|
User talk:JereKrischel/Archive 2Calling programmersWe need coders for the WikiProject Disambigation fixer. We need to make a program to make faster and easier the fixing of links. We will be happy if you could check the project. You can Help! --Neo139 09:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Your opinion may be neededHello there JereKrischel. You may want (or not want to) opine at the recent AfD nomination for the Francisco Gil-White article. Just thought I'd bring it up.--Ramdrake 02:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC) I may need you to weigh in againAt Talk:Race_and_intelligence, on the subject of whether or not absence of criticism of the PF in academic journals should be taken to mean anything. If you have the time and inclination, your opinion would be appreciated.--Ramdrake 01:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Keep up the good workJK, we are finding ourselves on different sides of the fence on some issues regarding R&I. That's a bit of a shame since I like your contributions to this topic a lot. So let me take this opportunity to thank your for your very sensible collaboration on the article, it has improved a lot because of your good work. I hope your stay on board. Arbor 09:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) RfCHi JereKirschel, can you let me know if you've already covered your points or wish to write another response? (Your response is already 1/3 longer than my comments.)--Nectar 08:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello again JereKrischel. Please take a look at the official RC that Nectarflowed created (Listed). The question he asks is this: Is there a categorical distinction between general journals and specialist journals? which I find doesn't represent the debate appropriately. I'd like to know your opinion.--Ramdrake 22:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Race and intelligence
Ancient HawaiiKane, Herb Kawainui -- Ancient Hawaii link is the one that's commercial my edit is exacly what it say, another resource, and in no way commercial. Thanks the power of the archiveYou are welcome. I know Race and IQ is among the most controversial topics period, and thus the article needs to be very sophisticated and that often requires a lot of discussion. Believe me, I hate archiving recent, thoughtful discussion. I will make a perhaps pointless comment on the article talk page, but believe me, I respect the work you are putting into the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC) "Conclusion"?What "conclusion" regarding PF did you arrive at and/or what did you want to discuss? You shouldn't delete discussions from the discussion page. Think At Least Twice 04:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You have severely misrepresented my position, whether the Pioneer Fund is "evil" or not is an entirely separate concern from whether they fund and encourage scientific racism. Given that many sources have alleged the latter Wikipedia should report on it. Think At Least Twice 09:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Request for admin attentionI'm requesting some Wikipedia administrators to communicate with a user, Aeusoes1, who is causing some problems for the Hawaiian phonology article. Please look at the article's talk page, section "Edits by AEuSoes1", especially "Edit 3". If it's appropriate, in your opinion, please consider a temporary block for that user. Otherwise, perhaps you can reason with him. Thanks. Agent X 16:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC) What on Earth is happening?Hello JK. Just noticed that Rikurzhen has requested (and obtained) deletion of his own userpage. Has he left WP or what? Have you heard anything? Please let me know. I just hope it's not that anon (whom I'm suspecting greatly is ZenMaster) who slapped a "db" on both the article and Rikurzhen's page. Right now, I have no clue... totally in the dark.--Ramdrake 18:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the reply and for following up with him. I just hope he hasn't given up on WP.--Ramdrake 19:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC) nothing untoward. i'm going to be unavailable for a while. --Rikurzhen 20:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Hello again JK. Now that Rikurzhen seems to have announced his intention to stop editing the R&I article for the most part (see the R&I talk page), do you still want to work on it, to give yourself a break, or have you too given up on editing this paper? Please let me know.--Ramdrake 16:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Hawai'i History & Hawai'i Kingdom OverthrowHello there, thank you for sending the note (rather than reverting seven times). Gladly, I will slow the editing down and work on one paragraph at a time. I was simply surprised and dismayed to find that most of my changes from a few months ago had been wiped out without much comment. I put a note on the talk page as well. Huangdi 02:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Hi JereKrischel, thanks for holding the line on the sentence we hammered out together on the 1993 controversial resolution regarding the overthrow. Noticed it's been changed a few times but you catch it and revert it back, congrats! I still think it's a good sentence and a great compromise between our two very different philosphies. Shows the pen (or keyboard) IS mightier than the sword! (By the way, had to create this new User name, that's why you may not recognize it.) Mahalo!!! Kaihoku 4 December 2006 Merci beaucoupFor your extremely appropriate intervention on the talk page of Race and Intelligence yesterday. I didn't realize until too late that Rikurzhen was getting me to stray from what I think is the important point of having both explanations (race vs latitude) side by side. Many thanks to you for succintly pointing out its vital importance in the debate.--Ramdrake 15:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC) FYI on J. Philippe RushtonJust to let you know it seems the editor or editors which were trying to make this article into a piece of apology for Rushton seem to be back. As far as I can tell, they don't seem to be interested in discussing their changes so far, just in reverting back whoever reverts them. I'm keeping an eye on it for the moment, but I figured I'd let you know this is happening. Regards,--Ramdrake 00:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Bayonet ConstitutionJK, though it's softer in tone than what I wrote, your wording is OK with me -- still NPOV. Being a fairly subtle change, though, I'm curious as to what you feel is important about the distinction. Cheers. Arjuna 02:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC) J. Philippe Rushton againHello, me again. You may want to go take a look-see at [2] where they're talking about you (and me). The anon there has some choice words for us:
Rushton articlecreate another article about people who criticise race as provide a brief link on the rushton book page but don't clutter Rushton's article with criticism of race in general, because that takes away room for all the criticism specific to his book. Minorcorrections 03:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Look you are edit warring with me for nothing. I'm not against there being massive detailed criticism, but keep it specific to Rushton's work, not a general criticim of race or IQ because such articles already exist and can be easily linked to. Also I don't like your version of the summary. The previous version was much better so can you please leave it as it is or discuss what your problem with it is, because to me it looks good. Also the penis criticism seems really inappropriate. Rushton looks at dozens and dozens of variables, so why a whole section just devoted to penis size, and just one specific penis size study. Much better to criticise his methods in general than blow one specific area out of proportion, especially one as trivial as penis size. If you just trust me and cooperate with me, I have sources that can add a lot more criticism to balance the article that is specifically directed at Rushton, but the criticism you're adding is too broad (criticising race in general) or too specific to warrant a section (penis size). Let's just take it slow, because an edit war is only going to stress us both out. Some of the criticism I can cite even criticises the concept of race, but does so in a way that's specific Rushton's theory. Minorcorrections 03:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC) I think the key to working together is editing slowly. I think we should both oppose anyone who tries to change too much too quickly, regardless of whether they agree with you or me. I still have a lot of problems with your version of the article but I will not revert back. I will simply make one small change a day (at the most), so you'll know exactly what I have a problem with and why, and we'll have plenty of time to slowly go over everything point by point. Minorcorrections 04:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I think we're finally getting somewhereIf you take a look at Talk:Race and intelligence (Explanations), I think we're close to a possible solution with Rik on working in the same direction. At least, his last post seems promising. I have suggested that instead of focusing the debate on whether or not there is a genetic component to BW IQ differences, we instead focus on how much of a genetic influence there is. That way, no strawman of 0% genetic and no partly-genetic theory which turns out to be mostly-genetic. I think we can all work with that.--Ramdrake 23:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Need your help at Intelligence quotientSomebody keeps removing two valuable links (one ot general intelligence, one to "g"). If you could just drop by the page and make your voice heard as well, maybe this individual would understand he is going against consensus and stop this persistent reversion. Thanks!--Ramdrake 14:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Contribution to "menehunes" deletedI hope I'm doing this correctly being a new user to Wikipedia. If I'm not, please correct me. I made a contribution to the Menehune page which included that of a heiau (temple) on the island of Kauai, the construction of which was attributed to the menehune by local legend. Editor Zora deleted the additions with the comment that it was "woo-woo speculation" or something to that affect. Not sure if I understand all the Wikipedia jargon yet, but I assume that means it was deleted because the building of the heiau by the menehune is legend, but the menehune themselves are legend so that would stand to reason. Not quite sure why the other structures (Alekoko fishpond, Kikiaola ditch) would be listed but the Malae Heiau would be eliminated. Thank you.
Hawaii etymologyI think I used about 10 different websites, each of which had a slightly different translation. That is why I asked for a Hawaiian language expert or fluent speaker to check it. Do we have at least one of those at English Wikipedia? Badagnani 20:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC) How wonderful; I didn't know such a degree was possible. I did add references, as you had asked for them, much earlier this day. Badagnani 03:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC) I don't know if Agent X will respond as he seems to have stopped editing some months ago. I did leave a question at the Hawaiian language Wikipedia as well but haven't checked back to see if anyone has answered. Badagnani 05:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC) New Paulet textI trust you on the new Paulet text. Badagnani 05:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Stub tagsHi, I've noticed you've created a number of stub articles recently. It's more helpful if you can tag an article with a specific stub tag, such as {{party-stub}} - a full list can be found here. Hawaii historyGood, I think multiple perspectives help make the best article for everyone. Those who are close to the subject (as you are clearly closer than I am) have a perspective may leave out "givens" that everyone there seems already to know. I'm reminded of the "Happy Days" episode in which Fonzie becomes impatient when teaching automobile repair to a novice. It isn't because he doesn't know the subject because he was an expert, but in fact the problem was that he was so good at it that he just couldn't explain it on a beginners' level. I agree that the background shouldn't be oversimplified and should be factual, and also that we should remain above the various debates over sovereignty, presenting the context and relevant issues with a dispassionate eye. I think you and the other Hawaii experts have done a good job hammering these things out in the various pages and think it's great you're improving them (with exceptions pointed out on the Hawaii talk page for removed passages that I didn't feel were adequately substituted). If the Hawaii article is too long, I agree that sections could be split off. In looking at individual U.S. state articles I see that some don't include a history section at all--all of the text is in a separate article. I don't think such an extreme solution is warranted in the Hawaii article, but probably some text could be split out into the branch articles. Thanks again for your note. Badagnani 13:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC) fyi - wdhamiltonFYI - in order to simply my WP time, I've decided to switch user names from User:Rikurzhen to W. D. Hamilton. r and iYeah, I'm mainly editing it to test the validity of my own ideas on the subject. I was raised to believe that education, culture, nutrition, and racism explain the black-white gap, and I hold that view to this day. I want to make sure my views are authentic, and scientific, and not based on peer pressure or wishful thinking. So I'm putting it all up to a test. One thing I haven't seen addressed in any of the R&I articles on wikipedia is the fact that intra and inter group racism in the development of IQ are an impossible variable to control for. I plan on adding studies in this regard when we finish dealing with the stuff on the talk page.--Urthogie 21:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Race and intelligenceWell said in your introduction/disclaimer to the appendix. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 10:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
deleting other people's copmmentsre: race and intelligence talk page. As a rule, you should never delete other people's comments on talk pages (or their own user page). Even if you think the comments are irrelevant, unless it is clearly vandalism it is not your right to delete what other people write on a talk page. If you think the talk page is turning into a blog, my advice is this: type this at the bottom of the discussion you feel is off-topic:
and then encourage contribuotrs to take the discussion to their own personal talk pages. This is the polite thing to do. If there is a LOT of blog-like discussion, then I suggest you archive it. But please do not delete what others write. I ask you to restore what you deleted. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi thereSorry for being absent from R&I discussion for so long, but I went through some health problems, then got sidetracked into a couple of discussions about whether cats could be owned and whether foie gras was an evil food (both with the same editor, mind you!). Hope everything is well in Hawaii. Temperature here dropped to sub-zero about ten days ago. Winter is here at last. Have a good one!--Ramdrake 22:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey!
raceFYI: http://www.understandingrace.org/ Slrubenstein | Talk 17:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
This weekendJK, can you help me find the study with the data you posted. I want to work on a graph. This page just gets longer and longer-- what I think we need to do is ignore the arguments and work section by section creating a new article that makes some kind of sense. Are you with me? I'm going to set up a sub-page for this purpose. futurebird 22:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC) New intro pageTalk:Race and intelligence/new intro feb 07 Let me know what you think. I need this to be super sourced I'm talking like every friggin' word. I think I'm being more than fair... your feedback and or support would be most welcome. futurebird 03:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC) RushtonHi. Can you please actually read the changes I made to the article before reverting it. I'm not POV pushing, I'm just trying to make the article more complete and fill in minor gaps. Saturdayseven How can you call it original research to cite valid studies claiming the existence of genetic clusters which perfectly match the 3 main races Rushton explicitly defines in his book. How can you claim that the 2 predictions Rushton made is a trivial detail? It's the measure by which history will judge his theory and the article is incomplete without it. And the praise of Rushton is related to his work. As for the Native American thing, the whole section is unsourced, I'm just trying to give it some context. There's no cited review of the book that mentions Native Americans or the Flynn Effect so remove those entire sections if you want, but don't revert the changes I make to them. Saturdayseven I think you are too strict in how you apply wikipedia's original research policy and such rigidity could hurt the article. Rushton asserts the existence of 3 biological groups, the first defined by East Asian ancestry, the second defined by European, Middle Eastern, and South Asian ancestry, and the third defined by sub-Saharan ancestry. Is it really original research to cite 2 independent studies confirming that these are indeed valid biological categories? Don't you think that's a relevant thing to point out? And I do have a source confirming the 2 predictions Rushton made which I can add to the article. Saturdayseven Race and IntelligenceThanks for clearing up my confusion with Futurebird. I think you have a valid point, but I think it is wrong and unconstructive to say RIK is copping out. Please stop (this goes to RIK too) looking at this as a battle between two POVs and instead look at it solely' as a problem of good style. There is an argument, and there are critiques of that argument, and there is a defense of that argument. RIK instists that the first and third be provided, you insist that the second, and you are both right. The question is, with a complex argument, how best to represent this clearly without mischaracterizing any of the argument. I am not sure what the best way to go is but I urge you to address RIK and say "Look, let's pick this one argument and wort out a text that accurately and fairly represents it, without excluding anything form a verifiable source that is part of the argument, and let's just try to figure out how to write it up clearly. Do this not for the whole article but for one small part of it, and you will make progress. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC) You have been blocked for 24 hoursFor a 3 revert rule violation on Race, Evolution and Behavior. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Hello againSaw what happened on REB. Just wanted to say your honesty is as impressive as your determination. :)--Ramdrake 13:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
BTW, you may want to take a look-see here [3]. Un homme averti en vaut deux.--Ramdrake 01:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC) FYIhttp://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/ Nice source... futurebird 22:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
ThanksRace and intelligence (Media portrayal) looks better than ever! futurebird 13:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Life historyThe point was Rushton pioneered the application of life-history theory to explain variation among humans, or at least specifically among races. Are you saying those people applied life-history to explain human variation or specifically racial variation? If so, in what way? Saturdayseven Wow! You and futurebird have done a great job making this article better. The sections are just what it needed. I'll see what I can do to expand each of these sections. Thank you!JJJamal 17:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
WD has almost agreed to change the first sentenceI want to know what you think about this, besides I don't think we'll be able to make any change unless you support it. It is not perfect, and it may need to be changed again later, but I think it is an improvement... maybe... This process is so painful. Sometimes I just want to give up. futurebird 23:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC) race and intelligenceI have semi-protected the Race and intelligence article so you can now edit it. If you do not mind, I would like to give you some advice that I believe is important if you want your improvements to the article to last, and that will protect you from unfair conflicts.
I apologize if any of this sounds patronizing. And if you question my motives all I can say is I really am trying to be practical and strategic. I think if you do not follow this advice no sustainable progress will be made in the article. If you do follow this advice, I think the article really will get better, even if at a slower rate than you'd like. I am sharing this with JK; please share this advice with anyone else you closely collaborate with. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Outside effortsJere, I've been emailing everyone I know in academia about this article. I'm trying to get some experts in here. This is the email I sent out-- do you know any people? I have noticed a disturbing trend on the wikipedia. Articles on the topic "race and Intelligence" contain lopsided information and occasionally racist information mostly from researchers such as Arthur Jensen, Charles Murray and Richard Lynn (Richard Lynn wrote a book called "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" that tries to prove that people are poor in places around the world because they are genetically inferior...) All of the work looks, on first glance, to be very scholarly, there are numerous citations and lots of flashy graphs, but fundamentally, the historical context is missing and the cultural context is missing. Because of this the information is highly misleading. I have undertaken a project of revising these articles (I've rewritten portions of these articles, using the work of Gardner, Gould, Etienne Wenger, Robert Serpell as my sources) but I am in over my head. I'm really just a high school math teacher. I'm not an expert on intelligence. I need the help of smart dedicated editors who can help bring some balance to these articles. I see the impact allegations of inferiority can have on young people in the classroom all of the time. I felt it growing up as a minority student during The Bell Curve controversy. I think that improving these articles is important work, and I hope you can help me find the right people to work with me on this project. Here is a link to the main article. I encourage you to take a look at it and forward this email to anyone you know who can help. -Susan Murray http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence In addition to this I'm working on improving the bio-pages for researchers who aren't on the Pioneer Fun Roll. I think it makes it seem like all the work in on this topic has come from Rushton and Jenson or something, when in fact they are just minor players. Here's my to-do list in that area: Bios
Things are going greatSince the page has been unlocked. I like you new outline feel free to ax Race and intelligence (test data) this if it gets in the way. futurebird 06:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a cool source futurebird emailed to me[5] you should check it out. FB, is way to nice about this stuff IMHO. She knows I think that and I don't care if she reads this. You take a hard line and someone has got to do that, you know? JJJamal 02:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you help me with the intro I just wrote?Race and intelligence (Research) It's a mess, but it's also a start. futurebird 04:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC) JK, based on this please submit a request for formal mediation if you're up to it. List you me and the others as appropriate. I suggest that organization is the central issue to be resolved and whatever flows from that. I ask you because I'm ill. --W.R.N. 01:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC) requestJK, based on this please submit a request for formal mediation if you're up to it. List you me and the others as appropriate. I suggest that organization is the central issue to be resolved and whatever flows from that. I ask you because I'm ill. --W.R.N. 01:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Image:Two Curve Bell.jpgPlease weigh in on this IfD [6] futurebird 05:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC) race and intelligence (explanations)My goof. You should be edited now. As to your conflicts with WRN, I am not going to get involved. I urge you to follow my 9 pieces of advice (above). Be sure to comply with all policies and rules yourself, to protect yourself. And you keep your own careful record of anything WRN does that you think reflects bad faith, or ownership of the article, or violates 3RR, or violates any of our core policies, or is uncivil to you ... and when you feel too frustrated to go on insist on formal mediation following the appropriate links to the proper page to make such a request, or file an ArbCom case if you feel it is justified. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC) rfmA request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Race and intelligence, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. according to the rfm rules, you're not supposed to change the "Issues to be mediated" that I wrote. if you want to add you own issues, they're supposed to be listed under "Additional issues to be mediated". see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide to filing a Request for Mediation: Do not, under any circumstances, edit the "Issues to mediate" section unless you are the party who filed the request. --W.R.N. 22:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC) i appreciate the offer, but right now I'm trying to minimize the amount of time that WP takes in my day. i'll try to rate-limit myself in the future, and i'll register this account with a "E-mail this user" if you want to send me anything privately. --W.R.N. 22:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
What do you think about this?futurebird 01:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Kevin and WD reverted everythingIt's back the way it was when the page was locked. I just don't understand how they can do this? The article was finally starting to improve. All of the work has been lost. Now they page is "locked for mediation" or something. This isn't fair. futurebird 04:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 06:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
your emailCheck it :P futurebird 22:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC) about to archiveJK, before I archive it, will you make sure there is nothing here or in the following section - chock full of citations - that you want to put in one of the pages you are working on, but have not yet? best, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 1887 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawai'i -- POV PushJK, you're by far one of the most controversial contributors to Wikipedia, and you have an obvious bias against the Hawaiian monarchy. This was evident when I last dealt with you last year over the section in Hawai'i about the Overthrow. Fine, you believe that the Overthrow was justified and legal, but unfortunately everything you write is subtly but painfully POV. I don't know if it's intentional or if you believe so strongly in your view that you just don't realize it. Then you tell me that I have a POV push? Hardly, I simply want you to include a more balanced view, if not a completely NPOV or nuetral article. While reading your work, I've been shaking my head in disbelief so much that it gives me a headache. This is hardly an exhaustive list, but to start: RE: The Queen's poll, you say she "claimed" she had support. "Claimed" implies she was less than truthful. We have no real way to know if she was truthful or not. "Concluded" is far less inflammatory. RE: The Queen's "overthrow". Nope, more correctly it was an attempt to RESTORE her power. RE: Minister Stevens, you're implying that his actions had the support of the United States government, when many believe he overstepped his limits, including Grover Cleveland. Therefore, "The United States Government, through its..." should be left out. RE: Political unrest. Many believe that Stevens used the situation to his advantage, so my change to "what he saw as" pol unrest is far more nuetral than stating he "reacted" to the pol unrest. RE: Landing of the Marines. The addition of "obstensibly" to this sentence allows for different opinions on whether the action was valid or not. RE: Grover Cleveland's message to Congress. This is an essential part of the story and further illustrates the difference of opinions. RE: The Provisional Government "quickly" gaining recognition. This is a matter of opinion and also has a subtle POV push. "Eventually" is far more nuetral and in my opinion, far more truthful given the intrigue surrounding the overthrow. You still have MANY pro-Republic POV sentences in this article that convey your POV. If you need examples of these, I'll be glad to list them tomorrow. For now, I need to get to bed. Kaihoku 11:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I also appreciate the refresher on some historical details I had forgotten. BUT FIRST, it occurs to me that we need to examine why this section and the following section are even IN this article. This is about the 1887 Constitution, not the 1893. There's already an article on the 1893 Const. not to mention the article covering the Overthrow. This doesn't belong here. MAYBE we keep a modified version the first paragraph, with a link the 1893 Const. and Overthrow articles? I PROPOSE WE DO THIS! BUT IF WE DO DECIDE TO KEEP IT... Why did you add the phrase about "eliminating suffrage from American and European residents"? I've read the 1893 Constitution, and Article 62 states the qualifications for voting. There's nothing in there that would specifically eliminate suffrage as you contend. Also, upon further review I find the phrase "threatened to impose" a bit strong and definitely POV. I've changed it to "proclaimed that she would promulgate". Right before the sentence about the Queen's poll, I've also added "The queen had been presented with petitions for a new constitution, signed by an estimated two-thirds of the kingdom's voters." I feel that this historical note shows the diverse opinions at the time regarding the 1887 Const. Moving over to the Morgan Report, your section on "Contradicted by the A.R. " falls under the Controversy headline. Should there not be both sides of the controversy represented? It's not a rebuttal, it simply states the opposite view. How can you expect to throw up your POV without the opposing POV represented? More tomorrow. Mahalo for your laulima... Kaihoku 10:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Was hoping to see your reasons for the recent changes under the Talk page, but there was nothing? I still think it shoud be deleted altogether... Kaihoku 11:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC) mediationfyi - i think you put your comment under the wrong heading. --W.R.N. 18:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I really need some help with this article. I've added a ton of evidence against the genetic explanation, but now WRN is trying to frame the whole thing in terms of "well you never know it might be genetics!" --It's the idea that no matter what you do, I mean, even if there was no test score gap, until you have proven there is NO genetic link you ought to assume that there is one. He's invoking Occam's razor and I think that's ABSURD. Occam's razor says choose the obvious cause: RACISM. duh duh duh. I've just about had it with this article. How many years will it be before people simply realise that (a) Jensen is a nut (b) we ought to have been spending all this time and research money trying to help people live better lives rather than trying to prove that people are inferior because of some 19th century vendetta in some circles of the academic community against Africa. I'm just really angry and sick of going in circles. I need some help. I don't want to just give up and watch as all of my hard work is slowly obliterated. futurebird 05:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
hawaii
Hawaii article revisionsHi JK, I only had time to look at a couple of your response edits so far. Many I still find problematic, but in regards to "race", "ethnicity", and your suggestion of "ancestry": better, more accurate -- kudos. I'm heading into a huge round of external stuff, and won't be likely to do anything in the next few weeks, so unless someone else comes in, your edits are likely to stick until I am back in action and we have a chance to find compromises. In the meantime, aloha... Arjuna 20:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Your Mediation Cabal case
Punahou SchoolCould you maybe give me a list of "things" to do for the article above? Maybe a WikiProject summary on the discussion page? I want to bring this article to at least "Good" status. Thank you so very much. Sr13 (T|C) 06:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC) HeartlyHearAloha. I would be happy to mediate if that is acceptable to HH. Out of curiosity, are the both of you members of WP Hawaii? I know you have worked on a lot of Hawaii-related articles. I haven't seen HeartlyHear before, but I would like to see the both of you working together on the project. —Viriditas | Talk 02:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC) DisputeJK, mahalo for your comments on Talk:Native_Hawaiians#Alleged_role and again, I apologize for the accidental deletion of your comment on the other talk page (I think what happened was I clicked on "undo" instead of "edit") and the inadvertent violation of 3RR (I was simply not paying attention). Taking a step back (the 24 hour block on my account -- totally justified -- was good for this purpose), I have regained a sense of humor about all this. And though we will no doubt continue to disagree on this and a variety of issues, I too will strive to act in good faith. I think both of us were pushing each other's buttons, and that's not very constructive to the overall endeavor. I'm not going to go back into the meat of this now as it's the end of what has not been a very pleasant week for anyone (given recent events), and there's no rush. Have a good weekend. Cheers, Arjuna 05:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Hi JK, thanks to you as well for your kind words. I agree it can sometimes be hard to argue "virtually" without creating a sense of personal affront where none was intended. I apologize for pushing your buttons too. I do argue forcefully (such is my academic training), but at the same time (this is where it would be impossible to convey in anything but in person), I think my friends would say that I'm certainly not an unkind person -- as, from your above comments (and others), I'm sure yours would say about you. In another context -- and I'm not suggesting this as anything but theoretically -- we might actually enjoy a beer together (we are both musicians after all). And I truly appreciate your offer to remove "alleged" until we can further discuss. But no, let's just leave it as is for now. As I said, the article's not going anywhere, and we can put the gloves back on later ;-). For now, enjoy Legoland with your family and try to forget what a nasty week it's been (not refering to our spat but the other thing). Aloha. Arjuna 05:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Republic of HawaiiJK, I agree with your change (previous wording was not mine). I've been taking a break from these articles this week. Aloha! Arjuna 07:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Akaka BillAloha JK. I strongly disagree with your reverts on the Akaka Bill. I think Heartly Hear had some very good revisions (not saying all of them, but many/most) of what was previous a very POV article. I'm not going to revert your revert (for now), as I'm still thinking about some way out of the apparent impasse in (what I see as) your POV-pushing and what you (apparently) think is the same from my, HH, and some others. I'd take issue with that of course -- note that I take strong issue with some of the POV edits coming from the other side from the strongly pro-sovereignty perspective; however, I think HH's edits were good and I think your blanket revert is highly problematic. (I'm putting a version of these comments on the Akaka Bill talk page as well, just so others can see them readily.) Cheers, Arjuna 07:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC) JK, your unilateral and radical changes to the article are not in the spirit of consensus or collaboration. I'm sorry to say so, but you are clearly not acting in good faith. I request that you cease immediately or I see no other alternative but to go to informal mediation. Mahalo. Arjuna 03:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC) JK, thanks for your note on my talk page and for your cooperation. Let's work together. Adding sections to track the changes is helpful, but if I can also suggest that we slow down a bit -- I'm sure we're all busy people and are doing this for "fun" on the side. Given that fact, it's hard to keep up when so many changes are being made at once. As hopefully you've noted from my lack of getting back into the whole "alleged" thing, I hope you will agree there's no rush to try to solve all our disagreements at once... Finally, (I'm going to post this on the article talk page as well, just so it's part of the "official" record), I think it's also worth noting that both HH and I (I'm taking his statement on faith from what s/he said) are not even sure if we support the Akaka Bill or not. Speaking for myself at least, it's from this basis that I'm just seeking to ensure that the article represent the issue fairly and not pushing a POV from either side. Representing the fact that there are POVs is fine; my point is that I'd like to see an article free of what comes across to a dis-interested observer, which is what I am on this issue anyway, as non-editorializing. Which was how it came across before. Anyhow, I haven't looked at your changes yet and probably won't get a chance to until later. But thanks for your cooperation. Arjuna 04:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC) JK, as I said on the Akaka Bill talk page, I think you did a great job on fixing the major problems HeartlyHear (though I don't speak for him/her obviously) and I had with the article. You and I may continue to battle over some of these articles, but thanks to you (and HH's) hard work in getting back to a good NPOV, the result is a much improved article. So when we battle, we battle, but praise also goes when it's due. Mahalo, Arjuna 11:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Hi JK, and thank you for the very kind words on my talk page -- although I am 100% certain that I don't deserve that kind of credit! You keep me on my toes as well, and I'm thankful that you do. I respect your passion and intelligence -- even when we strongly disagree -- and I'm sorry if, in the heat of battle, that isn't always readily apparent. But please accept my word that it is there even than. I think it's very encouraging that we both recognize that an often contentious process can lead (and perhaps is necessary to?) to a good outcome and a better article. I'm taking a bit of a Wikibreak for the next few days, so I wish you a lovely coming weekend and aloha! Arjuna 19:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Hi JK. I don't know who did those recent edits on the Akaka Bill, and frankly I'm not up on how valid they are in terms of accuracy (not saying they aren't either, just that I'm not up on the nuts and bolts as you are) -- so your input there would be very valuable. Cheers, Arjuna 10:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC) JK, I don't disagree with your edits by 4.246.209.215, but the changes they made seem rather semantic and/or pretty subtle (as well as not the best grammar), but not so much POV pushing. I just ask that we not be too loose with the term "POV" unless it's really merited. Mahalo! Arjuna 02:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC) POV tagsHi JK. Although you probably know what material I find problematic, fair enough -- I'll make it part of the record on the respective talk pages. Won't have time to get to that until late this evening. Btw, my intention in putting the tags there was not to escalate things, but simply to 1. flag those articles as ones that need additional work and 2. serve to notify the general reader that they may want to be cautious in approaching the material. And I don't have a problem with you putting the "totally disputed" tag on the Akaka Bill article -- it's an accurate characterization at the moment. Cheers, Arjuna 01:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC) JK, I assume you're joking. I will not remove the POV tags, since as you well know, there are numerous citations for the positions I take and which need no further reiteration. I already referenced the book Overthrow, which is as good a starting point as any and more than suffices. Cheers, Arjuna 08:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Reposting in order to have references on the talk pages to point to here: I'm "mis-reading" Overthrow? It's amusing that you argue that that book bolsters your position and not the views I articulate. You are again both taking a very selective approach to the facts and misrepresenting what I said (ex. I explictly did not say "the U.S." but rather "U.S. agents", which is quite a different thing). And I do not need to get back into the "whether the marines were there to intimidate royalists" argument again. I have already demonstrated that clearly that was one of their intended purposes, and that they were successful in doing so. I put the POV tags up at the legitimate request of Viriditas, in order to demonstrate that there is a different view of events not reflected in the article. And my short summary above, as I said, was a short summary to justify re-insertion, not to get into additional extended debates with you at this stage. I am increasingly of the mind that such good faith attempts are futile. In any case, the point of a POV tag is to point out that the article is disputed and not the result of a consensus-based approach, not that I have to take the time to argue point by point to your requests. It most certainly is a very tendentious reading of history, as has been pointed out by numerous people over a long period of time, but most of whom simply give up in the face of your attempts to intimidate as well as your admirable tenacity. You know as well as I do that this article is POV and does not reflect mainstream views -- despite your agenda as part of the advocacy organization Grassroot Institute. I will not remove the POV tags, and will resist any attempts to do so. However, I will be happy to put the articles up for independent review if you like. Arjuna 09:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC) JK, thanks for your amusing comments. As you are smart enough to know, but failing other ammunition than to request repeated re-iteration of facts already expressed and demonstrated, there is already ample sufficient and specific cause, and that the views therein are not simply "my opinion". The POV tags will stay. Aloha, Arjuna 09:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC) JK, thanks again for proving my point again. Apparently unsatisfied with the degree to which your bias is represented in the article, now by requesting removal of the tags, you also seek to deny the majority of others to merely point out that the article is POV. I know you truly believe your POV is the mainstream one, but at this point I see no other option than to seek informal mediation. I request your cooperation in this. Cheers, Arjuna 09:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC) JK, thanks for your comments, and perhaps we are both pushing each others' buttons again. My regrets if so, but it is very frustrating that it seems to me that you seemingly refuse to accept that I have already provided sufficient justification for the tags. Your request for further "specific examples" is a red herring, as I presume you are aware but are attempting to use as a rhetorical device. My point in the original request by Viriditas for justification of the POV tags was to make the point that the article as currently written presents a POV -- and therefore misleading -- interpretation of events. This point needs no further reiteration here, and in fact I have already requested Viriditas' assistance on this. I look forward to working with you to demonstrate that the minimal requirement of the article is that it reflect the fact (via POV tag) that the interpretation of events is seriously disputed. Until then, all the best (and I mean that -- let's cool off a bit for the next day, shall we? The article isn't going anywhere) and aloha, Arjuna 10:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Aloha!Aloha e JereKrischel! Aloha nō, aloha kāua! Pehea ʻoe? Ua maikaʻi loa au! Kēia lā i pōmaikaʻi loa lā! If you don't understand, just leave me a note on my talk page and I will be more than happy to translate for you. Rest assured, it is nothing bad at all. There seems to be a lot of disagreements between yourself and other users on several different articles relating the the Hawaiian People and Hawaiian ways of life. Liliuokalani is just one example of them. Lets all try to reach a middle ground. Some of the references you use in your arguments, i.e., Public Law 103-150, say the exact opposite of what you are trying to get across in your arguments. I am in no way try to make a personal attack against you. The downfall to this type of dialog is the lack of being able to read one's facial expressions and hear the tone in their voice. A simple, innocent comment in this type of forum can easily be misconstrued. Again, please do not take this as a personal attack as this is not my intent at all. My intent here is for all of us that have an interest in these articles to reach a middle ground. The success of Wikipedia is dependent upon view's from all sides of the spectrum. However, revert wars and personal attacks will never accomplish anything. It is my opinion, and only my opinion, that several of these pages should be protected for now until an agreement can be reached on the talk pages. After all, what we want in the end result is an encyclopedia that is full of facts representing the truth, and not personal points of view. Mahalo ā nui for your contributions. Again, let me reiterate, that I am in now way trying to make a personal attack against you. Please do not take this comment as such. Pōmaikaʻi Akua ʻoe! -- Kanaka maoli i puuwai 01:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
JK, thanks for your amusing comments on my talk page. As you are smart enough to know, but failing other ammunition than to request repeated re-interation of facts already expressed and demonstrated, there is already ample sufficient and specific cause, and that the views therein are not simply "my opinion". The POV tags will stay. Aloha, Arjuna 09:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC) JK, please see my comments on the Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy talk page. Aloha. Arjuna 10:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC) On your insisting that Native Hawaiian religion is mere mythologyHi, I noticed that you reverted my renaming the Hawaiian mythology page to Native Hawaiian religion under the claim that it was a "fringe POV push". As I point out on the talk page of that article: the page must be renamed Native Hawaiian religion as there are still many adherants to this ancestoral faith. No one would even try to rename the Jesus Christ article to Jesus Christ (myth) it is POV to declare someone else's religion mere mythology. There has been a recent special on the history channel about the continuing worship of Pele and other ancestoral gods in Hawaii. And you can see as recent as May 25, 2007 an Associated Press news story saying "The area [Halemaumau Crater, at the summit of Kilauea] is one of the most popular parts of the park and is revered by Native Hawaiians as the home of Pele, goddess of the volcano." See http://www.thestate.com/166/story/72786.html or http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/252/story/44414.html I included more examples for our discussion here: After an eruption MSNBC spoke to a Native Hawaiian named Piilani Kaawaloa "That’s the home of Pele the fire goddess...We believe that with the respect that we have for Pele and our belief in her, that it was spared. We believe that the land provides for us. If you take care of the land, the land will take care of you." http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/3079560/ There are several pages describing how the 1960 lava flow sparing two buildings was seen by many Native Hawiians as a conscious act of the goddess Pele. http://www.punaweb.org/VisitingPuna/Wheretogo/CapeKumukahiLight.html http://www.hawaiiweb.com/hawaii/html/sites/kumukahi_lighthouse.html Even many travel books speak of Native Hawaiian religion as an active ongoing religious movement in the islands. These passages taken from Maui By Kristin Kimball, Lonely Planet Publications Pty Ltd., Victoria, Australia, 2006
There is also the findings of "The Native Hawaiians Study Commission" created by the Congress of the United States on December 22, 1980 (Title III of Public Law 96-565). Whose report "NHSC Native Hawaiian Religion", focused on several aspects of their religion including "The need felt by some emerging native Hawaiian groups to recover self-esteem as Hawaiians by pledging faith in ancient religious beliefs and customs beneficial to group identity through participation in a live, revitalized religious setting, requiring recovery of temple and other shrine sites designated as sacred, with the privilege or right to reenact pertinent rituals in ceremonies conducive to harmonious and inspired religious expression." And presenting a "Summary of needs and concerns about Hawaiian religion with recommendations for improving religious expression as desired in the present multiethnic social setting." It notes the division along generational lines among Native Hawaiians on how vigorously to protest the US Navy's use of a traditional religious site as a gun range "The issue of Kaho'olawe looms large in the minds of young and old alike, but the issue remains a divisive polarization of opinion between young Hawaiians who wish the Navy to stop bombing long enough to allow them to set up religious practices in accordance with present law, and older Hawaiians who see no need to recover it from the United States Navy." http://wiki.grassrootinstitute.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=NHSC_Native_Hawaiian_Religion Is it really your intent to insult thousands of people's religion because their numbers are not as large as the more prominent faiths? Santeria is also a minority faith but the editors of that page do not list its gods under mythology Santeria#Deities you won't even find the word myth in that entire article. Please undo your revision. More on Mythology versus ReligionI have read your response to the question of whether Hawaiian mythology should be renamed to Native Hawaiian religion. As the question centers around the naming of a Wikipedia article I point out the guidelines found at
While scholars may differentiate what the word myth means “the majority of English speakers” see the word as referring to an a story that is untrue. These quotes from the Mythology page (emphasis added):
As I pointed out before, the article on the religious beliefs of the minority religion Santeria does not contain the word myth in any form.
When you say “I believe in Pele, and Lono, and Ku, and my amakua, but it does not make it a religion. It is spiritual” and still call this mythology, I don’t think most people would understand what you are saying. It seems like your saying something akin to “I think Bigfoot is a hoax but I worship him anyway.” When something is untrue that means it is a lie, people around Loch Ness told their children a little lie about a monster to keep them from drowning. I really don’t think you are saying you get some spiritual satisfaction from something you are convinced is a lie. Therefor I maintain that by the naming conventions of Wikipedia and by its call for NPOV using the term mythology on an active religion is unacceptable. It is the same as saying “Those Native Hawaiians who practice this faith believe in fairytales.” Put more bluntly (by using an expletive that means untruth) it is akin to saying “Native Hawaiians believe in bullshit.” While I do not claim any attachment to this faith, as an American I can not help but demand that all faiths be treated with respect. I think that Wikipedia standards are in line with this as well. As for your other points: The sources indicate the religion went underground and was not fully exterminated. This is different then when Christianity came to Pagan Rome (and Greece that was under its sway). Constantine the Great soon after his crowning started to strip and destroy Pagan temples and his successors after him began the systematic slaughter of Pagans who would not convert or those who mixed too much Paganism into their Christianity. Under centuries of active state run persecution Roman and Greek Paganism were exterminated. Because there are no true links to these past Pagan Roman and Hellenistic religions the worship of their deities today is called Wicca or NeoPaganism to differentiate it. This is in contrast to the Native Hawaiian Religion because it has an unbroken link to the past. I have yet to see any sources that claim Christian missionaries on Hawaii used murder to wipe out the belief and all vestiges of its practice. All sources indicate it survived “underground” like Christianity did under Diocletian and Nero or in Soviet Russia or Mao’s China. No one claims any of these underground believers are illegitimate, if anything they are seen as more committed and more faithful then those who can practice “above ground.” The lack of human sacrifice and the discontinuing of avoiding certain foods or women with menses should certainly be included in the article in a section about the history of Native Hawaiian Religion. Changing practices do not mean that a religion is nullified. The Latter Day Saints (a.k.a Mormons) once practiced polygamy and the US Calvary was sent out against them to put an end to the practice, their prophet declared that he had received a timely revelation that the practice was to come to an end. This change did not nullify their claim to be a religion nor strip them of the name Church of Latter Day Saints. Likewise Reform Jews have dropped the ban on Pork but are still called a branch of Judaism. Roman Catholics after Vatican II now have services in many languages instead of just Latin, can receive Communion by hand, altar servers can now be girls, etc. and still they are called Roman Catholics. Likewise the fact that the practices involved in Native Hawaiian Religion have changed do not nullify its existence or render its claim to be linked to an unbroken past illegitimate. Religion vs. Mythology ContinuedThe quote that you offer states “Today's Hawaiian ‘traditional practitioners’ somehow think they can pick and choose which elements of the old religion to implement, and which to ignore. In an effort to make themselves seem more 'indigenous' or different from people with no Hawaiian ancestry, they might wear special clothing, chant certain prayers, or perform certain rituals. But the old religion was pervasive throughout all aspects of life, and it was a seamless whole.” This seems to argue that because the current practitioners do not have faith visibly present throughout every aspect of their life they are unworthy of carrying forward the name. First the author does not address inner aspects such as prayer or meditation which seem to be the most important aspects of religion and are the least easy to study or make generalizations about.
“Seventy-eight percent [of Catholics polled after the death of Pope John Paul II] said the next pope should allow Catholics to use birth control, …and 59 percent said the next pope should have a less-strict policy on stem cell research. … Fifty-five percent said the next pope should allow women to become priest” This is despite the fact that at Vatican II Humanae Vitae declared that birth control was a grave sin and its use was forbidden, and the fact that the stem cell research is seen as destroying fertilized eggs and is the same as abortion (i.e. murder in the eyes of the RC Church). Pope John Paul II declared formally that the question of women becoming priest was closed with the answer of no. Still not only did CNN call these people (who wish to pick and choose) Catholics but so does everybody else.
The quote you offer concludes with the line “Hawaiian traditional practitioners who select religious observances they enjoy while neglecting others they dislike are as ineffective and sacrilegious as Jews or Christians who reduce the Ten Commandments to six or seven.” Actually in Judaism there are 613 commandments (these are called Halakhah). Within Judaism the first ten are differentiated not because of any importance but because the whole nation heard them before collapsing under the strain of hearing the direct voice of YHWH, after that they made Moses be their middle man.
Lastly you ask for “a reference which clearly indicates what person passed down the religion underground to what person”
http://www.hulapreservation.org/meet.asp
RemarksJK, in contrast to your comments last night, I am not amused by your comments about me on Kaihoku's talk page. It is inappropriate and insulting for you to pretend to condescend to "apologize for my remarks", which were both civil and well-taken. I await your apology. Arjuna 23:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
RevisionsI acknowledge your comments on my talk page. I don't intend to re-hash old battles, but I am letting you know where I stand, and I won't sugar-coat this. Your attempt a couple of months ago to have me remove the POV tags, when you know full well that the neutrality of the various articles was disputed, was overplaying your hand in a big way. This not only tested my good faith, it dropped it down to near zero. And although I fully recognize your right to hold whatever opinions you wish, I was then nonetheless seriously disappointed to discover some of your external writing, which I found to be the worst kind of inflammatory propaganda -- as bad as anything the other side of the debate has dished out. In short, I'm sorry to say that much respect was lost. I'm not trying to prick any feelings on your part, just telling you where I stand. Arjuna 19:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC) I do indeed find your writing disturbing. While I have made it abundantly clear that I strongly disagree with the views of Hawaiian sovereignty activists, your comparison of them to Nazis and their agenda to apartheid is, frankly, disgusting. You are entitled to your opinion, but so are others as well about your publicly held views. (JK's recent essays can be found here, here, here, and here. I'm afraid I am not mistaken or confused about what you write, it is quite clear and you fail to see that I simply see it as misguided in substance and vile in form. As for POV tags, their justification has been ample from the discussion (my own and others') on the respective talk pages. Your position seems to be that because you summarily dismiss any contributions or objections from others with even a middle of the road POV, therefore there is no dispute, and therefore any POV tag is unjustified. This is a quite childish, but effective, strategy to simply wear people out. You have crossed the line of decency as well as intelligent discourse, and while I will remain civil towards you, I'm afraid we will not be corresponding by email. You will simply have to take my word that I have no connection to any Hawaiian activist group whatsoever. Arjuna 10:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC) JK, thanks for explaining the current issues from your perspective. I will go over them tonight and try to help out. In another issue altogether I was wondering if you and Arjuna could take a look at the proposal for WP:HIMOS and make some suggestions for expansion on the talk page. We really need a Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Hawaii-related articles). Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 04:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Blount Report vandalismJK, the citations that you suggest should be more specific could not actually be more so. The specific page numbers were on the citations. If you want to have any shred of legitimacy left, I strongly suggest that you self-revert. Arjuna 04:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks for your e-mail. I'm looking forward to helping you and Arjuna resolve these issues. —Viriditas | Talk 02:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC) JK, thanks for your email as well. I assume I'm supposed to take much of it as tongue-in-cheek-let's-drop-all-pretense-at-Wikicivility-honest, no? Assuming so, I found it funny and will respond shortly and in similar fashion. We still have a long way to go, but your proposed compromise in the first para of the Apology Resolution was excellent and appreciated. Cheers, Arjuna 19:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
CeasefireJK, although my disagreements and frustration with you remains, I propose we stop the trashtalk we have both engaged in lately. I'm not going away and presumably neither are you, and at the end of the day we are all going to have to reach some sort of compromise, even if it is straightforward narrative with parallel analyses. But more than that, regardless of how we feel about the other, such provocation does neither of us any good as human beings. Whatever your response(s), I aim to do just that. This may well flare up again in future, but for now let's both take a step back. I have other engagements at the moment, but when I have time I'm going to re-submit the specific references you evidently did not see, and then we can go from there. Arjuna 05:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Aloha. Seriously and with respect: can you please leave off the definition of Hawaiian thing? I know you have strong opinions about it, and that is your right, I see your point, but Wikipedia is not the venue to validate your usage. I compromised in having there be a second, less common definition, but seriously, pushing any more on this just looks like you are fronting an agenda. And I'm serious about the not wanting to give people the wrong idea. You know that improper usage can piss someone off, and that's fine if that's what they intend to do, but come on, let's leave the innocent and naive out of it, please. Cheers, Arjuna 09:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC) JK, it's time to hit the hay here, but I think maybe we're at an impasse, and rather than try again, what do you say we ask Viriditas to weigh in on this? Crossposting this on your page. Cheers, Arjuna 11:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
PiALOGUEI understand the issue of the Blount Report versus the Morgan Report. Would both (or all) of you please send me a private e-mail at pi+at+upi+dot+cc (without the plus signs), perhaps CC:ing each other, and offer me your respective top priority information-to-be-added in regard to what specifically each of you would like to add next? If you have read my personal area or read about my concept of PiALOGUE then you may have noticed that I specialize in both disambiguation and mediation. Since you both have a strong point-of-view then this tells me that BOTH of you are missing something in your dialogue together. Perhaps one or both of you simply needs to learn to explain your point-of-view in a way that the other person CAN listen to. This may require an adjustment in languaging as every genius tends to have their own personal language which is differentiated from the understanding or awareness of the status-quo human being. Outright denial of the other person's position does not add to or further the overall dialogue (or PiALOGUE). Okay? Thanks! :o) -- PiPhD 21:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Kingdom of HawaiiJK, just got your note -- please pardon, I must have missed your note/explaination, but will have a look and get back to you. T/m/c (!), Arjuna 02:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC) JK, wow, I have serious problems with just about all of them -- as well as the removal of the new citation. I can't get to any of this right now but will when I have time. Arjuna 02:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC) John Tyler Morgan PageLove ya, Jere, but pretty pleeeeeese stop mass-deleting historical stuff I write (especially when itʻs relevant and thoroughly referenced), or Iʻm gonna get MAD. It took a lot of research, you know. Hey, letʻs jam someday. --Laualoha 03:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Hey JK, as I wrote to Laualoha, I made some good faith and meticulously cited edits to the Morgan Report page). I will be happy to send both of you scanned PDFs of all those references as we move forward in making the articles more NPOV. I haven't had time to get to the objections I have on your reverts to my changes on the Kingdom of Hawaii article, but haven't forgotten it either. Cheers, Arjuna 07:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC) |
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#Image:Two_Curve_Bell.jpg){kind=link}
