User talk:RK/Archive 2

RK: I noticed your 29 Aug 03 edit of Scientific Method and have left a note on the Talk page about it. I invite your response. ww

I looked at the page on Israeli anti-palestinian racism. It seems like it was created to balance the one on Arab anti-semitism. I think all of these articles risk being inflammatory and POV -- but if you have an article on Arabs who hate Jews, it is only fair to have one going the other way around. I know you have done some NPOV work on this page and I don't have any real objection to it right now. Still, I think that both of these articles should be dleted, and their content redistributed. The article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should have a section on escalating racism (on both sides) between Jews and Arabs; this section would incorporate verything from the article in quetion, and much of what is in the Arab anti-semitism article. The more historical stuff in the Arab anti-semitism page could probably be inforporated into the article on Islam (or the Arib Caliphates, if there is one), in a section on relations between Islam and other religions. Just an idea, Slrubenstein

RK, I am a proud member of the Zionist Wikipedia conspiracy, in part because Rev. Moon is pro-Jewish and pro-Israel. Still, we should try to write the Richard Wagner article neutrally. --Uncle Ed 17:26 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

Speaking of which, Graft is trying to say that the Qibya massacre is a clear case of terrorism and I disagree - esp since that would make Ariel Sharon a terrorist by implication. What say you at talk:List of terrorist incidents? --mav 21:09 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

When you remove something like

It is sometimes used by the pro-Palestinian camp to describe what they argue is biased reporting on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Others have used it to attack alleged neglect of non-Jewish suffering during the Holocaust. Both charges are controversial and those with opposing viewpoints have claimed the term is used as a cover-up for prejudice against Jews or Israelis.

I have doubts as to your neutrality. Stating what Palestinians believe is not Jew-bashing. Susan Mason

Uh, Susan? You missed something. The 'title of the entry was changed. That article makes no sense at all in the context of the new title! RK

You may want to check out Jewish Messiah, created by an anonymous user last night. (And, your talk page needs an archive as it is at 33 kbs) Tuf-Kat

RK, please don't accuse Graham of "lying"; he's just asserting a point of view which, perhaps, needs attribution to a named source. --Uncle Ed 16:06 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the support on the Idolatry talk page. For what it is worth, virtually all of the unconstructive or misleading material is confined to the talk pages -- but please, review the actual articles and make changes as you see fit (I think you already did on Idol worship). Slrubenstein

RK, thanks for re-organizing the idol worship and idolatry pages. I had divided them in the hopes that some sort of useful distinction would emerge, but lamentably nothing like that happened. I guess one article is the way to go. Let's work together. --Uncle Ed 23:04 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)

RK: I think it's great that you've been adding information on Christian Identity, and the Turner Diaries, etc., from Project Meggido. But I would really appreciate it if you would wikify them rather then simply dumping them. The Project Meggido text on Christian Identity (and the others) is from the perspective of evaluating the threat that Christian Identity poses to the US government and society. There is a lot of useful information, but interspersed are such oddities as The formation of splinter groups or state chapters from larger organizations presents an increased level of threat due to the likelihood that the leader has diminished control over the members and actions of the smaller groups that don't really belong in Wikipedia. So I hope that we can go back and get that stuff out of there. Thanks! DanKeshet 22:33 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

Point taken, and I will edit these articles accordingly! RK

Hi RK, I didn't know you wrote those passages on polytheism. I am glad we agree that idolatry does not necessarily = polytheism, all I can say is the article is still not clear on that. I think both of us, independantly, have been trying to change the article to make this clear (for what it is worth, Susan Mason also has made changes that seem to reflect the same intention). In any event, so far it has not been enough -- please take my proposed deletion as an indication of what is still unclear, and I hope you can find a way to make it clearer. Concerning points 3 and 4 (of what I cut, concerning idolatry), I do think that even in non-idolatrous religions such as Judaism there are very special -- sacred -- objects that an anthropologist would say "have mana." I encourage you to add a section to the article explaining clearly, especially in reference to Jewish tradition, what the difference is between a sacred object and an idol, between treating a sacred object with reverance and worshiping it as a god. Slrubenstein

Hey Robert! Islam and Judaism! ROTFLMAO!!! Danny

Yeah, I didn't know what to make of it, so I did a tiny bit of light editing, and then added a brief call for help, in the comment line. Sigh. I guess its time to do some reading, and then some real editing. And I was looking forward to working on the idolatry article! RK

RK, I don't know why you hate Chiropractors, but to try to claim that they're a religion, and throwing around terms like "a mysterious and unidentifiable medical problem" is hardly NPOV. I don't have any particular point of view on the subject myself, but you need to make sure you remain impartial when editing this article. -- Zoe

Who says I hate them? In fact, two of my-coworkers are chiropracters, and I like them just fine. You seem unaware that Palmer himself (founder of Chiropractice) stated that these subluxations are part of a religious system. I doubt he was lying about his own beliefs. The problem is that many chiropracters today (a) are in fact ignorant of the origins of chiropractice, or (b) hide these facts because they do not want to scare away potential clients. In any case, their actions fit the definition of a religion, and literally no one in the world can see these supposed subluxations except for true believers. This is no different than the way that only religious believers see angels and receive messages from the gods, while skeptics don't see such religious phenomenon. I am just trying to add NPOV. I don't mind if you want to change something I added; maybe I am too zealous! Still, as a scientist, I think the description from The National Council Against Health Fraud really is spot-on. However, I am willing to work with other points of view. RK

Nice NPOVing of 1948 Arab-Israeli War. :) Martin

RK, you're quite right about the importance of including Hebrew Bible quotes for comparison in the Bible translations article. By the time I looked at it, it seems to have already been taken care of. Thanks for bringing this up. Wesley

RK, could you take a look at the Good Friday Prayer discussion page and tell me if I'm off base for wanting a different title for it? Mind you I have no problem with the content... well what I think is all in the discussion page. I'd value your opinion; thanks. Wesley

Please look at Supernaturalization and my comment on the talk page, and weigh in, Slrubenstein 18:19 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

RK -- I'm a lawyer and fellow New Yorker who is working on some of the legal articles. Someone just removed Kosher law from the list of legal topics that I have been minding for the past few weeks. I was just wondering if in your opinion do you think Kosher law is law? The person who removed Kosher law did not remove Jewish law, nor Sharia law (don't Muslims have their own definition of halal that sometimes overlaps with kosher and that is considered law in Islamic states), he also did not remove canon law nor did he remove ecclesiastical courts. I know until recently we had a law about the regulation of kosher food here in NYC (it was finally declared unconstititional only recently). It dated back to the last century and was really a regulatory scheme to protect the public; anyway I think relgious laws are law, most secular law has it's origins in relgious law, they have courses in religious law in many law schools... I'd been interested in your response, if you could post it on my talk page I'd appreciate it. Alex756 00:20 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Hi RK. Are there any articles on Wikipedia that have useful descriptions of ancient Jewish music in various periods? Mkmcconn 16:23 31 May 2003 (UTC)

I am now adding information from the Jewish Encyclopedia to a new article on Jewish music. RK 19:23 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm looking forward to what Danny finds, as well. It sounds very interesting. Mkmcconn 23:48 31 May 2003 (UTC)

I checked the scientology page and don't see a summary of the Xenu story there anymore. We do have an article Xenu which has an extlink to the original documents, but no summary (presumably due to worries about their claimed trade secret status.) I'll leave it to you to decide which of the Scientology articles you want to have it at. Mkweise

RK, this is going to end up REAL BAD. I am getting tired of your personal attacks really. There are only three articles left. So quit pretending I am just a fool.

Anthere, don't threaten me. I have watched you now create FIVE articles, with almost identical names, with almost identical content. And no one else in the world uses your peculiar, private terminology.

Quite the opposite. Gaia Hypothesis (Lovelock, homeostatic) and Gaia Theory (Margulis, homeorhetic) were specific and proper names since the 1980s for these theories. So "no one else in the world" is a lie. EofT

You are vandalizing the Wikipedia with your bizarre obessession. Worse, you still don't get it: No one is censoring you! You can write whatever content you like! Just stop writing nearly the same damn article over and over again, with almost identicial titles. That is more than confusing; it is disruptive, and we will not let you damage our work. RK 23:43 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Amusing how it becomes "our" work when RK has not been here long. EofT

I never threatened you. You on the other hand are trying to make me appear like a fool. I doubt people would believe you. Would you please care to cite which 5 articles I just supposingly created please ?

I never said you created them all today. Don't add words to fake my quotes. You have done so over a period of time. And this is confusing, misleading, if not outright vandalism. Cut it out. Bizarrely enough, none of this has to do with POV. You can write anything you like. Just stop cutting apart the same article into multiple articles, and stop claiming ownenship of the article. Ironcially, it is only you who refuses to let anyone else work on the article, especially when I am not even contradicting anything you have written. Your abusive behaviour is out of line. RK 23:53 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The 5 articles were a tentative to make with someone about as nice as you. And were proposed for deletions. Consensus was to keep them. They are not articles, they are redirect. I havenot cut *any* article today. Nor have I ever cut any of the 3 initials articles (except to make Daisyworld which was approved at that time. I did nothing today that remotedly could be considered as vandalism. Neither removed other people articles, neither cut them in parts as you did, neither insult people, neither imply they were stupid, neither add anything remotedly pov. Anthere 00:06 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I honestly don't think these articles are worth all the fuss. Edit wars get us nowhere, and they just make people angry. Please consider taking a break and coming back to this when you're not so angry :) -- Wapcaplet 00:03 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Re: your recent post to the mailing list. Kudos. Martin 23:30 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Oi. There are many possible definitions of knowledge, not just "a justified, true, actionable belief." Evercat 03:16 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Or, to make my point in a better way: you can't say "Knowledge is defined as a justified, true, actionable belief." and then say "No one definition of the term knowledge is agreed upon." :-) Evercat 03:18 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Of course; that is why the beginning of the knowledge article restricts this topic to justified, true, actionable beliefs. (This is the way that the article has always been structured from its inception.) The article does link to other webpages for discussion of beliefs that people hold that may not be true, justifiable, or actionable. RK 12:32 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi RK, I have been working on the knowledge article a lot yesterday. I think that the main problem with this article. Is that people have vastly different ideas of what knowledge is. Another problem is that if the Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia that tries to gather "knowledge", will not define what is knowldge exactly. Then people will start putting whatever they think is knowldge. (As you said, "Authority", "Gaia theory", etc..). Now, maybe this is the limits of the NPOV idea, I don't know.

Maybe wikipedia cannot be really 100% NPOV. Because it has to be written from the "popular" Rationalist, objectivist, Instrumentalist etc. points of view (Not only knowldege about real world but also knowldge about opinions, and the distinction between them). How do we deal with wacky perceptions of people who believe "they create their own reality", or "earth magically talks to animals, atoms, plants" or all sorts of magical thinking? I agree this self-justification of alleged "anti-scientism" is dangerous and could be a threat to the foundations of Wikipedia. When people will start putting illogical, unbased, and uninformed mumbojumbo, and justify it that they consider it as "knowldge", written from their private epistemology. This may be the end of the sane (and meaningful, as you've commented) Wikipedia.. -- Rotem Dan 06:30 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

(note: when I attributed "comments" to you, I didn't relate to what you said but what you appeared to imply)

Hi,

I added some bits to the D page awhile back (the last P re textuality is mine). Your comments about deconstructionism, "There should be a section on deconstructionists and science....", seem to me quite a good start for a new paragraph in D or a new linked page, "D and Science". Might you be persuaded to tackle this :) -- User:Williamv1138

I am writing notes for this as we speak. RK 02:10 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

RK, for the record, I do appreciate your more moderate tone on the Judeo-Islamic tradition talk page -- but really, I haven't taken anything you wrote personally. And honestly, I am sorry you took anything I wrote personally. I think we have a legitimate difference of opinion concerning what kinds of "truth-claims" we can make about other people's beliefs and so on, although we may ultimately be closer than the discussion suggests. And I really think you do not understand deconstruction. But I genuinely didn't think my saying so would hurt or offend you. I assume you do not understand Finnish either -- I don't, and if someone told me so I would just say, "you are right." No one knows everything, and that I do not believe you understand deconstruction should not detract one bit from all the things you do know, and know quite well. Slrubenstein

RK feigns "hurt" or "offense" to back his whinings to authority. Do not apologize to him. Rather, apologize to those who waste energy fighting him, that he is tolerated at all. EofT

Hi, I would've been glad to work on those pages, but I don't quite understand that subject well right now (Maybe in a couple of years ;). Sorry, I'm sure there are others more capable at Math that would be glad to help, two names that come to mind are User:AxelBoldt, User:Charles Matthews who seem to get the grips .. (that's an outrageous understatment, of course!) -- Rotem Dan 20:37 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I saw this film about two weeks ago--good stuff. I read the book, too, but that was more along the lines of 10 years ago. I especially like the passages where things are accomplished without dialogue. Koyaanis Qatsi 01:38, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I too Ashkenazi Jew from the USA, so I understand your positions. But your latest edit war with Jtdirl on Israel is misguided. JT is a professional historian and political scientist merely trying to clarify the nomenclature and bring the article up to academic standards. The terms "state" and "nation" are not synonymous and cannot be used interchangeably all the time. If you take a look at his contributions, you'd see that he's clarifying precise usage of terms in scores of different articles, often as footnotes. In each of these articles, his clarifications have nothing to do with advancing a particular viewpoint, and everything to do with precise definition. I suggest that you give up this trivial edit war and quit harboring these suspicions of anti-Israel agendas. 172 05:26, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Studying history does not automatically make one a good writer. Also, what you mention, in good faith, above has nothing to do with the edit war. His claims to the contrary are untrue. The edit war I referred to was only about his bypassing the peer-review process with his POV writing about Arab refugees. He seems to have a deep hatred of me. 'That is the problem. RK 14:48, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't care about your personal grievances against JT. If you can make the argument that a paragraph clarifying the nomenclature isn't need, then I'd be interested in responding. Otherwise, no one else is interested in who called whom what first. BTW, the raving "lunatic comment" only referred to your hyperbole on the mailing list. 172 17:28, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You still don't get it: I do not have a problem with the article having such a section. Why do you continually attribute this position to me? You still are refuting arguments I simply do not have. If you read the article and its history, you will find that other Wikipedians, such as Uriber, Danny and Jiang also have a problem with Jtdirl's contributions on this topic. They are editing the article much more than I, and they are rebutting him on the Talk page. So why do you and everyone else keep turning this into something between Jtdirl and me? That is incorrect. The only problem is hat Jtdirl is turning this into a personal issue to distract people from the fact that the consensus is that his recent contributions are flawed. RK 17:38, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Regardless of what you claim, here is the page history of Israel, which refutes your claim that you did not have a problem with JT's nation and state distinction. Your edit, which you described as "Wiki Sysops, be alerted: Jtdirl is refusing to follow consensus, and is unilaterally reverting everyone else's work," made these changes. Thus, the page history disproves your claim that JT's actions stemmed from a personal vendetta against you. I'm warning that you're squandering your credibility. 172

I took a look at the same set of edits to the Israel article, and the set of edits told a very different story than your reading. You know full well what the real issues are, since I told people on this WikiEn list many times already; I was mostly writing about the stuff on Arab refugees and Jewish refugees. Many others, of course, were also disturbed by Jtdirl's incorrect and poorly written statements on other issues. (How you can twist the consensus of Wikipedia contributors into a tirade by me alone is unfathomable. Just like Jtdirl, you are still attributing the beliefs of the majority of Wikipedia contributors on this article to me alone, in order to ignore the good points being made by the consensus.) Sadly, you are still ignoring the actual statements I wrote on WikiEn, and are constructing a false belief system about what I "must" be thinking inside my head. How would you like it if people refused to believe anything at all that you wrote, but instead constructed false beliefs about you by reading one (and only one) edit, totally out of context? Wouldn't that be dishonest? RK 15:45, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

172, I am also disturbed by the way you went on and on about me inappropriately trying to push pro-Israel POV into the article. That is a lie that Jtdirl keeps pushing, and the Edit history does not bear his false claim out. Re-read the edits. I wasn't pushing any POV whatsoever; in fact, the problem was that I agreed we should follow standard Wikipedia NPOV policy, and thus merely asked that the article should contain links to our already created peer-reviewed NPOV articles on Jewish refugees and Arab refugees. And as you can see for yourself, everyone else agreed with me. It was not just I, but many others as well who made these edits go through. Unless you believe that everyone working on the article should leave WIkipedia, and only Jtdirl is NPOV, then you must retract your claim. Your criticisms simply bear no resemblance to the actual problem occuring. RK

I thought you might find recent developments on List of speculative or fringe theories interesting. Here's the revision I'm talking about, in case someone reverts it. -- Tim Starling 07:55, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

I answered on my talk page cause yours was so cluttered and I didn't want to make it any more weird. BL 01:52, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Bob, now that your power is back on, you should know that youve been nominated for the esteemed responsibility of Wikipedia sysop. See WP:RFA -戴&#30505sv 20:11, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)