Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:31, 16 May 2007

The current time, for me, is 16:20:22

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

• some discussion of capitalism; debates on whether Jesus existed, and the cultural and historical background for Jesus

User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 4

• Jesus, Jesus, Jesus

User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 5

• Cheese Dreams and Jesus; race and evolution, capitalism, circumcision

User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 6

• BCE/CE versus BC/AD

User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 7

• BCE/CE versus BC/AD; FT2 and Cultural and Historical Background of Jesus

User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 8

• Jesus, Bible, anti-Semitism, Martin Luthor, and the tip of the Virago iceberg

User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 9

User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 10

User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 11

User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 12

User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 13

• The Bible, Evolution, Filllllll, Jesus, Race, advice for new admins

User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 14

• a lot of race and intelligence stuff

User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 15

User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 16

User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 17

User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 18

User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 19

Black people

This article is being edited at a dizzying rate. I can't keep up, and besides, I am not expert on what they are doing to it. Would you mind horribly, when you have a chance, taking a look? Thanks. (I've written to you based on what I've watched of your work on Race) Jd2718 15:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Judaism

BS"D

Reb Yid, There is a small fact that you forgot, You are putting in the Reform POV, The way it was is the NPOV version. --Shuli 15:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Race

Thanks for your note on my talk page. You are right that the article mentions the meaningless of race, but I still disagree with you that it's given equal weight. While researchers like Boas (1912), Montagu (1941), Wilson and Brown (1953), Livingston (1962), Ehrlich and Holm (1964) are already included, they seem to be outdated by the modern genetic studies mentioned. That's why I would like to include the findings of recent researchers and studies which second their early research and the researchers I cited are indeed authorities (fringe researchers are not given a chance to announce their findings for White House press releases). Given the fact that most of the article space is used to eleborate on all the different racial theories people came up with in course of time, illustrated with several detailed illustrations about race lineages, genetic clusters, DNA clusters, and so on, and then, additionally, provides a section which summarizes these already lengthy discussions, it's only fair to include at least one section which summarizes the opposing opinions of early as well as recent researchers. I don't want to act against consensus, that's why I will not edit the article before we reached one and would appreciate it if we could have this discussion on the articles talk page so that other editors have a chance to voice their opinions on that matter as well. SecurID 16:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Jewish reclamation of Jesus

Hi. I was referred to you as someone who might help me with this question of the Jewish reclamation of Jesus. I think that this is a topic of considerable importance, but I am having enormous difficulty posting anything about it. For some background, see Talk:Historical_Jesus#Jewish_reclamation_of_Jesus. Any comments or suggestions? Barrett Pashak 21:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

suggestion

Thank you for the suggestion. I am sorry if I was rash or unreasonable. I have much to learn and, again, thank you for the suggestion. Lostcaesar 22:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hasmonean

SI, we have worked near each other before; I saw your name come up at Judaism's view of Jesus and it occurred to me to invite you to have a look at Hasmonean. I have greatly expanded and referenced it, found little interest at WP:PR, and am always looking for someone who could help improve the article. Especially given your work on Pharisee, a subject that the Hasmonean article probably treats inadequately, perhaps you could do some good work there? Regards, Kaisershatner 15:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

doc hyp

My comments are on the talk page in question. Lostcaesar 13:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Are Fascism and Nazism forms of Socialism?

Hi, sorry to intrude, but I thought you might add a calm voice to this discussion...

Please take part in the current vote to rename the Nazism entry to National Socialism. See: Talk:Nazism#Requested_move. This is part of a longstanding dispute that goes back at least to 2004, in which some editors argue that Fascism and/or Nazism are merely a variety of Socialism. This is the view of a small number of libertarian/Free Market authors, and an even smaller subset of authors on the left. I argue that a majority of scholars reject this formulation, but this is being challenged on a number of pages. In addition, several editors have started redirecting

Holocaust - Adding your sentence

Fine. As my account is less than 4 days old, I am not yet able to change it. I will then add your sentence and the two main sources. One more thing: Your reproach of holocaust denial still hurts me deeply and no matter how clumsy my original message may have been, I don't think I deserve it. I don't mind to be given bad names, I can deal with that, but this is a different dimension for me. Do you think your heart is big enough that we can replace your first and my second answer by another text? Or strike them out? Or delete them altogether, if possible? Thanks. D Krum 16:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the changes. That is more than I hoped for. In principle I would like to stick to your sentence and add the sources which I have to prepare, but not today. I will send you another note. Thank you for your offer to help. D Krum 18:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascism and Nazism as Socialism -- again

It appears that a handful of editors are going to continue to POV push the line that Fascism and/or Nazism are widely recognized as forms of socialism. The changes I made to the Nazism page and the redirect pages are already being reverted. I am open to suggestions and advice. Thanks. --Cberlet 14:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. I've done an WP:RFC for Nazism.--Cberlet 14:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Your Personal Attacks

I want to let you know I don't appreciate you leaping to personal attacks on the Evolution talk page. Saying that I either don't understand English or Evolution because you disagree with me is extremely offensive and inappropriate. Furthermore, if you had read GetAgrippa's and Dmurtegx's comments more carefully before firing off an attack, I think you might have understood what I was saying. In any case, there's no reason to be rude. If your arguments are valid, they'll stand on their own merits. Gnixon 15:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust - References added

Hello Slrubenstein, I added one sentence based on your proposal without changing any other sentence. I added the two references 78 and 79 and replaced the review with another one. I saved the replaced review on my talk page; thus I can restore it easily in case you disagree. I also stroke out some of my sentences on talk page according to yours. I hope everything is fine now. D Krum 17:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Pharisees

I made a couple of suggestions on the discussion page. As it stands there's a definte POV issue. I've noticed several other inaccuracies. Among others from where do you get the idea that the Pharisees held that all had to keep the laws of purity. A most cursory study of the relevant Mishnayos would reveal that only those who ate sacrifices or terumot,etc. were required to keep purity laws. IO can send particulars if necessary. And the statement that the requirement against eating impure meat applied originally only to priests doesn't seem to have any basis.

Dorot Ha-Rishhonim was a historian, his work definitely deserves a mention from a historical point of view, not as a traditional point of view. The page as it stands does not represent an unbiased view.

Bible

I realize Dorff's book came before HaLivni's published his POV on the issue (in Revelation Restored), sort of in between an Orthodox and a Conservative one, that there was a Sinaitic revelation but it became corrupted or lost and Ezra restored the Torah by redacting it from disparate texts, hence the Torah reflects the best available record of Divine will and has prophetic imprimatur while nonetheless having potential for textual disparities. Given that Roth cited it, it would seem to be a potential Conservative position. Not sure if the numbers reflect a ranked spectrum, but if they do I would suppose it would be Conservative 0. --Shirahadasha 04:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC) It might be worth separating Jewish and Christian theological responses given the different starting positions the two bring to the table. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT

"This was in old NOR policy" isn't a sufficient justification for reverting to old language; "and none of the current talk justifies removing it" - you have not actually demonstrated this at all, and several edidtors disagree with you, which is why the vague language was removed in the first place. Your talk page comments on the matter certainly do not justify re-adding it. To the extent you've made an argument at all, it either has already been addressed, does not address the problems caused by that language, or appears to amount to resistance to change simply for the sake of resisting change. There are serious problem caused by "explanation" being considered OR, and nothing demonstrable to be gained by it. — SMcCandlish ツ 17:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you have a look at these articles and their talk?

• Jewish opposition to evolution
• Jewish reactions to intelligent design

Thank you. --Metzenberg 05:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I really need your help here. ZayZayEM is engaging in troll-like behavior, such as making edits on the very materials I am editing, removing materials immediately after I add them, and so forth. It is a harassment pattern that extends across multiple articles. The main articles involved are:

* Jewish reactions to intelligent design

* Jewish opposition to evolution

* Natan Slifkin

It is bizarre behavior, because I can see no reason why he is even interested in this material. As you and I both know, it is material you have to really understand well to edit. Over the last week, I have substantially rearranged all the materials on Judaism and evolution in an effort to clean up the main Judaism and Evolution page first of all, so that it can be turned into a page that is not dominated by issues (such as the Slifkin affair) that would have undue weight. ZayZayEM has simply made it impossible for me to work. He has followed me from one article to another, demanding arbitrary changes. many of his edits, and his changes, show that he knows very little about the subject, which as you and I both know, is quite abstruse at times. --Metzenberg 16:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascism and Nazism as representative forms of socialism

I am sorry to bother you, agaun, I still need some help. There are a tiny handful of editors who revert and redirect National Socialism to Nazism. I believe a majority of editors support redirecting National Socialism to National Socialism (disambiguation). I realize we just had a poll on the Nazism page where I thought this issue was settled, but apparently the struggle is not over. Please consider voting in the new poll, or adding a comment at: Talk:Nazism#Survey:_redirecting_National_Socialism. Please consider voting again for clarification Thanks.--Cberlet 19:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have filed a request for arbitration

You are allowed to make a statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Metzenberg-ZayZayEM

Please review the record and feel free to comment. --Metzenberg 16:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also entered proposal for a compromise on Talk:Jewish reactions to intelligent design. If my proposal is accepted by User:ZayZayEM and User:Guettarda I will withdraw this request for arbitration, and we can consider this resolved. I have informed them. --Metzenberg 02:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Pharisees

I've done some minor editing and I've left several points taht need clarifying on the discussion page. Some of the points are minor or have sourcing issues, I just put everything I noticed and we'll work from there. Thanks

do not respond on poll page

Please do not respond on the poll page itself to other editors' comments. You should discuss the poll at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community_discussion. This is not intended to limit your freedom of expression, only to keep the poll page from becoming a second discussion page. CMummert · talk 15:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed that you have chosen to express your opinion by way of attacking good faith editors on a poll page. Consensus has already been violated in forcing this policy on us to begin with and behaviour like this really says to the Misplaced Pages community that their views don't really matter and will be dumped on. Using boilerplate text in particular is very very insulting, you didn't even consider their post with enough respect to actually come up with an original response. DanielT5 18:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

V'Chein L'mar (To you as well). Enjoy the holiday.Wolf2191 17:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Pesach

Chag Sameach! --Shirahadasha 03:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Truth

Thanks for the note, Steven. I appreciate that you took the time to write it. However, you have totally miunderstood me. My position has been that the policy is exactly as you characterise it: that truth has no part at all to play in whether we include material in our articles. That is one strand of what I have been saying. I think that in answer to your question you should note that I strongly support the change of "verifiability" to "attributability" exactly because I do not think the intention of the policy is to encourage considerations of the truth. I do not though share your belief that reading the policy that way shows bad faith. Many editors have over time. Even if I don't, I can see why they do. Verifying something, in the common parlance, means "checking that it's true". The original drafter clearly didn't consider that, and meant it to be read "checking that it's there".

Another strand is that it would be possible to refer to the standard of verification that Rednblu discusses for science articles but probably not more generally. He is not suggesting that this is the current policy. He is urging change or at least redefinition.

The third, and final, strand of my position is that there is a conflict between the notion of neutrality, implying that we do not judge positions, with the notion of "reliability" of sources, which has the effect of prejudging positions by preferring some over others. Our policy is only tenable if one assumes that the sources we consider reliable tend themselves to being neutral. Some would argue that they do; I argue that they absolutely do not. I'd like to see either a more honest statement of what we are about or a bold step towards doing what we say we do. I am not sure that the latter can be accomplished in the form of single articles; not at least if we wish them to be readable. The former would require new policy.

The attraction of Misplaced Pages for me is the notion of NPOV, although I do not like the policy document that explains it and I do not believe it is not negotiable if we were to choose to change it. (Many of our articles are de facto not neutral in ways that are not really exceptionable.) I believe WP:V follows from it as night follows day. However, I believe WP:RS detracts from it, especially because it is so deeply flawed a document. I particularly do not like the "undue weight" section of the NPOV policy -- not because I believe minority positions should be given undue weight but because it's so readily interpretable as suggesting that majority positions are "neutral" just because they are held more widely. Grace Note 03:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites nominated for FA

The Ebionites article has been nominated for Featured Article. You are invited to show your support or suggest further improvements to the article. Ovadyah 07:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your words of support recently on the Evolution page. That one editor has had me near the breaking point over the last few weeks, when I think many regular editors must have been away for the holidays. I should say I don't think he's pure troll, although his behavior toward me has seemed more and more trollish recently. Simply ignoring is good advice---I think I extended the benefit of the doubt a little too long.

There are actually a lot of topics on Talk:Evolution that seem to have died off simply from neglect. Particularly the Mandaclair and FAR topics contain lots of suggestions that were well-received but haven't been acted upon and are no longer being discussed. Gnixon 14:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(By the way, the bit on your user page about "great truths" resonates with me---the Creation of Adam is one such work for me. Maxwell's equations are another. Because I recognize the power of those great truths, I bear less antipathy toward your fundamentalists. Gnixon 17:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC))

I definitely appreciated your point about general fundamentalism. I try to be equally understanding of all forms---whether they're rooted in truths from the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Koran, Origin of Species, Ulysses, or Gianni Versace---but I certainly have my own biases and prejudices. My truth taken from that fresco is probably much different than others'. I wonder to what extent Michaelangelo knew its various truths intellectually or intuitively, so I'm very interested in what he intended, but I'm independent-minded enough to always seek my own conclusions. Not sure if it rises to "great truth," but I took something that feels deep from Carl Jung, who showed me that everyone starts with a certain personality, and we all have much less control over our beliefs, attitudes, and opinions than we might think. I was "born" to be a scientist and a skeptic, so I'll never paint a Sistine Chapel, write a great novel, or help people save their souls, but I'll always be in awe of those who do. On the upside, I'm pretty good at integrals.  :-) Thanks again for your kind words regarding Evolution---they're much appreciated at this time. Let me know if you find yourself in central NJ some time so I can buy you a beer. Gnixon 16:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I'm male. I take no offense that you chose the "she" pronoun in a conversation. Cheers, Gnixon 13:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

i'll check it out

Thanks, --Urthogie 18:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Being a troll

My dear Slrubenstein-I've taken a week off from involving myself in the Evolution and Creation discussions, because, frankly, they're frustrating, mainly because of the POV pushers on board. I've have edited a number of articles, and a lot of the same ones as you, and never once have I butted heads with you. In fact, I thought you were one of the good guys. But to call me a troll? Well, I was kind of shocked. You should read some of the very pro-Creationist commentary that is being pushed by certain users. My frustration level reached a maximum, and I had had it with those users.

Moreover, with regards to Theory vs. Fact, I believe you were incorrect in both the interpretation of my comments and in the resolution to those discussions in the past. Certain editors use "theory" as pejorative term to somehow demean the quality of science that was involved in arriving at Evolution. Evolution is a fact, in the sense that all the scientific knowledge of the past 100 years confirms that Evolution is the best science to describe how life got to where it is now on Earth. One of my favorite jokes is if the Theory of Gravity was treated in the same manner, we would be all floating above the earth.

I think that I might agree that my frustration with certain editors might have bordered on trollish. But after some 150 edits to the Evolution article and maybe the same number of edits to the Evolution discussion, I think I deserve some leeway with frustration, just as any number of other editors have. If that were my first or even 10th comment, sure I should have my butt kicked.

I have watched the Evolution discussion, and I know that certain editors thought you were one of them, but I detect your frustration in how the POV pushing is going. You are infinitely more patient than I. But I don't know much about your background (I think you're Jewish), but I have battled right-wing Christian Creationist nutjobs trying to force the teaching of Christian Creationist theology on my Jewish kids in the real world (not the world of anonymous Wiki-editing). Maybe I don't have the right to be angry and mean towards these POV pushers, but I guess my generally intolerance of their anti-intellectual viewpoint is limited.

I would hope that you understand that your calling me a troll means 10X more than certain POV editors calling me that, because I respect your editing on this encyclopedia. Whatever I have done to offend you, well, I hope that you could tell me what it is and I could correct that tone. Otherwise, I am confident that I wouldn't meet even the slightest definition of a troll. Yes, I would meet the definition of an uncivil anti-Creationist type, but I fight hard for NPOV on this encyclopedia, despite my disgust with other editors. You are not in that group.

Anyways, I hope this all makes sense to you. I just attended a long Bar Mitzvah party, and I'm a little tired. Orangemarlin 22:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Amber Witch

Hope you don't mind my bothering you over here. I've just created an article The Amber Witch (my first). I found the book fascinating both as a really good "kick in the pants" on the proponents of the DH and a fascinating description of the witch fever during the 17th century. In any event I would appreciate suggestions such as how to find the correct category and the like. I've also added a section to the zohar page in defense of it's authenticity. Would appreciate the feedback but don't mind me if you're to busy. Thanks Wolf2191 18:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I appreciate your feedback. The term authenticity is used because De Leon claimed he found a manuscript and Scholem claims ihe forged it. So the question is if it's an "authentic" Tannaitic document (that would represent a chain in the link back to Sinai and thus an vaid Jewish opinion) or an 13th century forgery. I sort of see your point as well though so I won't stick on it.

As far as the amber witch page, I meant by "supposedly" that this is what meinhold claimed but later said it was a forgery. The term "most interesting trial" is more like an advertising slogan and that is how the book is always described in all the articles I saw on it. I'm planning to update the pharisees and karaites articles as well. Shabbat Shalom.Wolf2191 16:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I added to Rosh Hashana and Get as well. I agree with you concerning Scholem's intentions. It's more writers like Graetz and the like that militate against the Zohar that annoy me. I also don't mean to imply that all historical research is worthless. Only that it is heavily subjective. I wouldn't give the DH the same type of credence I would give to evolution. But people hear the word science and accept evrything as "gospel" (I would say as if it was given in Sinai) truth. (This is just my personal view)Wolf2191 22:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your point I wrote the article more like an essay. I will try to fix the problems you mentioned when I have time. I also responded to your point on the kohelet page. I think we will have to "agree to disagree" but I don't think the article is off balance as stands. I changed supposedly but I think the term "described" gives the impression of a book review (which is what I meant). Do you have any idea how I can set about categorizing and how to make redirects? Many Thanks. Wolf2191 20:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not post topics about banning someone on article talk pages

I removed your topic on Talk:Judaism_and_Christianity, about banning BernardZ. Article talk pages are for improving the article. Contact admins, use user talk pages, or request arbitration if you have a dispute with someone. Malamockq 23:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

race - no time

it would be an understatement to say i have no time. i left a note, but i doubt it will be of much help. it doesn't take long for an article to go from good to irremediable -- race and intelligence is currently in that situation. --W.R.N. 06:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ishtar and Judaism

I'm thinking of adding a section to the Istar page on Ishtar's influence on judaism. That would include to prohibition of the Ashera tree and Tu' B' Av when the girls would dress in white and marraiges would be decided on (I've got to think of an elegant way of saying all this). According to Baron that custom originated in a festival for ishtar and the Rabbis replaced it with a Jewish Historical basis. Do you think it fits there , in a different section or is better left unsaid? Wolf2191 21:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg

Hello, Slrubenstein. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 10. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 23:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation

This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead.

Muntuwandi 17:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Slrubenstein

I appreciate your concerns and I am touched (well touched in the head too!)by your notice. I am just taking a break to see what develops. I have been frustrated with the process and wonder how progress can proceed on certain subjects. I guess I was burned out and was getting slack. I also don't care for some of the personality traits that some exude, but that has nothing to do with good editing. After a break, I see I may have been too impatient as there is progress. I think the process brings out the nasty in some editors, which does not help with progress. Fortunately there are lots of excellent editors (such as yourself) that keep the ball rolling in a civil tone (well as civil as one can be at times). How has the Race and Intelligence article developed? The last I noted the Intelligence article seemed to be inundated with editors with a human psychology expertise that was slanting the article for my taste. I am still reluctant to write much given it may disappear in a weeks time. GetAgrippa 22:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the way you think!!!! Your opinions of race or intelligence are similar to mine-very biological thinking. I am surprised more biological scientist are not of the same ilk. The ability to step out of your sociological bias to see the biology that dominates it all. I haven't read the Race article but as you would guess I like the technical details (as long as one can distill the big picture). I would also include the human distinctions and relationsips with our closest living relatives (chimps (bonobos) and gorillas) to further illustrate and give context of what differences mean (although it doesn't immediately strike one as being related it is nice to relate to other similar animals). Regards, GetAgrippa 14:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Race and lineages

Hi, I'm not really editing Misplaced Pages at the moment, I haver avoided the "Race" article because it seems to be controlled by a cabal of POV pushers who seem to have at best a limited to non-existent understanding of science, but who keep trying to include a distorted or downright false presentation of the available science. With this in mind I'd like to know why you keep making edits to the Race article that claim that multi locus allele clusters represents evidence that supports discrete lineages for so called "races"? Are you so intent on introducing content that supports racism into Misplaced Pages that you are prepared to include unverifiable lies to support your unfounded belief that "races" are biological lineages? I'd just like to understand your insistence on claiming that this science supports a model for human genetic diversity and distribution (that is that human populations form discrete non-overlapping non-interbreeding lineages) that no researcher or scientist or academic in the field has actually claimed? Can you provide any citation from a reliable source that claims that multi locus allele clustering supports the existence of discrete lineages? I think not, because a basic understanding of what multi locus allele clusters actually are and how they are calculated shows that it is completely irrelevant to the concept of populations forming discrete lineages. You can reply to me on my talk page as I'm checking it most days, even though I'm not editing. Alun 07:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• The issue is not whether multi locus allele clusters represents evidence that supports discrete lineages for so called "races," but whether there are people (e.g. Tang et. al. 2005) who believe this.

Tang et al do not say any such thing. They do not claim that multi locus allele clusters support the concept of discrete lineages. They actually say that people who live in proximate geographic regions are more genetically similar to each other than they are to people who live in distant geographical regions. I can find nowhere in their paper where they claim that multi locus allele clusters support the concept of discrete human lineages. Please provide proper evidence, like a quote for example. Saying that people who come from the same place are more likely to be genetically similar to each other than they are to people from distant places is not the same as saying that these people form a discrete lineage. Alun 13:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What is cristal clear to me is that you have continually removed my edits on the pretext that a certain article supported a different point of view. Now you claim not to have known that this article did not support this point of view. This begs the question why did you keep including this assertion when you did not know what it said? Alun 13:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I answered this on your talk page already.

Please understand I am not discussing the existence or not of biological race. I am disputing that anyone has claimed that multi locus allele clusters represent evidence of humans representing discrete lineages. Deffinitions of what biological races are are difficult, largely because the human species does not fit into any of the criteria for the concept of "race". This is because there does not seem to be any discrete biological boundaries between any human populations. Give the observation, made time and time again, that not boundaries exist between human populations it is virtually impossible to define human "races" from a biological point of view, because any distinction between populations is always going to be arbitrary. If discrete lineages really did exist then we would not see this pattern of variation and it would be very easy indeed to draw these discrete boundaries. You and Ramdrake's continual attempts to keep this article from discussing human genetic variation in it's correct context is really amazing and quite bizarre. I suggest you take a look at these papers Conceptualizing human variation and Genetic variation, classification and 'race', though I suspect you will not like what they say because they discuss the clear and lucid scientific consensus against the sort of biased nonsense you want to include in the article. Alun 13:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

How wrong you are. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, it's not me who's wrong, I just want to include the most up to date scientific thinking. I don't know how you define this as "wrong". Anyway you should probably be aware that the two above papers are from a Nature Genetics supplement about race and genetics and you should probably read the whole supplement. If you are going to continue to make your claims on the race article then you should at least be aware that you are arguing against all of the actual scientific evidence. So here's a link to the supplement, there's about ten papers here. Genetics for the human race I expect you are going to claim that reproducible scientific results are just someone's point of view. I expect you believe that evolution is just someone's point of view, or that chemistry is just someone's point of view (maybe you should go to the Chemistry article and tell them that atomic theory is just a point of view, you can provide citations from the middle ages that disagree with atomic theory can't you?) It's a daft argument really, and one that could only be made by someone who has little or no understanding of scientific method. By the way if you don't read any of the other papers you should definitely read the paper Conceptualizing human variation because it gives a very good account of the various ways in which "race" can be viewed, including a good section about how the very concept of race is confused by the fact that it has very different meanings in different contexts. There is also a nice discussion about the subspecies concept ans a discussion about human genomic variation. This is a brief but quite nice little review of the state of play as it currently stands in the field of genetics. You really should read it. If you want to claim that certain genetic research supports a concept of "race", then you have to define which race concept it supports. Biology is not a social construct, biology is a science, as such it relies on well defined constructs that can be tested experimentally. There are several concepts of "race" from a biological point of view, not all of which rely on lineage or subspecies as a foundation. The idea that "races" represent the distribution of genetic diversity is a reasonable proposition, and multi locus allele clustering is a good way to measure the distribution of genetic diversity. This definition of "race" suffers from it's own problems (as do all biological definitions), but that's not the point I am making, the point I am making is that multi locus allele clusters do not support the concept of discrete "racial" lineages. The race article currently states that these data do support discrete lineages, but this is not supported by the citations used. This is also incorrect, the section should be entitled "the distribution of genetic diversity". Alun 05:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You are officially the third biggest moron I have ever encountered at Misplaced Pages. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Race. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.