User talk:Slrubenstein

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

BCE/CE vs BC/AD as regards to existing articles

Hi, I have a question for you and your thoughts on this would be appreciated. I had recently planned on slowly going about converting the primary articles concerning Iranian history to BCE/CE, starting with the List of kings of Persia last night. I feel that I am justified in doing this since BCE/CE is standard in academia and there is no strong connection between Christianity (I am strongly opposed to BC/AD due to the Christian connotations) and Iranian history, and more and more articles have begun to adhere to BCE/CE. However, my changes were reverted by another who opposed this move, stating that this change was unnecessary and would confuse people. I strongly disagree with this user. Should I avoid any attempt at converting existing articles (of the ancient Iranian history variety) due to potential conflict (with users who strongly adhere to BC/AD)? Your input would be much appreciated. SouthernComfort 03:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your messages. I greatly appreciate your comments, as well as Sunray's. You have both been very helpful in clearing some things up for me. At the time I made the changes I had not fully read through the debate, nor was I completely aware that the Manual of Style was absolutely inclusive of both terminologies. My general idea of the debate was that it was centred around the issue of POV/NPOV and I wasn't sure what my thoughts on that were at the time votes were being taken, which is why I didn't vote. I had thought that this would simply be an initial poll and that there would be more votes being taken in the near future once it had entered the 'policy proposal' stage. I'm not exactly clear on how Wikipedia operates as far as these technical details are concerned, and I figured that in the meantime I might as well learn how the whole system works so that I would be able to make proper arguments without the risk of being attacked as someone who isn't clear on these things. Perhaps, considering my background and where I'm coming from in all this, I should have simply jumped in. I don't understand why you have been attacked, and why this debate that you have initiated has been attacked, and why they all seem to be so eager to shut it down. I strongly disagree with ending this proposal before it has even begun.

At any rate, none of the ancient Elamite kings and Iranian Shah's were Christian, and Iranian history (which includes Elamite history), as with Jewish, Indian, and Chinese history, long predates Christianity. To impose the 'BC/AD' terminology on the history of these civilisations which have no connection to Christianity I find to be very chauvinistic in this day and age. Perhaps 'chauvinistic' is a strong word, but how else can I describe it as? I have absolutely no desire to impose 'BCE/CE' on Christian-related articles or even upon the histories of Christian European civilisations. That is an entirely different issue, and I don't understand why User:Jguk is unable to see this. That's another reason I didn't directly get involved with the debate. I had been planning on making these changes for quite awhile, since as User:Mel Etitis has also articulated, 'BCE/CE' is well accepted in academia (I have no idea whether this is true in the U.K., but I know that here in the States as well as Canada it is) and 'BC/AD' just looks archaic (aside from all the other POV problems). So, in addition to the other reasons I have listed, I figured that by keeping a distance and concentrating only on Iranian history related articles, no one could accuse me of trying to do anything 'POV.' And yet despite keeping this distance, I have been accused.

Honestly, I would like to go ahead and revert Jguk's revert, but if he is strongly behind his POV (and it seems to me that he is), it will get nowhere very fast. And if not him, there might be someone else. I was taken aback somewhat when he reverted in the first place as I could not understand what his objections could possibly be. This is why I think it is vital that this issue be taken into the proposal stage eventually, or at the very least it should become Wikipedia policy not to impose 'BC/AD' on articles which have literally absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. My apologies for this very long message, but I felt I had to fully explain where I am coming from (though I think you understood this from the very start) and why I did not become involved in the debate, and I truly hope that this issue does not become closed down or shut away in some dark corner to be forgotten, and that your efforts are very much appreciated. Again, thank you. SouthernComfort 01:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead with the revert (twice), and sure enough it was reverted (twice), by not only Jguk, but another U.K./Australian user. Check out the absurdity over at Talk:List of kings of Persia and the history. You know, it's one thing for them to do that if it were a Christian chronology, but this is too much. I won't be backing down on this one. I've also added my comments in support of the continued discussion to the BCE/CE debate ('Move to close' section). Hopefully this will all lead somewhere positive eventually, as the implications resulting from continued imposition of BC/AD are far too great. SouthernComfort 11:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

This User:Jguk (please see his talk page and his responses on mine) is something else. What course of action do you recommend now that he is threatening me? SouthernComfort 14:56, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I just want to add that I am currently engaged in several disputes with Southern Comfort, and that I am subject to the same sort of aggressive reverting, refusal to compromise, and insulting remarks about which SC complains when such tactics are directed at him by others. I wish that SC would treat me with the same consideration he demands for himself. That said, I'm writing all my articles with BCE/CE, as being the scholarly standard. Zora 21:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The situation is not just between myself and Zora (other users are involved and compromises have been reached which she refuses to recognize) and anyone who is so inclined may take a look at Talk:Khuzestan and Talk:Ahvaz (as well as article histories for evidence of the POV revisionism and denial of factual history, in addition to blatant vandalism, that she has insisted on imposing upon these articles) for the frustratingly gory details. She is currently the only one disputing Ahvaz. This is not unlike my situation with User:Jguk. SouthernComfort 22:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I very much appreciate the advice, and Sunray has been very helpful in this area. Though it seems the current proposal has 'failed,' so to speak, this shouldn't be the end of it, and I certainly hope you continue in your efforts despite whatever you have had to go through with your opponents. I hope you don't give up on this as I think your involvement is warranted considering your initial proposal has had results in proving that current policy is flawed. At any rate, I hope all of this will lead somewhere, whether a compromise or policy solution. SouthernComfort 22:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Not at all, your advice is perfectly 100% valid and appreciated (I just wish things could be so readily resolved through communication.) I don't want to get you inadvertently involved in this situation (what can I say, she left the comments ;) so I will not say anything further about that. I understand and respect your position, which seems to be the most logical route to take. I will definitely take a look at the Bible article and discussion, as I would seem to require a great deal of catching up to do on all of this, as usual. SouthernComfort 22:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay,

Okay, I'm sorry if I misunderstood your BC/BCE proposal, I thought it was for a hard-and-fast policy and that it was getting a bit out of hand. Yours, R adiant _* 07:37, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

In unrelated point, you said that "There are policy proposals at Category:Wikipedia_policy_thinktank (of which this is a part) that have been around since 2003.". Which ones would those be? I believe this cat should only hold current proposals (and it's currently on WP:CFD for renaming as such) so I'd like to archive out some old ones. Radiant_* 12:37, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
- We have Category:Wikipedia historical pages. There should be a clear distinction between which proposals are currently under discussion, and which aren't - because it influences the way people work on the wiki. That's also why we have pages like Watch and Wikipedia:Recent changes, to alert people on what is presently going on. That, obviously, doesn't apply to Encyclopedia pages. People are welcome to add comments to historical pages, of course, but they should not do so under the impression that they are actively being listened to. If people want to revive an old idea, they should realize that they need to do some effort, e.g. putting it up at the village pump. Radiant_* 14:59, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  - What do you mean by 'none of them are dated'? All of them have dates on them, of course. And those that are no longer active are in Category:Wikipedia historical pages, or maybe Category:Wikipedia guidelines if accepted. R adiant _* 15:06, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Your user page

Ok, the 1st thing you need to do is get rid of anything from the page that is conversations with others that should have been on the talk page. Just make another archive of them or something. At the top of the page should be an introduction, saying who you are etc. Maybe just below that put things that relate to you and wikipedia i.e major articles contributions you've made. Also photos are quite good. Then if you want to put interesting bits of information not relating to you, put them underneath, with their own headings. Don't go overboard and make a 300k article which you seem to love doing! That's my advice for now. Making it look pretty comes after fixing the content. --Silversmith 15:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Change of Username

thanks for your comments. i was persuaded by those on my talk page to make the change to avoid offense, and also make it easier to communicate with me. but i did keep the user/talk pages so that my pov is clearly outlined. Abeo POV: Jesus is the Christ 16:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Bible

Hi...I appreciate your comments on your user page about the Bible. I am a Christian (ordained clergy, in fact) who believes quite firmly in Scriptural truth and authority and inspiration, but I also maintain that it has a powerful culturally-influenced human element, and this does not in any way demean the Bible. I actually look at it as traditional (Nicene) Christianity has viewed Jesus...fully divine yet also fully human. I am comfortable living with paradox, but understand that many are not. I hope that the sometimes unkind words thrown your way don't wound too deeply; they are not representative of Christianity in general or Christians. KHM03 18:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Jguk

I would obviously like to get involved, but I'm not exactly clear on how this works, i.e. where do I add my statement and is there anything in particular I need to know before I add my edits? Thanks. SouthernComfort 15:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW, see Parthia (originally BCE/CE to begin with - Jguk changed to BC/AD), Hormozgan (original author User:Zereshk agrees with BCE/CE as evidenced on Talk:List of kings of Persia) - there are a lot of changes (from original BCE/CE to BC/AD as opposed to my changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE) as evidenced through his user contributions. SouthernComfort 15:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I've added myself to the RFAR as an involved party; after delving into Jguk's contributions, I discovered he's been on this POV crusade for quite some time. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I apologize in advance for not involving myself in the case; however, I feel that the case rests on a trivial issue and should be thrown out. In addition, I don't want to waste my efforts on what appears to be a hopeless venture for both parties. For the record, I don't support edit wars; therefore, I don't support RickK, violetriga, you, or anyone else in their consistent reverting of articles for usage of any dating system. See my comment to RickK here. Adraeus 01:08, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

List of kings of Persia

Sorry but by reverting List of kings of Persia you are merely showing your POV about the subject. The original style (BC/AD) should be maintained and your reverts to the contrary are against current policy. I understand your annoyance about the situation and would support BCE/CE if that was what the article started with. violet/riga (t) 15:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your argument is not correct. For dates and spellings we stick to what the original author used. You are arguing about the content not expanding when it's simply these stylings of the article that should remain constant. violet/riga (t) 15:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

BC/BCE debate revisited

Over the weekend someon replaced all the BC/BCE with BCE on Jesus claiming vote of 31/19 was consensus - I thought we had reached a less satisfying for all but more broadly supported consensus of using both BC/BCE and avoiding AD 2005 CE except if the context does not clearly indicate before or after. Could you help out over there if you agree this is the consensus - as I don't want to stir up that again. User:Trödel/sig 13:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - no problem re the request - I had a good chuckle that people were trying to enforce AD/BC only at the Kings of Persia - even I am not that my-POV-centric. I need to write a well thought out response and have a couple work related deadlines so it will be later today. User:Trödel/sig 15:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to post something - I wanted to do some research on the usage in accepted textbooks/reference material, but just haven't been able to get to the library. User:Trödel/sig 03:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

My view of BC/AD and BCE/CE

You seem to be misrepresenting and misinterpreting my view of this situation. I am trying to resolve the issue and stop people from forcing their POV – I have been reverting to that chosen by the original author and don't care which form it was. Please understand that before talking further about my actions. violet/riga (t) 15:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

You are perpetuating the cycle by joining such existing edit wars. Adraeus 17:24, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I really can't say I like the tone you took on my talk page. It seems to me that you are annoyed that your proposal has flopped and won't see anyone trying to help if it goes against your preferences. Re-read what I have said above and you might realise that I've tried to diffuse the issue by talking about it and returning it to it's pre-war state. I was not justifying either argument, just showing you that changing from one to the other is controversial and that the policy needs to be reworded to account for such procedures. violet/riga (t) 18:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I apologise for the proposal-bashing above - I was just replying to your message too hastily having been annoyed by the way it sounded. My point has always been that such changes should not be taken lightly. As I have just written at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate I think that changes should not be made unless discussed on the relevant talk page (or possibly a relevant and related WikiProject talk page). BCE and CE, to me, have their problems (as highlighted in the proposal discussion) and by changing to them it is bound to cause problems, just as spelling changes do. Personally I prefer BC/AD but am not opposed to the other one. I do, however, oppose some of the reasoning behind the changes. SouthernComfort, for example, seems to think that all article should be changed over that relate to topics outside of Christianity and Western Europe – this is obviously too general and will cause problems.

I don't like revert wars at all especially about such a petty thing, but it seems like some editors are pushing their POV without giving thought to the opposers of their preference. violet/riga (t) 18:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Most revert wars could be avoided if the person that did the original change stops and thinks "why was I just reverted?" and talks to the reverter on the article talk page. When it was clear that there were objections SouthernComfort should've just gone to the talk page to discuss this without continuing the edit war. Yes, I know that's easier said then done, but since it's just off the back of your proposal (which stirred up a lot of interest) it was probably just bad timing.

Nobody owns an article, correct, and people should defer to the people that contribute the most to the article. Controversial changes where the policy is not clear should be discussed first. violet/riga (t) 19:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Talk:List of kings of Persia clearly shows a debate in which SouthernComfort tries to justify his change but two others (not including Jguk) said that it shouldn't be changed. Both Jguk and Codex Sinaiticus reverted the change but SouthernComfort insisted on his version. That, to me, shows an unwillingness to step back and look at discussions. By changing to BCE/CE he has shown a POV; one that wasn't accepted by two separate authors and he should therefore take it to the talk page. Sunray, in this case, didn't help by coming along and reverting rather than talking about it. violet/riga (t) 19:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I fully support the idea of contributors to the article having a weighting to their argument, but also maintain that the edit war should not be continuing while the topic is in discussion on the talk page. Both parties were at fault for that. My opinion (and the reason for my involvement) was that it should be at the original version during such discussions. violet/riga (t) 20:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

re: the complaint

I'm not sure we have to go that far in having to provide exhaustive evidence - the case, as it seems to me, is pretty clear cut all around. The issue in question is whether or not it is proper for a user such as Jguk to go around to every single article which is BCE/CE (or has been changed to BCE/CE) and revert these changes, regardless of what editors of those articles may think. If most editors do not dispute or oppose the changes, then why should Jguk be allowed to revert every single article like that based upon non-existent policy? You and MPerel have provided, IMHO, more than enough evidence of this, unless we are also required to comment upon each and every instance, and/or provide every instance of reversion as well. The larger issue at hand is whether or not non-Christian articles have the right to adhere to BCE/CE if it is more appropriate and justified. I think all that has been presented, as well as our statements, illustrate all of this as clearly as is humanly possible. SouthernComfort 16:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your reply to my email. I will have (at best) limited internet access for the rest of the week. All the best. Guettarda 20:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Manual of Style policy change proposal

A possible compromise vote has begun at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Eras. Please read through potential changes to the Manual of Style and vote on your preferred version. Your input is greatly appreciated, and I hope you can help work towards some kind of workable solution with this. violet/riga (t) 21:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mythical Chronology of Greece

Hi Steve, I'm having a discussion with this VfD. The issues are IMHO being missed by most of the voters. I don't know who the reflective historians are around here - who know the difference between literary and historical criticism - but I think some new voices are needed. You seem to have some interests in these matters - and perhaps some knowledge of whom else might be called on. Perhaps you'd take a look (and please don't be too distracted by the BC labelling here - that's another issue). --Doc (t) 09:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration matter concerning Jguk

The Arbitration matter concerning Jguk has opened. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk/Evidence. --mav 01:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Slr, can I contribute evidence in this case now, or is the roster of evidence givers now closed. Sunray 19:13, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I'm in the process of gathering evidence (a staggering 3,000 BCE/CE-->BC/AD edits Jguk/Jongarrettuk has made since October)! I have to say I am quite shocked at the extent of his anti-BCE/CE campaign. The list is currently in html format however, so I will need to convert it to a wikipedia-friendly format. The only problem is that I will be offline for the rest of this week for my job and to attend a funeral several thousand miles away. But please make sure the arbcom knows more evidence is forthcoming. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

SR, sorry for not getting back to you sooner, as I've been away on vacation for the holiday. I don't think I'm going to have the time to spend listing all the evidence though, but I'll try to make the effort if possible. SouthernComfort 14:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Angel77

Sorry! But I really do think Wikipedia has a problem with them! (81.156.177.21 Cheese Deams, Fish Supper etc)

Bye forever,

Angel77

Zoroastrianism

You're going to love this one, Sl. It says:

Traditional Jews and Christians typically seek to place Zoroaster's life at as late a date as possible, so as to avoid the conclusion that much of the theology and morality of the non-Torah parts of the Old Testament derive from Zoroastrianism, the ideas having flowed into Judaism during the Babylonian captivity which happened shortly after 600 BC.

I have a user on the talk page telling me that this is not POV writing, but standard scholarly opinion. Your contribution to this conversation would be most appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Common Era quotation

Hi there:

Over on Common Era, User:Sunray wanted a citation for this quote:

According to Peter Daniels (a Cornell and Chicago trained linguist), "'C.E.' and 'B.C.E.' came into use in the last few decades, perhaps originally in Ancient Near Eastern studies, where (a) there are many Jewish scholars and (b) dating according to a Christian era is irrelevant. It is indeed a question of sensitivity."

I searched through the history and found that you had added the quote on May 14. So I was hoping that you could provide the citation.

Thanks for any help you can give,

— DLJessup 23:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(responding to reply on my talk page):

Thanks for responding so quickly. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help.

— DLJessup 12:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To the best of my recollection Chaim Potek's Wanderings, History of the Jews (1978) has a discussion on the origins of BCE/CE, but I have been unable to locate a copy. Perhaps somebody can check it out. Thanks.Nobs01 16:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hear hear!

You wrote: "I also take issue with the comment on monotheism. It is likely that at an early stage of their history, Jews were henotheistic, and elements of those traditions are included in the Torah. However, this does not mean that the Jews who wrote or edited the Torah were not monotheists."

I could not agree more fully with you. In fact, my reading of the OT indicates to me that this was what happened.

As for you expressing outrage - don't stress. Apparently I did that also. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Paul B wrote the following:

"Quoting of rules, guidelines etc is not done by objective Pan-Dimensional Beings. It is done by people with POVs, because they feel strongly about particular positions. The demand for NPOV is often in practice motived by resistance to one POV or the desire to promote another one. It is hardly a coincidence that you, Guy Montag and "Ta bu shi da yu" have been challenging particular passages and insisting on references is it? This is surely the very problem of systemic bias. People with strong religious opinions tend to be very committed to promoting or defending those views."

I'm stepping away from this article while people believe that I am acting in bad faith. Sorry. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Judaizers article

Steve, I'm having a conflict with User:ScapegoatVandal, who is trying to insert some sort of connection between the Puritans, Judaizers, the Rothschilds, and various other events, into a number of articles. Would you be willing to look at the issue at Judaizers and comment? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

where's with pitchforks already? ScapegoatVandal 17:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Era names, again

Knowing that we have disagreed somewhat on the BC/AD vs. BCE/CE matter in the past, I would value your input on a counter-proposal I have written to resolve (hopefully) the era naming style problem. Thanks! Alanyst 22:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Slrubenstein"

User talk:Slrubenstein

BCE/CE vs BC/AD as regards to existing articles

Okay,

Your user page

Change of Username

Bible

Jguk

List of kings of Persia

BC/BCE debate revisited

My view of BC/AD and BCE/CE

re: the complaint

Thanks

Manual of Style policy change proposal

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mythical Chronology of Greece

Arbitration matter concerning Jguk

Angel77

Zoroastrianism

Common Era quotation

Hear hear!

Judaizers article

Era names, again

Navigation

Search

Toolbox

Personal tools