

User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 4

User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 5

User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 6

User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 7

User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 8

User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 9

User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 10

User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 11

User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 12

Jesus and Rabbi text

Sl, I just had my material reverted from the Jesus article by User:Silence. Could you tell me how to rephrase the following, and point out the specific problems with the sentence?

The most commonly used sources for information on Jesus are the four canonical Gospel accounts, which depict him as a Galilean rabbi and spiritual healer who was often at odds with Jewish religious authorities and who was crucified outside of Jerusalem during the rule of the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate. However, the Canonical Gospels also portray Jesus as more than a Rabbi, but as someone with a special relationship with God — the Gospel of John states his divinity; the Gospel of Luke relates the Annunciation; the Gospel of Matthew details the transfiguration of Jesus; and Jesus Resurrection is extensively described in all the Gospels. The canonical Gospels focus primarily on Jesus' last few years, when he was actively preaching, and especially on the last week before his crucifixion.

This was changed from:

The most commonly used sources for information on Jesus are the four canonical Gospel accounts, which depict him as a Galilean rabbi and spiritual healer who was often at odds with Jewish religious authorities and who was crucified outside of Jerusalem during the rule of the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate.

The reason I added it was because the Canonical Gospels detail Jesus as more than just a rabbi. I feel it would be misleading to say otherwise, and hardly neutral to say this — I have many many Christian friends who would not be able to use the Jesus article because it is stating that Jesus was only a rabbi and spiritual leader. I don't mean to push my POV greatly, but when I read the Canonical Gospels I can pull out many verses that state otherwise.

Could you give some advise on how to procede here? I don't want to get into a pointless revert war. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, the Gospels don't just depict Jesus as a Rabbi and a spiritual healer. This is inaccurate! The Canonical Gospels many times state his divinity. I can even give you Bible verses, though I don't think I need to... - Ta bu shi da yu 23:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree (somewhat). However, where I have a problem with is the sentence that talks about what the Canonical Gospels say. It implies that he was only really a healer and a teacher. For instance, there are considerable references to his divinity:

the Annunciation where the Angel announces to Mary Jesus divinity — "He will be great and will be called the Son of God Most High" — (Luke 1:26-38),
the dove appearing from heaven and a voice from heaven declaring Jesus as "my own dear Son" (Matthew 3:13-17 & Mark 1:9-11)
Jesus walking on water and being worshipped by the disciples as the Son of God (Matthew 14:22-33) - I know of know Rabbi who was worshipped!
the reaction of the Roman army officer at the crucifiction ("Truly this was the son of God!") — Matthew 27:54 &mdash
the whole first part of John 1 talks about his divinity (this is obviously disputed)
the Resurrection is obviously one of the biggest parts of Christianity and is detailed in all the Canonical gospels (Matthew 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-49 & John 20:1-30, 21:1-14)
Jesus on the final judgement in Matthew 25:31-33 ("When the Son of Man comes in his glory with all of his angels, he will sit on his royal throne.")
the Ascention (Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:19; Luke 24:50-51 and then in v52 the disciples worship him - evidently counted as more than just a healer and Rabbi as I don't know any of these who were worshipped!).

There are so many more verses, I could go on and on but I think you probably get my gist (or at least, I kinda hope you do...).

If we are going to claim that the Gospels say that he was mainly a spiritual healer and Rabbi then I don't feel this is accurate. If we were going to claim that others believe he was only a fine teacher and healer, then fine. Just don't try to use the Gospels to push this POV. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see what you were saying on the Talk:Jesus page. I just want make it clear that the Gospels detail that Jesus is more than just a healer and teacher (though he was most definitely both of these). The amount of times I've heard this from a non-Christian is remarkable, it sort of makes me wonder if they've bothered to read the Gospel accounts! So I just want to make sure that the text doesn't imply that it's only about the teaching and healing. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Sorry if it appears that I "preached" to you... this wasn't my intent and looking at the text in my message now it might appear that way :( - Ta bu shi da yu 01:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I guess my problem was that the text claimed something I didn't think the Gospels said at all... that why I added the very small amount of text as a compromise. I hope it's OK! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See talk..

... sl, I might be a bit quick on the draw, but I don't see anything on Talk:Jesus... - Ta bu shi da yu 15:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise these things. Please don't accuse me of being unreasonable. Unreasonable would be reverting - which I have clearly not done. I was just mostly interested in what you had to say on the talk page... that's why I said that I might be being a bit quick on the draw. If you also notice, I've been very open and transparent about my edits. I have told you what I'm doing, and I can't do much better than that!

Now... I've reviewed the edit, and want to let you know that I think it's a good one. It definitely satisfies my objection that the passage implied that was all the Gospels had to say about Jesus. I was really thinking about it based on putting myself in the shoes of someone who had absolutely no knowledge of the Gospels. I know what you are saying about the word exclusive and solely, but must respectfully disagree. It is possible to inadvertantly give an impression of exclusiveness even if one doesn't mean to. But the issue is moot: I think your edit is very good and addresses my concerns anyway. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My edit to Jesus

Steve - just to clarify, we seem to have edit-conflicted over Jesus - my edit summary 'rv POV' was not refering to your edit, but to the two awful anon contributions before that. Had I been disagreeing with you, I would have been a lot more polite. --Doc (?) 21:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Jesus too? Oh god, another article to stress over!! :) FT2 22:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Photos and NOR

Hi - over on the NOR talk page - can you give an example of your hypothetical situation? I am having trouble thinking of one that isn't already covered by NPOV. Tempshill 15:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bible

Simply to claim that there is one Bible and that Jesus appear in it is a violation of our Wikipedia Neutral point of view policy. "Jesus in the Christian Bible" does not violate NPOV, and it has no effect whatsoever on the content of the article. You said that, and my answer is, what other Bible is there? I already checked the Bible disambiguation page, and I rechecked it, and the only Bibles sited there are the ones contained in the Bible I'm referring to; therefore, it is ok for me to simply call it the Bible, and makes more sense because it encompasses all Bibles, as opposed to just the Christian one Scifiintel 04:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You said that the jewish Bible doesn't mention Jesus, which is true, but that's not my point. The point is, when I say Bible, I mean both the Jewish and Christian Bible, so I say Bible to be inclusive of Both. If Jesus isn't mentioned in the Jewish Bible, well then ok, He want be mentioned on the page as being in that Bible, but it is ok to say that Jesus is in the Bible as a unit of two Bibles, the Jesiwsh and the Christian. Because when you look at the Bible overall as a whole, saying it has both Jewish and Christian parts, Jesus is definately in some of that Bible. And because Jesus claims to be the Messiah of the Jewish Bible in the Christian Bible, there is a link that needs to be evaluated. In naming an article Jesus in the Christian Bible, you are ignoring the link between Jesus and the Jewish Bible. That is why I think it more appropriate to say Jesus in the Bible, as to include both Bibles and the link between them..... if you think simply teh word "Bible" is too ambiguous, then perhaps we should name the article Jesus in the Jewish and Christian Bibles, or Jesus in the Old and New Testaments, or perhaps since it has been suggested that Jesus in the New Testament is already around so this article should be combined with it, maybe we should have a Jesus in the Old testament, or Messiah in the Old Testament, but then the link wouldn't be established, so I suppose we will have to combine these articles and I suggest calling it Jesus in the Bible, but perhaps you would think it more appropriate to call in Jesus in the Old and New Testaments. Scifiintel 16:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jews do claim that the Old Testament is their Bible. They do not prefer to use that name because Christians gave it that name, but they do understand and know that the Old testament is their Bible.

Furthermore, you saying that the Jewish Bible is simply the 39 books of their Bible is not NPOV because many Jews also consider the New Testament to be in there Bible, because many Jews accept Jesus as God. They call themselves "completed Jews. If you want to ignore those Jews that's not NPOV, so you're not following Wiki rules. Scifiintel 17:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my point that seems to go right over your head. Some jews claim to be Christians, so we can't say a Jewish Bible is one without the New Testament, because for some Jews the Bible includes both the new and the old testament, therefore a Jewish Bible may be just the old, or both the new and the old.... also, I am not claiming anything about the completeness of those Jews, I'm am just telling you what some of them refer to themselves as. Scifiintel 19:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions for articles on Jews

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) 07:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity and anti-Semitism

If possible, would you mind taking a look at recent changes to the Christianity and anti-Semitism article? It would be appreciated. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC) Oh, also Martin Luther. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you join in the dialogue in the discussion section of Martin Luther before you edit the article with extraneous matter that has not been agreed upon? drboisclair 21:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put a stop to this and simply revert the text to the way it was. We can reserve the derogatory matters for a new article on Martin Luther and Anti-Semitism. Martin Luther is as sacred to us as Rabbi Hillel is to you, so please stop flooding his article. We are sorry for POV violations; however, flooding this article with 20th Century misuse of Luther is also POV. IMHO. drboisclair 22:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am justly rebuked by you, why don't you join the discussion and make changes that are mutually agreed upon? drboisclair 22:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave out of the Martin Luther article my rude discussion of excusing the reprehensible On the Jews and their Lies as a question of anti-Judaic versus anti-Semitic. Humus Sapiens is right: there is no difference, and yes, I have read your comments in the Talk:Martin Luther page. You raise valid issues. Job 42:6 drboisclair 22:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. If you think that this distinction should be inserted here, perhaps it should be reverted. I am very embarrassed about violating Wikipedia's NPOV policies. I wish to respect those policies, and I wish to dissociate myself with anything that I have done in violation of those policies. I will review them, and conform my activities to them. I feel that Wikipedia is the best source of knowledge on the web, and I hope that this apology will at least allow me to continue in the Wikipedian family. Cordially, drboisclair 22:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Steve, discussion going on here you might be interested in, about the possibility of setting up a WP page or project where editors can make a note of good or dodgy sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rangerdude

There is an active arbitration case concerning user:Rangerdude at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude/Evidence. I have presented evidence of Rangerdude's attacks about other editors, and I included a negative personal comment he made to you. The ArbCom is seeking greater involvement in their cases. -Willmcw 07:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

A big thanks for your support of my RfA, it got through with a lot of controversy, and I greatly appreciated your support! Ramallite ^(talk) 03:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would never think of one as naive if I didn't understand the point being made. Genesis 32-33; where Jacob is named "Israel" and returns to see his brother Esau - fearing his revenge but obtaining his forgiveness... Now you've made me curious! Ramallite ^(talk) 06:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to take so long to respond but I was really glad to read your response regarding the Bible - although I am pretty familiar with most stories from Genesis, and I actually knew most of what you wrote, I nevertheless hadn't thought of it in the way you presented it - that the whole thing is indeed ironic, and viewing it as such would make interpreting or explaining the teachings of the Bible very different. I don't know why, but your response reminded me of a popular quotation from the Koran, "O mankind we created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other; those among you who are most generous are the most pious before God" (Al-Hujrat 13). In other words, God meant to create different "peoples" as it were, and only through ones own generosity and personal attributes does one achieve piety. To answer your question regarding what would have happened had the Jews approached Palestine with more humility, I know what I would like the answer to be, and I also believe I would be right in saying that the land of Palestine/Israel would have been a much happier place since I believe that kindness and humility would have been met with the same. But it is impossible to assume that most would agree with me, seeing as what the last few decades have brought about. Plus, the neighboring Arab countries, who had their own ambitions in Palestine, might not have been too thrilled either. I guess it's something to dream about and wish that things had gone differently. Incidentally, an elderly Israeli fellow once recommended that I read "A History of God (The 5000 year quest for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam)" by Karen Armstrong, and I found it incredibly fascinating (although for me at least, a difficult read since it's heavy with citations and she jumps around a lot). I also ended up reading a more recent book by her, "The Battle for God". I assume you are familiar with this author, but if not, I highly recommend these books. Thanks again for your response. Ramallite ^(talk) 06:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

I just read your long comment on Ramallite's page. I'm impressed. Wow.
You displayed an amazing knowledge of the bible and a great analitical powers. Just thought I should let you know.
Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, we all learn stuff here and there, not all of us put it together nicely. :) Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Natural selection

From a content point of view it appears to be fine, but I am a little concerned the loss of accessibility. This version of the intro is rather dense, a little odd in idiom (I'm guessing a non-native en. speaker) and does not do as good a job of answering the "micropaedia"-type question. It's the type of bad prose that journal articles get written in - very hedged, very much "stick in all the possible qualifiers up front". It needs work. And, I agree with the section above. Your message to Ramallite makes an interesting, and thought-provoking read. Guettarda 22:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther

If possible, you take a look at the latest discussion at Talk:Martin Luther? It would be much appreciated. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of removing the "controversy" assertion from the Martin Luther article and from the Martin Luther and Antisemitism article. Please examine these articles to see if that takes care of the problem. It is proposed by User:StanZegel that we reduce the paragraph in Martin Luther to an internal link to the Martin Luther and Antisemitism page. Your help with that page would be greately appreciated. I hope that we are coming to a friendly consensus in these matters. Cordially, David Boisclair. drboisclair 17:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, I also appreciate your letting me know about the different avenues of expressing dissent; however, the exception taken to the issue of controversy over Martin Luther and Antisemitism has got me to rethink the matter and see that it is the correct position. I don't think that I put in the sentences to the effect that Luther and Antisemitism is in controversy, but I see that that is only a perception felt about the discussion generated here on Wikipedia. I am a Luther scholar, not an expert granted, but one who has studied him for my Graduate Master's Degree in theology, and I must admit that I have never come across any controversy among scholars about Luther's antisemitism. I think that I would join you in your opinion that this should be deleted, and I took the liberty to delete it. I am of the opinion, too, that it should so remain. Cordially, drboisclair 19:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a challenging balance of freedom and responsibility. The invitation is given to all to edit; however, there are certain rules--good rules, I believe, but rules nonetheless--. I love this community for its freedom and its rules trying to strike a delicate balance. I truly believe that all who are old tried and true Wikipedians are trying to be as fair as possible. I respect their logic and their dedication. Perhaps sometime some of the conflict is the result of misunderstanding and ignorance. I for one need to take the time to read everything there is to read on the Wikipedian policies. I appreciate your help. I sense that you are a gentle, scholarly spirit, who wants to see that justice and logic prevails. That is what it is all about. I think that at least two of the other Lutheran Wikipedians are in agreement on this issue. They want peace too as "shalom" is a "peace that passes all understanding. Shalom drboisclair 21:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to note that as a Lutheran I am totally ashamed of what Luther wrote in On the Jews and Their Lies. IMHO it is antisemitism, and I wish he had never wrote it. It is unbecoming of Him who said "Love one another", the one we call our Meschiach Yeshua. "lecha, shalom" drboisclair 21:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve. Could you please comment on the attempts to remove a sourced short quote in Talk:Martin Luther#Martin Luther and the Jews - the summary needs rework. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 22:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

References/external links name-change proposal

Steve, there's a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#References_title_misread_as_non-web_External_links to change the References header to "Sources", and External links to "Further reading". So far, the proposal has been accepted by all the editors on the page, but because Wikipedia:Verifiability is a policy page, I'm putting it out for further discussion before changing it.

The reason for the proposal is that using "References" and "External links" is confusing. Sources are supposed to be listed under References, and any further reading is listed under Further reading or External links. But many editors think that any external links, whether used as sources or not, should go under External links, so then they list any material that isn't online, like books, under References, even if not used as a source. To cut through all this confusion, the proposal is to change the headers to Sources and Further reading, which are self-explanatory, and don't make the online/offline distinction. Comments would be welcomed. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Late reply

Sorry that I have not been any help on the fascism article. I keep on meaning to get around to it, hoping to reiterate your position, as I think that I'm familiar with the literature on which you have been basing your comments; but I hardly have time lately to deal with the bigger problems surrounding the articles to which I have contributed recently. For now my latest headache is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators, where it will be fairly tough to get the number of votes needed to keep the POV-pushers at bay. Take care, 172 19:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]