User talk:Ezra Wax

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Snipped old stuff.

Contents

[edit] Yiddish

Hi Ezra, I agree with your recent edit on Judaism. I hope it will withstand the test of edit wars :-)... I'm not sure, however, why you insist of primarily using Yiddish idiom. I would actually use the English definition in the article text, and give the relevant Yiddish word in brackets, rather than the other way round... This would improve the flow of the text.
Recently, some very nice Jewish articles have appeared. I have written biographies of Rav Dessler and the Aruch ha-Shulchan. Someone wrote Lifnei iver, which survived VfD. I'm gauging the interest for a WikiProject on Judaism. Some potential participators are you and User:RK, User:IZAK, User:Frikle and User:Fintor. JFW | T@lk 09:09, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it will survive. I haven't yet determined where to draw the line between using English and Yiddish terms. I think staying in Wikipedia is the best course. My view of Wikipedia is that it will be the second internet. As such there wouldn't be much of a point in writing articles anywhere else.

Ezra, you've obviously not heard of WikiProjects yet. Please check that link and consider whether it might be wise to start such a thing for Judaism articles. JFW | T@lk 13:41, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry. I misunderstood you. I suppose a place to discuss such issues as language, sephardic or ashkenazic pronunciation, would be helpful. As well, it would be good to be able to structure the different subjects of Judaism as well. Such as the lists of Rabbis, Books, Laws, etc. There is also the issue of deciding the general format of the coverage of Judaism. For example, sorting it by Frum, non- frum, or the way it is currently. There is also the issue of the strong anti-orthodoxy of some of the people, that would have to be worked around.
If you start up the project, I imagine that I will participate to some extent. I am not sure that I currently have the energy to hash out all the issues though. In any case, point me to the project once you have put up a general outline. --Ezra Wax 01:42, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm personally quite involved in the medical Wikiproject, so I can't imagine myself taking the initiative. Indeed, a lot of articles need structuring, and some sensitive material edited - especially anti-orthodox criticism.

I'm not sure what to think of your edits on Jewish views of homosexuality. I think the old version was quite good, and the "apolegetic tone" you sought to eliminate was actually helpful. There was no way you could read into it that Judaism condones homosexual acts! Also, you eliminated the link to the basis for the issur on lesbianism, which I had carefully researched :-( JFW | T@lk 15:43, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hey Ezra, what do you think about Beth din? I wrote it up today. Please make lots of additions! JFW | T@lk 19:31, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I made an addition to make you happy. :) As for your note, I wasn't happy with my original editing of the article, which I felt was too conciliatory. I see lots of stuff was put back, but it wasn't me that put it back, so it doesn't bother me as much.
User:RK introduced a lot of material on the attempts at reform within orthodoxy. I slashed out a direct quote which was just inflammatory without adding to the topic, and pointed out that "Ultra-Orthodoxy" frowns on the tolerance towards homosexual acts. There is probably going to be some debate on the talk page.
As for Beth din, thanks for the additions. I was looking for more matters that fall under a Beth Din's jurisdiction, but at the moment only mikvah comes to mind.
My heartfelt congratulations on starting the Judaism WikiProject. I will certainly be participating from the sidelines and join in the pitched battles that will follow inevitably :-(. I'll try and invite some more trusted participants. JFW | T@lk 13:56, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re; Hebrew language vs. "Canaanite languages"

Hi, please see:

Request for assistance in a conflict between users regarding Canaanite and Hebrew linguistics articles

Your interest and input would be appreciated. Thank you. IZAK 10:36, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Update: the above discussion was moved to Talk:Hebrew languages. Your input would be appreciated. Thank you. IZAK 06:45, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I certainly agree with you, but I think you are already saying what I would say, so there isn't much point in my weighing in. If it comes to a vote I'm with you. --Ezra Wax 22:48, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] LOAF protocol

Ezra, the "LOAF protocol" is a spoof. See the LOAF Wiki for details; all of the "implementations" of LOAF in various languages are null programs. -- The Anome 18:37, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you won't tell anyone, I won't either. --Ezra Wax 02:01, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wikipedia:WikiProject Hebrew languages

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hebrew languages Please join Wikipedia:WikiProject Hebrew languages Your input will be crucial. IZAK 08:25, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Occupation of Palestine

[edit] Vote: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis. Thank you. IZAK 09:24, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Need for support

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK. Thank you. IZAK 02:54, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Meforshim and rabbis

Hi, please see discussion at Talk:Meforshim, and see RK's recent edits about Rabbi at [1] thanks. IZAK 08:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BC/AD versus BCE/CE

There's a discussion and a vote on this topic going on at Talk:Jesus#Reversions & Consensus on BCE/AD; I thought you might be interested. Jayjg (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Hebrew Bible verses

Hello Ezra: See the verses in Category:Hebrew Bible verses with the two samples so far: Genesis 1:1, and Genesis 1:2. Is this the way the Torah verses should be "presented"? (Compare with the verses in Category:New Testament verses.) At what point should the classical teachings of famous meforshim be inserted, and in what way and how much? The time to decide on this is now, because at this stage the "project" is still being "formed" by User:Neutrality alone. Thank you. IZAK 03:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me too much, because it isn't worse than other articles that touch on Jewish topics.

[edit] WP:WNBI & WP:Israel

Hi Ezra, consider youself invited to both. Spread the word. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:38, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Addressing Anti-Jewish Bias

Thought you might be interested. Jayjg (talk) 22:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fossil fuel for reciprocating piston engines equipped with spark plugs

I have nominated the above page that you created on WP:VFD, to avoid taking the decision to delete the page immediately as patent nonsense.

However, I should also note that I agree with the assesment that the page was created in response to various naming disputes at gasoline. I realise that you haven't contributed to that discussion there directly, but should also draw your attention to 'Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point'. -- Solipsist 15:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, you're almost right. I saw some people had wikified a link to this article, and I thought it would be cute to actually make the article. --Ezra Wax 21:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. There's been a bit of trouble with that page today, but plenty worse things have happened. It looks like the VfD will go through unopposed and help tidy things up. User:Carnildo's comments also helps to explain the background. -- Solipsist 23:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Could you please elaborate...

Please elaborate on the yeshiva culture within the yeshivish article, as you seem to be an early added to it.

[edit] Tzadik

Please see the page that I made for Tzadik and my comments to the talk page of chabad regarding ther merging of the section "Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers" into Tzadik. Thanks. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFC on Orthodox Judaism

Ezra - I see you've made significant contributions to the Orthodox Judaism page. I've made some significant changes to the introdutory paragraphs. Could you look them over and tell me what you think? Thanks.

Scorpiuss 07:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It looks good to me. And I'm sure it is a vast improvement to what was there before. --Ezra Wax 05:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism

Dear Ezra Wax! I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. Please put it on your watchlist, and please add relevant AfD's as you find them. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism

Hi Ezra Wax: Thought you would be interested in the latest adventure that has started at Wikipedia:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism (perhaps you may want to join) and the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism. Shabbat Shalom. IZAK 12:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Evolution

I am crossposting these replies from the article's talkpage prior to archiving both sections. Please don't restore or repost non-productive material, this will be considered disruption to make a point. Thank you. Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 20:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

*Your comments were not censored. They were archived because they were non-productive. This page is to be used for improving the article, not educating editors who lack familiarity with fundamental concepts in science. This is not intended as a personal attack, but as a basic statement of position. If and when you have constructive comments to make about this article, please feel free to post here again. Until then, this too will be archived. Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 20:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ezra Wax, your basic arguments show a deep confusion both about the philosophy of science and science in general. Your posts seem to miss the major point: there is a fundamental difference between evolution/gravity (fact) and theory of evolution/theory of gravity (theory). This was my major point in my original post and you seem to have missed in entirely. (Please keep in mind that I use the terms fact and theory as they are used in science and not how they are used in general language). I beg you not to drum to the tune of the age old fallacious creationist idea that evolution is just a theory. I try not to judge people by just one sentence, but anytime somebody utters that sentence I know for a fact that they know nothing about science and evolution.--Roland Deschain 20:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Talk:Evolution, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Sneaky vandalism is not acceptable. dave souza, talk 20:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your complaint

[edit] Definitions

Let's take a look at these terms:
  • science: a powerful way to find out things
  • scientific method: the procedure scientists use in science
  • fact: data (or datum), observation, experimental result
  • theory: explanation developed to explain the data
  • proof: Does not exist in science, only mathematics
  • truth: does not belong in science, only mathematics, except for a scientific fact (see above)

[edit] Your posting on the evolution page

[edit] Controversial statements presented as fact

Why are statements that are controversial being presented as fact? --Ezra Wax 19:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This is about the scientific theory. It is not controversial that the theory of evolution is the accepted scientific theory. It is not about if the theory is true or not. No theories are true. An accepted theory just fits the data that exist at that time and is accepted by the consensus of scientists.
It's always seemed to me that most editors to this page feel that due to the lack of controversy among scientists concerning evolution, that it should not be presented in any form which questions any part of evolutionary theory. Homestarmy 19:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Because they are scientific facts. Evolution is as much a fact as gravity and the Theory of Evolution is as established as the Theory of Gravity. You might want to read up on a recent discussion here: #1, #2, and #3. Homestarmy, I hope you can see the huge logical fallacy in your rather backwards statement.--Roland Deschain 19:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The statements you question are not controversial in scientific fields, and this is a science article. There is no need to insert weasle words into factual representaions of current Theory. Thanks for trying to help, and for bringing your concerns to the talkpage, but the article is just fine as it stands. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I didn't notice this conversation had been moved here, ah well. I think it should be extremely obvious by now to everyone who's payed attention to the evolution talk page that whenever any creationist comes to the page to say something, they are never talking about the "factual" kind of evolution, namely, the kind we observe all the time with bacteria and whatnot gaining drug resistances and all that. I personally do not know of a single creationist or creationist organization who's primary emphasis is on trying to disprove things like TB mutating or whatnot. The objections I have seen on the evolution talk page are, as far as I can remember, always primarily about the idea that humanity and all other organisms evolved from a primodorial soup of sorts. I have seen you and other editors immedietly respond "No, it is a FACT!" plenty of times to creationists, and so far, I don't think any of you have show much concern for the heart of basically the beginning of every creationist argument that ever comes to the evolution talk page. The arguments have never been about the "factual" kind of evolution primarily, and whether most editors refuse to acknowladge the distinction Creationism has created between macroevolution and microevolution or not, the arguments creationists so far have made on the evolution talk page pretty much never concern the "facts" of evolution concerning the mutations we can and have seen in modern times. So really, if you think i'm backwards at this point, I don't care at all, the arguments creationists have brought up have never focused on the evolution we see almost every day, and probably never will. So really, there wasn't much point in immedietly responding to Ezra or any other Creationist the entire time that "evolution" is a fact, no wonder everyone is so frustrated when you aren't even arguing against the actual concerns Creationists often bring up.... unsigned by Homestarmy, 05:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Well as you have said yourself, people get tired of answering the same thing over and over and over by someone who obviously has no understanding of the arguments that have been tried for the last 150 years. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that the several hundred thousand scientists who believe in evolution, all with PhDs etc, cannot all be stupid or insane or in some sort of secret conspiracy to hide the truth and cover up the holes in evolution. This is just a bit much to swallow. When you realize that, then you have to ask yourself, what am I missing? You think that these same dumb arguments that are written by creationists in paperback books have not surfaced before in the last 150 years? Everyonen reads the same paperback books or websites, and then uses the same arguments. How many people have I heard say "A theory isn't a fact" or "You can't prove that theory is true"? Thousands. And all of them have no clue what they are talking about. And they all think they have stumped a scientist, when they are just repeating the same old tired nonsense because they do not understand the topic they are arguing about.--Filll 08:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not that I don't understand that y'all are getting tired, I mean I see it every time lately whenever a creationist comes to say something, (and what's worse, sometimes I even know that one of their arguments is wrong :( ) it's just now Ezra barely said anything at all this time on his/her first comment, and everyone immedietly jumped to conclusions about his/her argument that are pretty much never true for any creationist i've ever seen come to the evolution talk page. Homestarmy 15:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Why should the claim that it is an established scientific fact matter? It is a question of truth,

No it is not a question of truth.

and science just attempts to tell you what the truth is if you assume that nothing supernatural happened.

Do you have something against a discipline that does not have the supernatural in it? There are plenty of other areas that are full of gods and magic and witches and goblins and soothsayers and so on. We need at least some areas that do not admit the supernatural. You are free to have the supernatural in any religion you want or in many other areas. It does not belong in science. Sorry.

That is an assumption made by science, but it is nothing more than an assumption.

Yes science assumes no supernatural. That is science. Deal with it.

The law of gravity is no longer accepted scientific consensus.

Who says so? Do you even know what the law of gravity is?


It has been replaced by Einstein, and it is well known that Einstein's theory will eventually be replaced as well.

You are completely confused. There are successive theories of gravity, each one replaced by one that matches the data better. First Aristotlean gravity was replaced by Galilean gravity which we replaced by Newtonian gravity which was replaced by Einsteinian gravity which will be replaced by another theory. So what? That is what we do in science. That is a strength.

Although it is normal in scientific literature to treat hypothesis as facts, it remains a hypothesis.

You are again completely confused. A hypothesis is never treated as a fact. These are completely different concepts. A hypothesis is an educated guess for how something in nature works. A fact is something measured, it is a piece of data, it is the result of an experiment. A fact has error bars and other statistical information associated with it.

Evolution cannot be proven because you will never be able to get enough evidence to prove it conclusively.

Nothing in science is ever proven. There is no proof in science. If you want proof, go to mathematics or logic. It does not exist in science. A theory, such as evolution, attempts to explain the evidence that exists. If it is successful in explaining the existing evidence, it becomes an accepted theory.

It thus remains a theory even if there were no alternatives to it. --Ezra Wax 19:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It was always a theory, and it always will be a theory, like the theory of gravity, the theory of plate tectonics, the theory of quantum mechanics, the theory of solitary waves, and so on. And your point is? And of course there are alternatives to it. There always have been and there always will be. But at the moment, the Darwinian theory of evolution is the overwhelmingly dominant accepted theory (by more than 99.95% of all scientists), and this article is about the dominant accepted theory, not competing theories, not old theories, not previous theories, not about supernatural and not about religion. So...you have a problem with that?

[edit] My comments on this page were just censored

I am going to vehemently protest the censorship I was just subjected to.

When you put nonsense that people have heard 1000s of times before in and try to get into fights, people will not be too open to it. What do you expect? They are trying to do real work.

How dare you delete what I have written before it was addressed?

It was addressed and dismissed. You just won't accept it.

So what if you are afraid of "Trolls".

You know what happens to trolls here? They get banned. Because they waste time.

This is an open subject and it is flagrantly biased, and instead of addressing serious problems with the article, you are summarily censoring criticism of it.

Of course it is biased. It is about this theory, not about other theories or religions. They are avoiding being pulled off into off topic nonsensical discussions. So now your complaints have been addressed. And you see that you used the words proof and science and truth and fact completely incorrectly. And cast yourself in a poor light. So please try to educate yourself a bit before you irritate people further.--Filll 23:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to add a little bit more background for this for you Ezra, i've been watching the Evolution article for many months, and unfortunently, most creationists i've seen say something do repeat the same arguments most of the time, and the editors who watch the page are starting to get annoyed, because to them, everything Creationists have has already been dismissed by more "reliable" sources. (And that makes some sense, Creationist type reaserchers are, ah...a bit outnumbered by Evolutionist ones) I've seen plenty of these creationists try everything they can to convince other editors, but unfortunently, they will not accept creationist sources or popular creationist arguments on anything. To make it worse, i've seen many Creationists become somewhat upset and angry, and end up quitting or getting banned because somebody gets them blocked for disruption or something. Wikipedia isn't just about evolution and its related articles, I would highly recommend you try to diversify articles you involve yourself with and not get worked up over the Evolution article solely for very long, and if you want to argue against evolution, try to take unique approaches against it and think real hard so that nobody can accuse you of recycling anything. (I tried it myself many months ago, went for a more philosophical angle concerning Science, but alas, nothing :/ ) And i'm not just saying this because i'm on the same side as the most frequent editors of the Evolution article, because i'm not, look at my user page :) . Homestarmy 01:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The discussion is about to be archived. Please be advised that if you make any further attempt to disrupt the article or its talkpage with nonsense, I will file a report at WP:ANI. As several other editors have mentioned, disrupting wikipedia to make a point is grounds for blocking or banning. I urge you to reconsider your behaviour and...just move on. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Wikipedia:WikiProject Creation

There already are two inactive projects which deal with the subject, Wikipedia:WikiProject on evolution and creation, and Wikipedia:WikiProject on creation and evolution. I think that you might be better served in trying to reactivate one or the other, or maybe both, as both projects have a slightly more substantial project page, and also already have existing members. Also, the title you have chosen for your new project is not one which makes it extremely clear what the scope of the project is, a problem neither of the older inactive projects have. You might be able to contact the existing members of the existing projects and try to get one or both of them active again, which would probably be easier and more likely to succeed in the long run. Badbilltucker 14:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bruchim Haba'im

Hi Ezra: I noticed that you made some edits again recently, so it means you've been around lately. Good to see you back. My only complaint is that you are not around too often and I miss your presence and editing. Hope you can contribute a lot. Best wishes and Hatzlachah Rabbah. Sincerely, IZAK 14:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something to consider

Some people are looking for evidence in science to "prove" or support their beliefs. I am sure you are aware of some in creation science or intelligent design who are. Some are like me. We know that there is no physical evidence for certain beliefs, we just choose to have them, by faith. We don't worry about the physical evidence, which might not exist. If we are wrong, so what? Evolution of course has been altered in significant ways since Darwin proposed it. There are even Lamarckian ideas being introduced into it in some ways. I would not expect it to stay the same for the next 500 years, or even next 50 years. The theory is going to be forced to incorporate new evidence. It might eventually be superceded or replaced of course. All scientific theories are on the potential chopping block. But in the meantime, many parts of evolution are extremely well established. And also, the theory of evolution appears to have incredible powers of prediction, or at least it is believed to have them. And since it is useful, or it is felt to be useful, it is widely accepted and prominent. I compiled the list of ideas because I feel that a lot of effort is being "wasted" in trying to find holes in evolution by religious people. Some want to support their faith, some want proof of their faith, some want to prove the bible is "right", or some other holy book, some have decided that evolution is satanic somehow, etc. However, creationists are unlikely to find holes or problems with evolution after 150 years of intense effort. Much more well-trained scientists are frantically looking for holes themselves, since if one can find evidence of something that evolution can not explain, they will make their careers. It is not blindly accepted. It is tested and studied over and over and over by an army of scientists. It is extremely well-established. However, if a person wants to look at an area which is far more fecund with possibilities for investigating evidence of a creator, then there are many of them. Off the top of my head, I made a short list (see my homepage). These are all mysterious areas, and not well understood at all, and areas in which even scientists and atheists of various stripes will seriously contemplate the existence of a creator or what might be viewed by some as "supernatural" influences (although it might not be called "supernatural" of course). The only drawback is that to study these is very very difficult. It is also exciting, because the science in these areas is far more intricate and compelling than something as deadly dull as random mutations feeding into natural selection (sorry I am not a biologist). I would be glad to discuss them with you further.--ReasonIsBest 16:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your contact info

Hi Ezra: Hope you and yours are all well! You have not enabled your Wikipedia Email feature in your "tool box" on the left hand side of your user page. Sometimes editors overlook that when it's a useful way of staying in touch with other editors. Best wishes. Have a Good Shabbos, IZAK 14:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice sentiments. Hopefully I'll be able to do accomplish something here. --Ezra Wax 15:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archived discussion from Doc's page

If you look at the Religion articles, you will see that that is more or less done, however much I don't like it. I believe that there is a way to modify the article so that it will be acceptable to everybody. The way the article currently stands, it intends to provoke outrage. In any case, in a fair debate that goes through the issues, both sides get to voice their opinions and see what the results are. You are basically arguing about the sanctity of science. You are taking it as a given and not open to debate. That is the exact criticism scientists have against religion. Besides, once you see the arguments presented from both sides without any unnecessary flaming, you might modify your position. --Ezra Wax 05:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
How does the article provoke outrage? It is about a theory. Its goal is to state the theory as clearly and succinctly as possible. The goal is not to debate the theory. That can be done elsewhere. We are not arguing the sanctity of science. We are stating matter of factly what the science is. Of course we take the science as a given. That is what the article is about. It is not about a debate. There are many other places where you can debate this. I have nothing against people in religion believing in the supernatural, as long as they do not feel the need to shove it on everyone else and everywhere else in society. It is live and let live. So you do no your thing in religion and we will do ours in science. Simple enough? I am not debating science. I am not forcing you to denounce religion and become an agnostic or an atheist. You are asking me to do the opposite however. Double standards will not get you very far with me I am afraid. Creationists are free to present their arguments anywhere they like, as long as it is not in science classrooms or science articles. They can put them on creationist blogs and in creationist websites and there is even a Creationist Wiki. Feel free to put your arguments there. Believe me, I have seen 99.99% of them already, so do not get your hopes up. I have read many many books and listened to many many lectures and I am a lot older than you so I do not think you can tell me anything new. But thanks anyway.--Filll 05:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
How much older than me are you? --Ezra Wax 05:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Hard to say exactly. I would guess you are a college student or maybe in your mid-20s at most. So I would say quite a bit. I have 2 bachelors 3 masters and a phd, and I have been out quite a while, so do the math.--Filll 06:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to point out something that I noticed while searching for sources. There is some disagreement between Gould and creationists about whether the evolution of man is a fact. Gould considers the evidence for evolution so strong that it has the same status as any other fact. However, creationists don't consider the evidence strong at all, and therefore don't consider it anything more than a theory.--Ezra Wax 05:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that there has to be evidence published in a scientific journal that supports the claims of creationists is a straw man argument. Creationists claim that any journal that publishes anything that can lend support to the creationist argument is immediately condemned and any scientist who authors such an article is blacklisted. That has to be addressed.--Ezra Wax 05:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a scientist, I have never heard of such a thing. There are of course nonsense journals that creationists have created for their own purposes. But when more than 99 % of all scientists support evolution and every major scientific society supports evolution, it should be no surprise that every major scientific journal supports evolution as well. If a creationist article met the scientific standards, I think there is no question that it would be published. But what I have seen out of creationists is so far from science as to be worthless. To start with, supernatural claims immediately relegate the material outside the realm of science for example. And how are the scientists blacklisted? Who is blacklisted? Gish might be viewed a bit strangely, because he has long since abandoned scientific principles and reasoning. I do not think he is blacklisted. He just no longer does science.--Filll 05:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I would also note that I do not know who you are looking at to see that there is any dispute about the evolution of man in evolution circles. It is as well established as the evolution of any other species, as near as I can tell, but I would defer to the evolutionary biologists again. And again, as I have told you already over and over: The evolution of man or any other species is a theory when it happened a long time ago. It is an inference based on the data that we have ("facts" or evidence or observations if you prefer). Evolution of fruitflies or bacteria or amoebae or something else that breeds quickly is a fact because we can see it and know it happened. The data of evolution are "facts". The theory of evolution is just that; a theory, or an explanation constructed to fit the facts. It just happens to be the overwhelmingly accepted theory in science. And there is zero doubt about that. Just like the theory that the earth is billions of years old. There is a huge amount of data that supports that, but you might have some other theory that throws out all that data. But the scientificially dominant theory is that the earth is billions of years old. To say otherwise would mean having to explain tree ring data and ice core data and magnetic stripe data and benthic sediment data and radioactive decay data and on and on and on. Huge volumes of evidence would have to be explained away to accept something else. And your statement about how creationists dont consider it strong at all, and just consider it a theory, demonstrates to me that after I have explained it to you over and over and over and it is on the FAQ which you read and on your homepage, you still have no idea what a theory is. Please try to educate yourself a bit or you will end up talking around and around in circles and annoying everyone.--Filll 05:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism

Hi Ezra Wax: It is very important that you see the points and the response from User:Badbilltucker about his aims at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism ASAP. Have a Happy Chanukah! IZAK 15:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] xposted

I'm xposting this to your talk page as a courtesey regarding your Wikipedia:WikiProject_Creation.

I'm not sure that the purpose of WikiProjects is to provide a rallying point for what you consider to be necessary edits. I think a Wikiproject on Creationism in general (or Religious Creationism) would be great and I would love to participate in one.--SpookyAction 11:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Natan Slifkin

I see you are also interested in Natan Slifkin. Please review these articles, because I have run up against an intransigent editor:

Perhaps you could also review the changes the same editor has made to Natan Slifkin. He does not come from the Jewish perspective, and he seems to be following me around and looking for ways to harass me. --Metzenberg 05:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Friedman

At the request of User:Redaktor I moved Yisroel Friedman back. Only after I'd done the move did I realise that you'd moved it only hours before. While I agree that English names should be used if people were actually known by that name, this Rebbe was rarely referred to as Israel. Let me know if you object. JFW | T@lk 12:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your move. I was attempting to do the same move, but because of an existing article, I couldn't. --Ezra Wax 23:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/z/r/User_talk%7EEzra_Wax_6361.html"