User talk:Aiden/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).


Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hi, and welcome to the Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. I noticed your edits on the Six-Day War, and, even if I do not agree with some of your edits, I warmly welcome your contributions as a much-needed ballance to editors with pro-Arab bias.

Here are some links I think you will find useful:

See you around on Wiki! --Heptor 18:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia

I see you are a fairly new editor, and seem knowledgeable about the situation in Israel; I thought you might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Territories under Israeli control. Jayjg (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Aiden Cathasaigh 19:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] west bank barrier

Maybe you would be intersted in Talk:Israeli_West_Bank_barrier Zeq 15:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Munich

Unfortunately I will not be able to see it before it is out on DVD, although I really want to. At least one friend told me via email that the film tries a bit to show a Palestinian POV but you'd have to be attentive to it (i.e. looking for evidence of it), but the underlying subliminal message to an otherwise clueless viewer is clearly pro-Israel. I've also read extensively about it, including why many pro-Israelis hated it (most Israelis have to wait until later this month for the movie's international release date). Although I can say that there are no 'two sides' to an act such as the Munich massacre, I know that many such incidents have been used by some to propagate dehumanization of Palestinians as a whole people. Therefore, I don't know if the problem pro-Israelis have with it is that it tries to show some sort of moral equivalency between the terrorists and the assassins, or that it simply does not dehumanize Palestinians (as a whole) enough to satisfy them, as would be expected of any portrayal of Palestinians in Hollywood movies. Note that my definition of dehumanization can be as broad as spreading lies (e.g. they hate their kids and send them out to die) or as subtle as claiming that, for example, "the Palestinians shouldn't complain because we have just removed a couple of checkpoints from this road and that road", not realizing that the very existence of a foreign power than installs humiliating checkpoints in the first place would be unacceptable to most human beings, and expecting the Palestinians to be 'happy' about it (like throwing us a bone) is a form of dehumanization. What did you think? Ramallite (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus article

Hi Aiden. Sorry I didn't respond, my Talk: page is always so busy that I often miss stuff, and I've been away for a couple of days as well. I'm glad it worked out in the end, and please feel free to notify me of any other issues or requests. Jayjg (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR

You are currently in violation of Wikipedia's three revert rule. If you revert yourself, I will refrain from reporting this on AN3. Thanks. Regards, El_C 05:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Aiden, the image you uploaded at Image:Gaza withdrawal.jpg has no source and is therefore likely to be deleted by the image police (to which I don't belong, I hasten to add). Just giving you the heads up. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

They usually require a link to the website you got it from, if you did get it from a website, but if you want to risk it, that's up to you. I'm sorry if this seems as though I'm harassing you about it; just trying to help. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Please review Wikipedia's Image use policy. El_C 01:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baruch Goldstein

Aiden, you've changed this article to place Hebron in Israel. It's actually in the West Bank - see, for example, the CIA World Factbook. --Ian Pitchford 13:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't see a mention of Palestine in the edit, but I haven't reviewed the whole article. BTW Goldstein's "terrorist" status is alluded to in the US Department of State's Patterns of Global Terrorism 2003, not that I care much one way or the other. --Ian Pitchford 19:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can you e-mail me

Zeq 07:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

woops. try now. Zeq 04:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gaza withdrawal.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Gaza withdrawal.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Matt 11:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] yes.

I'll be in touch Zeq 19:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving the Jesus article along

Dear Aiden:

I've added a section to see if we can get consensus on the second paragraph and move on. Please drop by and express your opinion. Thanks! --CTSWyneken 14:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, I noticed that you changed your vote on the second paragraph. While I agree that Rossnixon has a point, I also refer you to CTSWynekan's comments (also see Rossnixon's talk page. We need to keep a reference to this minority opinion or we'll keep refighting the same battle. However, I feel that the reference should be as brief as possible, with a link to Jesus-Myth or possibly Historicity of Jesus (where the reference really belongs). archola 05:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I proposed a slightly different last sentence than the one currently proposed. Would you change back your vote if that sentence was used instead (removed the lack of contemporary BS phrasing).Gator (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

There was some discussion per:User:Gator1 about shortening the reference, but it was met with resistance by User:Slrubenstein. I understand WP:NPOV. I agree that among academics it is a fringe view. However, it's not just Rodsteadman. Among the general public it a popular myth. (cf. User:CTSWyneken: "cottage industry on the internet.") It's that popularity among the uncritical that merits a mention, as a sociological/internet culture phenomenom if nothing else. That said, I believe that any mention here should be as brief as possible. archola 18:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
My view of limited would be something like "However, a small minority of Biblical scholars, academics, and others question the historicity of Jesus." —Aiden 19:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Works for me. archola 19:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Good emendations to the Jesus article. You help restore NPOV to this argument of the "small minority." Even radical critics like Robert Funk of the Jesus Seminar held Jesus to be an historical figure. drboisclair 01:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your proposal to bring Rob before ArbCom, but you may find yourself surrounded by WPs who won't stand up and admit that they're all tired of him, too. At least ten Wikipedians have been insulted or enraged by, or complaining about Rob, and it's truly not going to stop until he is banned from the Jesus page. If you decide to move forward with an RfAr, please let me know, and I will be one of your co-requesters. --Avery W. Krouse 20:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I admit all of the above, but I just think the social psychology approach hasn't been fully applied. I am falling into the Devil's advocate trap of conflict with people I agree with (sigh). That said, if Rob continues to violate WP policy, he should be sanctioned--just be sure to be clear that it his behavior and tactics, not his point of view, that has been sanctioned. Otherwise, he'll never learn. Arch O. La 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear Aiden, if you seriously hope to file against Rob, you really shouldn't egg him on as you just did by guessing what his paragraph will look like. RfCs can sometimes be a two-edged sword and your words may well be considered as a form of personal attack. --CTSWyneken 22:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Aiden,
Your paragraph was biting satire but CTSWyneken is correct. Proceed carefully. Arch O. La 22:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palestine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Palestine#This_apply_to_1948_war_as_well —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeq (talk • contribs) 12:36, February 22, 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Thanks

I'm pleased you can listen to others. Thanks for understand that although Robsteadman is difficult to deal with, that's not the way to go about it. I know it's difficult to remain calm... I'm finding it hard. Deskana (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A new motion about KHM03's addition to Jesus article

Hello, Aiden, I wonder if you would weigh in on my proposal to reinsert KHM03's addition to the Jesus-Mythers sentence in the Jesus article. I know that you have a view on this matter. Respectfully, drboisclair 23:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When Rob is Back

Just a reminder: do not respond to Rob at all if he repeats old arguments or gets abusive. If he changes a consensus paragraph, revert it. Keep track of your reverts and only do it twice. If we can do this, nothing will come of it except frustration for Rob. --CTSWyneken 20:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy

Thanks for the invitation; at the moment I'm too embroiled in the Jesus page to participate in another firestorm. Besides, I'm trying to pull back from Wikipedia a bit (relatively speaking; I'm not exactly inactive ;) Arch O. La 04:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good grief! Maybe I should just drop a bomb and run! Seriously, I'm with Archie on this one -- I've also got Luther pages to guard and, although it's quiet there, you never know... Why not rename it unfulfilled prophecy. We then can add Muslim, secular, futurist, and other folks who think they can see the future! 8-) Bob--CTSWyneken 04:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey, good idea!
Here's how I parse it: Wikipedia is objective and defines "Christians" as essentially anyone who calles themselves that. Christians, however, have to make a subjective (or spiritual) judgement (spiritual discernment) as to whether the Holy Spirit is present. Same thing for true prophets and false prophets: Christians discern subjectively whether the Holy Spirit is present (well, also using objective signs as presented in the Bible). Wikipedia, however, can only objectively compare written and spoken prophecy with historical events to determine whether a prophecy is true or false. It gets complicated because many prophecies, while subjectively clear, are also objectively ambiguous and thus difficult for a objective publication like Wikipedia to discern. It only gets more complicated from there.
This will article will always be contested because it crosses both the objective/subjective divide and the materialist/idealist(spiritual) divide. Much like the Jesus article.
I've added the page to my watchlist, but I can't engage in the debate at this time. Good luck! ;) Arch O. La 05:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Not really sure why you pointed me there. Do you want me to get involved? I don't think I'd be interested. I hate conflict if I can avoid it. I'm all ears though.Gator (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


I've weighed in. Happy? ;-) --CTSWyneken 00:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/i/d/User_talk%7EAiden_Archive1_89e0.html"