User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 11

Talk:Natural selection

I have foolishly tried to start a discussion on Talk:Natural selection concerning the definition of natural selection. If you have time, I'd like you to contribute -- or to tell me I'm a complete whack-o. Thanks. Ted 17:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved not deleted

Please understand that I did not delete your comments, but rather moved them to a more appropriate location. The Talk page for Jesus is not the place for you and I to hammer out a minor disagreement with interpretational apologetics. I have created a forum on my user page for that purpose.

Spicynugget 19:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Check out his user page - we have a problem here that needs to be dealt with. Sophia 23:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up about Spicynugget

I've left a comment on his talk page expressing my frustration at his actions. Jeff Silvers 21:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

jesus intro

Can you review the 2 intro's here and compare? I have serious concerns about the intro you've reverted to, and believe the one I replaced it by is simpler and more readable, as well as more accurate.

1. We dont need to say it "represents the view". WP articles should not be "representing" any given view. It's representing the cultural and historical background to Roman Palestine and early Christianity, not any given group's view on it. If other groups have significant view on that persoid we would include them too. It might be what that group feel, but the article is not "representing" their views. Important NPOV difference.
2. We don't have to say what their views are in that 1st paragraph ("who believe Jesus existed, but question the historical accuracy of the New Testament"). That's made clear in the main intro. We're just clarifying the basis of the article, that it's not a religiously oriented one, and why.

FT2 (Talk) 13:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reply and re-checking. I'd be happy to remove both the above from that intro, which is what I did. Do either of the above add anything? One unecessarily limits the article and (wrongly) claims it "represents" a view, and specifically a view of a particular group. But it doesnt. The history of the 1st and 2nd temple eras, hellenistic and hasmonean times, for example, are the views of historians and completely unrelated to whether they happen to be scholars who "believe Jesus existed, but question the historical accuracy of the New Testament". So that is an inaccurate statement. The article is representing a broad range of views, on the prevalent background. Most of those views are held by scholars and historians with (presumably) a wide range of views on critical analysis of the bible, or jesus himself. The other describes what is described below anyway. Its not adding anything, it confuses the flow of it. Please reconsider and continue discussing if there is doubt. FT2 (Talk) 14:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Re your last edit: You know, I didnt know these all used to be one, except vaguely. In fact it never seemed to matter. The point is, an article should stand on its own. If it doesnt, then one would expect a section with title "opposing view" or whatever and a "See main article X" subheader. But each article should stand on its own. This one eminently seems to do that. The section linking this to religion, to the gospels, to jesus' life, and so on, are surely good linkage for people who want to read more. The think being, this article's more than able to stand on its own. You don't need to read others, to get a good appreciation of the "historical and cultural background of jesus". Which is how it should be. Comments? :) FT2 (Talk) 14:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Re last: It "doesn't include the views of theologians" except [important qualifier] insofar as it adds relevant notable information on the historical and cultural context. That's important. Not referring except in passing to something not in the article subject matter is expected. If it is within the article perview and notable, it should be covered somewhere. So I don't see that as a problem. Wikipedia has apparently chosen that articles should stand alone, even those in a series or a cluster of related subjects, and reference others by link, when relevant to that specific topic. I tend to think that makes sense, even if historically for a time it was under debate. You don't in fact need those other articles to appreciate the historical and cultural context, even if you once did, and that's how it should be. So they are just "connected articles" now. Thoughts? FT2 (Talk) 15:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Reading your comment. Talk page is fine, and will read more. Its easier for a few people to agree than many anyhow. But can we keep it on your talk page or mine, not both :) FT2 (Talk) 12:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A Good Friend

Slrub, I consider you a very, good friend! You are very moderate and tolerant in making your point on this website. Considering your work, and what I would consider your need for some recognition I award you the following:

Slrubenstein, I award you this barn star for your tireless work to make Wikipedia the best it can be, and for being moderating and consensus building, with kindest personal regards, Drboisclair 22:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Didn't get your message due to being busy

Please note that on the article in question that I added my opinion, but it may have been buried due to the later entries on the talk page. I think that it is reasonable to have the Judaism template because our Lord and His apostles wanted Judaism to embrace their message; hence, if Judaism en masse had, then there would not have been two religions when there could have been one. --Drboisclair 23:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Seconding the Star; ont the cultural background

I'm jealous that David got to award the Barnstar first. I second it!

I've added my opinion at the article, but just so you know personally that I like your work there. I think it should be limited to just life in first century Palestine, however. We have other articles to take up critical views and ... critical views of critical views! 8-) I'd also like to remove alot of the clutter of info boxes, but if you all like it, I'll live with it.

In short, I think the article should only be about Jesus, Christianity, Judaism past 40 AD/CE only tangentally. Can't we just draw a picture of his world? --CTSWyneken 13:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. I think they do summarize what we're up against any time we try to talk about Judaism and Christianity. I think your description of the relationship between the two traditions is close to my view. We are in cousin religions which share their origins in the Hebrew faith of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David and the Prophets. As such, we share a heritage. (In fact, one of the classes at our Lutheran Concordia University Wisconsin's Adult ed program is called "Hebrew Heritage.") Where we differ is on who God is and which is most faithful to that heritage.

Because I count you as a friend, I feel we can be honest with each other without taking offense. My guess is that you would find the Christian view of God's triune nature as a false one, especially because it views Jesus as God. I view the Rabbinic view of God to be false precisely because it is not Triune. I do not expect that either of us will likely convince the other to change these views.

Yet, like the New York God Squad of a Rabbi and a Catholic priest, that does not mean we cannot understand and appreciate each other.

On the articles involving Jesus, then, the difficulty is in keeping the deep emotions involved in all of this from allowing us to produce a good set of helpful pieces. I think the decision to maintain a series of separate articles is wise, but I think we need to keep the topics focused and avoid overlapping us much as possible. In the current case, I think we do need an article on the background of the life of Jesus. I think we need it to focus on a narrower range of subject, though.

I hope this makes some sense. I think I ramble. --CTSWyneken 14:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Boyarin Paragraph

Sholom Aleichem. I have read the paragraph in question (I also chased down what I am almost positive is the source) and I believe that Shykee is correct. The paragraph relates for to the identity of being a Yid more than it does to the practice of Yiddishkeit, which means that it more properly belongs in Jew than Judaism. Before starting a revert war and getting yourself and Shykee into WP:3rr trouble, can we all discuss this like mentchen on Talk:Judaism. Specifically, please explain why you beleive that the paragraph in question relates to Judaism over Jew. Y'yasher Kochachah V'Kol Tuv -- Avi 14:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the spirit of your comment. But, part of Boyarin's argument -- which I explained on the talk page -- is that the distinction between Jew and Judaism is itself anachronistic, a modern distinction that does not fit well with the totality of jewish history. This is a valid view and should be included in the article. At Wikipedia we do not delete views we disagree with. If we know other views are missing, we add them. Find a scholar who argues that the distinction between religion and ethnic group (or race or nation) is a distinction that has long been meaningful in judaism, and that is useful to help underestand Judaism, and add that to the article as an alternative to Boyarin's view. But do not delete valid content. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not even argue with that point, but it is the term Jew that has changed, not Judaism. The definition of Jewery by religion is difficult according to Boyarin, but not the definition of the religion by Jewery. Which is why, this is an excellent, nay, required addition to the page Jew, but not Judaism, in my opinion. It is not that the view is "present" or "absent", it is that this is drectly referring to Jewery, not Judaism, and so I feel it is misplaced in the Judaism article. -- Avi 01:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR in Jesus

Slrubenstein, you have violated 3RR (in fact you made 4 reverts)in the Jesus article. I suggest that you revert your changes. standonbible 16:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The cheek of the guy - see [1] and note the time! You shouldn't have had to revert him if he had undone his 4th revert. Don't let him chase you away from the debate - I very much doubt if he will report you and if you self-revert now I'll do the revert to the consensus version. Sophia 16:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Boyarin

I noticed your last comment concerning the Boyarin issue. I felt compelled to respond here because your comment reflects a POV that is sourced:

• "The name "religion" became fatal to the true understanding of the Torah because this name was given to it in complete defiance of the fact that the essence of the Torah is in complete contrast to what is usually known as religion and it's manifestations."
• "Religion in general relates to the thoughts of man which find their expression in symbolic actions: in any system of religion, therefore, the thought is the original, important and essential element, whilst the external, symbolical expression of it is of secondary importance. But unlike "religion" the Torah is not the thought of man, but the thought of G-d, expressed in Divine Laws which are to be carried out by man as symbolic actions. It is by these symbolic actions ordained in the Torah that the divine thought is first implanted in man."
• "It is simply not true that our inward frame of mind and our sentiments are the essence of the institutions of the Torah, while everything is merely external framework or mantle. What the Torah wants to regulate is not only the thoughts and sentiments of man, but the whole of human existence- man's sensual impulses, his needs and desires, his individual life as well as that of his family, society and state. The Torah is the unique message of G-d addressed to Man in his totality."

(Volume I pages 184-187)

And last but not least:

• "All analogies used to describe Judaism are defective. Judaism is not a religion, the synagogue is not a church and the rabbi is not a priest. Judaism is not a mere adjunct to life... Judaism comprises all of life. To be a Jew is the sum total of life's purpose.to be a Jew in the house of worship and in the kitchen, in the field and in the store, at the office..." etc. etc.

(Volume VI page 122).

R' Hirsch is saying the fact that Judaism touches on all aspects of life is because it in essence encompasses all of our identity, it intrinsically relates to all of our life. You say "that jewish law includes both ritual law and tort law and that judaism itself does not claim that the former is religious and the latter is secular ", indeed, you are correct, Judaism claims everything as "religious" . You say "that "Judaism encompasses something much bigger and more complex than others might think", indeed, it comprises our thoughts, emotions and actions. There is indeed a word that refers to Judaism in the Talmud and the Rishonim, that word is "Torah". Shykee 01:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)shykee

I'm not sure we understand one another. R' Hirsch's view is diametrically opposed to what the Boyarin quote is presented as saying. In R' Hirsch's view all the things mentioned- race, nationality, etc.- have their genesis inside Judaism and are all only truly Jewish insofar as Judaism proclaims them to be. In the way the Boyarin quote was presented, race, nationality, etc., have their genesis outside of the religion and then affect the nature of Judaism. In sum, R' Hirsch is saying that Judaism is more encompassing than other religions. It differs from other religions in the sense that everything is generated from within and falls under it's purview. The Boyarin quote is presented as arguing that Judaism is weaker than other religions in the sense that Judaism also includes outside influences that have affected the nature of Judaism. I actually thought about including the Hirschian quote in the article, but concluded that his thought is only logical if one accepts the divine nature of Judaism, and was perhaps a bit too complex to be presented "al regel achas". I still may try to work it in. Shykee 19:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)shykee

Norm Coleman

Hi, I am sending this message to serious contributors who may be interested in articles related to U.S. politics. I believe I am receiving an unreasonable response-- and at times insulting and rude-- from the editors of this article, who refuse to remove a section that may offer some interesting trivia for Wikipeidia users, but is irrelevant to people interested in reading an encyclopedia article on a member of U.S. Senate. If you have time, please take a look at the article. 172 | Talk 03:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Postmodernism

Do you believe that a text has only one true meaning, generally that intended by the author of the text? If you answer "yes," you are, by my definition, a fundamentalist, whether the text you are thinking of is The Bible, The Communist Manifesto, Euclid's Elements, Moby-Dick, or something else. If this be the case, sooner or later you and I will find it very hard to understand each other.

Doesn't this mark you a postmodernist? Graft 16:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, long is always more enjoyable. Graft 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Clear. To be clear myself, I'm not staking out a particular position - my query is only because of my interest in yourself, not because I am particularly bothered one way or another by postmodernism (although I am, but that's not why I asked). Anyway, on to my counterpoint:

This discussion falls well outside the bounds of my education, so I'll try to keep my footing as best I can, but forgive me if I stumble. I think the statement you make above should be identified with postmodernists, since the opposing proposition is decidedly a modernist one, that there is, or should be, a close relationship (or even identity) between language (text) and meaning. Even if we believe that people have been pointing out the problem of meaning in text for years before the "postmodern" era, I think that commitment to this position is an important one for postmodernists, without which it's difficult to reject overarching narratives without opposing them with a new, separate narrative, which is one reason why postmodernists face so much opposition from fundamentalists in the first place. I'm less confident of the necessity of approbation for that particular position (or for the existence of "postmodernity") in order to qualify as a postmodernist. There still are people who adhere to modernist or even older traditions, and I'd say anyone who rejects those positions and declares that the postmodern age has arrived and the insights of postmodernism are valid should be called a postmodernist, whether or not they are approving of its effect on society.

As to myself, I think postmodernism is pretty nihilistic, though not because I think it's wrong. To put this in more concrete terms, I believe, e.g. that Marxist ideas about the inevitable collapse of capitalism and the emergence of a worker's world, etc., are lamentably flawed and false, but in the absence of such a vision we're left with little direction and purpose, and the default choice (to make no decision and hence give up the idea of progress at all) is not a welcome one. Graft 19:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

If you have time, I'd really appreciate comments and suggestions concerning the new draft of the capitalism article. [2] Regards. 172 | Talk 07:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I like your proposal for the intro. But (sigh) I suspect it'll be ignored without consideration by the edit warriors. I'm mainly concerned at the moment of preventing this horribly amateurish version of the intro by Ultramarine out. [3] 172 | Talk 21:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a lot of experience working with Ultramarine. I really doubt that he accepts it. I don't think this user is working in good faith. My guess is that he has a series of horrendous ideas for modifying it as soon as it gets posted. At any rate, we can wait and see. I'll see if I can mitigate Infinity's concerns. 172 | Talk 09:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I am currently tying up some loose ends; when I'm finished I'll be more than glad to have a look at it. :) -- infinity0 15:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Your smartass friend

Do you believe that a text has only one true meaning, generally that intended by the author of the text?

Well, sure I agree most texts are open in meaning... but surely you can't claim 4'33" has more than one possible meaning. (or In Memoriam to Identity). So many stupid jokes to choose from (Either/Or)... LotLE×talk

FAR on Race

I am not sure if you are a main author of Race, but since I saw your name often in the edit history, I wanted you to know I have placed it at FAR for a minor review, due to the article length and few other concerns. If you are not a main author, sorry for the intrustion. Sandy 21:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi: should I notify those other editors, or are you in touch with them? The FAR process is intended to help improve the article, so having it under FAR scrutiny may help resolve some of the issues you mention. I hope you'll be able to follow the review (linked above). I pulled up the original FA version of the article, and it looked good! Sandy 13:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Left messages: again, I hope the review process will aid you all in resolving some of those thorny issues. Sandy 14:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Marxism

Hi, I've read your response on Hegelian influences on Marx - no problems there. I was wondering if you would have the time to take a look at User:JenLouise/Marxism proposed and give me your ideas, as well as inserting some of the people you have mentioned in your last post into the relevant places, so that they can be included in what I hope will be the new article. I think you'll see from the outline that I've created, that I have really big plans for creating a Marxism article that is structured and comprehensive and deals with everything that Marxism implies. It's a big task, and I need as much help as I can get! Cheers JenLouise 23:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

User:CrazyInSane

Since you've interacted a fair bit with the user, I thought it would make sense to alert you that there is an RfC regarding him now open: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CrazyInSane. Your comments/thoughts would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 20:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Judaism

I believe that this edit of yours threw away a bunch of content on the talk page. Not sure what you were doing, but thought you would want to know. - Jmabel | Talk 00:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If I id, it was unintentional. My intent was actually to restore a comment someone had deleted. I will go back an try to fix it, Steve —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slrubenstein (talk • contribs) 19 August 2006.

I long since fixed it, I just thought you'd want to know that your browser is sometimes cutting off the ends of long pages when editing. - Jmabel | Talk 17:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"New Testament"

Shavuah Tov! I absolutely agree that Christianity portrays the Pharisees as something of characters in a (passion) play, caricaturss of a viewpoint to be refuted rather than three-dimensional figures. That said, I'm not sure I'd go so far as to put words like "New Testament" in quotes. It is what Christians call their scriptures, and I think generally speaking they're entitled to name their own texts and doctrines, as long as it is understood that this is their point of view and not the "narrator" or Wikipedia's. Perhaps the words Christian New Testament or some such thing could be used on the first reference to clarify. Otherwise I see endless revert wars. What happens if Christians or others start putting our names of things in quotes? If names are the generally-accepted way things are called, we have to use it, even if the name itself reflects a POV. Otherwise where would it end? In an article about Pele, the Hawaian volcano goddess, would we put "goddess" in quotes? Could atheists insist that all divine or religious references of any stripe be put in quotes? Who would accept such a regime? It seems to me it's a road we shouldn't start down. We should insist on Jewish names for Jewish topics, but shouldn't interfere with the use of Christian names for purely Christian topics. And, we're on somewhat delicate ground here -- the article is titled Pharisees, not Pharshim. There have been proposals to rename Shekhinah Shekinah and so forth. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)