User:OneVoice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Food for thought:
What, if any, is the relationship between User:OneVoice and One Voice?
User:OneVoice/Saudi peace plan
some notes:
- (cur) (last) . . 13:06, 22 Dec 2003 . . Jesus Saves! (disputed: see also Christianity and anti-Semitism)
- (diff) (hist) . . Talk:British Mandate of Palestine; 23:33 . . OneVoice (Talk) (call for discussion: should the purpose of the Mandate as stated in the League of Nations document be stated clearly on the page? If not, why not?)
- (diff) (hist) . . Anti-Semitism; 02:46 . . Zero0000 (Talk) (why is it antisemitic to use "Hebrews" and "Israelites"?) (gotta find an OED)
- (cur) (last) . . 23:46, 21 Dec 2003 . . Zero0000 (answers (btw, the article in both editions is really awful))
- write article on significance of Jerusalem to Jews
- (diff) (hist) . . Proposals for a Palestinian state; Update Elon Peace Plan page from information in the Elon proposal website, per [[User:Zero0000]'s recommendation. Done. OneVoice 03:03, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
%more /tmp/b begin 644 /tmp/a M652:-PB_>:;RM+6<;X./-2,]2`6='?7#`AD%&-1\Y*\B%/2.K.%[N9WKUE.R M#R"QD[R$-FKGR:LGIM2_=$Z+WH+!20/> < S\C)GD"P-4DG!5',KJ]*9TIJU,V M.S)>(*&PQ+3UK*2STX2E>DL:Y.K.79G_68##-&UJ`'<JG89I%DS;*J)]A^[2 MTYB]C9P43LP@D$4"=$?#SH/R\=6PRYH(09FI)*UTP\SHJTS1B5^1<V"4+/W( M8F7'PUJ'(X6L!YOE-7Z(2ZO%N-TJ(7*-V0%+9?!7GV`08Z^Z&/`9`4O1>4-% M'[UR%69(_/WK6"D06D.#-3>>&\YZ4`<!1LC-ED[[<3O6K1\.-Z1'Y]U$)&#O M2ZLUDT#<71LA?)H5B+(6ZMJ31X[?T05.FVX+>]I99IZ96Z4S0"Z9\!10GXH, M);85I/XLQP>4IQQD2?ZD2*$!WY76%S:+,\SN:9;")D+_L)M.'@+1\-9:_J,% MCS'(B3DO,F[25>T4JZ1/HCN,O_`8E&G^71?5J,KZ21Q8-7(MQTB/"Q#C%#2: MA-F+W?/>LAZ'#N0?G3QYC[@6M0<]E3X.?D+G\.Q^WO\XL7,^]NJI8"(DG9U> M]I^L&*67+R:R]"2&&;YM)\)V>J71"G3+"#K\S+:B'Q70NR%SB)VC\_%J1)OO M!-!:IFDSB,.K:G'.F[]@43#:XH!:T(&GI44&U_#L*RM^$J<@O.3'75^_U+$O MJL=WGW%I(H95FE1NPS:`+9ZFO9DSLG-YR#],;T/1:E/W+TQ%&9`*JMY$[HWV MG5'WJY^4%!YM4-,7C@4T/F%)'TF&$+_^>6M$-!6)X*>JCMFW^*_FYO[:&']* M.DGXI(>Z>#'8E=56']^FR0@%-@"=7(5!AU2#BL]/A:?MI;&\<P+FVNM*X)[, M^_<8O4/./Z31Z,WBFF$%@:#&5JZ!IX`,.X2!9R_N3JAD8`R]%VF+`#K_M1WD MR6!,=T;$S)P%%$?*E%S`#$Y>\H(X\W0)`\VV2'?0KY]]+%HC1\M.1HS1XY7/ M8S\ZH@9@H-U6)4U9K^N'0G9X(FBG*Q\.Q+]GG>]/#+UI\#.V'76JSJ+3@\RX M`^I&4$![X2,';`B'-I4_AB9JL_!ZO#5]J1AN26J1C;X:R\1P.LS:J!$X;S^# M:3E*^">S^2&O9[C*'2N"':AP/+Q6NV<]H#;"EWK>W)J76ZSB]TOI-9?R8`^% M\<2X>'$,.[>!]OV5SS*!/0#8]"+\9264"DH(CU=.]#;RS6.+DLJ+0O9AD`]O M20T]XU,G/)[%<U+Q6)`$=<]@ABL(/?R)M%CX`475A9R`+;D49FB333;1A]4C M>ETP]&)W"C?7Y[AM@/)O)T"/%T<^#4B&7`ZV#8*&Z8T(,;*(C,A_;:XY1[9F MLVD&I1C/\J3161VN;6P&2V7*LNV'97YM1LT=W,^HV4JB[_>S?ZHW4FRGCZ)% M,C^]4'/=`$)&K-"9OR&%L9[SCC[EOY!HRK6HAG<)XU&5@ALF47:SQ8]E4)?M M0[*1<UD.@ZH3&\PW5,;S*;TDL.KAANL()U^23SET=B_OK%F,;?[?,#&@Z\%W M>MQ*Q3"JAY&R<6P;^#B:ENZW'I.^>CLO?=8H8^$Z2#5;GM2Z(=>KQ_',0WFI MH1(V2#'AD&D11RJ3(C((8%CFW04S,V[J#RQ"46$U1&5$`WMO[;'>D;++\8;: M"2WP7`B/"L]RX#U(-:T!6X?Z=>I?.<<JS:4`Z;JIH/KB2&45W%SLT6_.:.33 M2_.SH$6[=L/O[`Z^ZJ+J`KG?9,PZK50WIIR"LO+14"_4U.W:FM59EYDB7J MKVB<+2WW`FM]Q%Q%#^T#V)(XL"!PE@>%YX<-%Z#&5W7'LG8TVU<$$S=;,K7] M^GLXO/,>.130[6"7B._@M(DI3B>I*[6?&B(J]5^_SPG,N3P?2:]J-F+)D9[G M?HQC^:UPF%G8=R)^;VBJ\7=`GR&'$A._K")8F[@/.\#K4B$BA^ME)EN8KEL9 M3_2\Z%PXE(#V,B?_X:[$F(K/$$Y06O<U;)^;(\QH=M:1FUL]R;(GLC'$2YP% ME(=2ZFCU,"U3L*6I?&SDA&CF;I\9I_@PW9RLB'WOD=(RKTF[432V2\+<IA!+ A^+;"Y2,CQ(5KN)M-!@J1V=G6['AX_%RM<L4"\S?JR&$- ` end
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=conflict&ID=SP23601
I understand your point and personally am sympathetic to it. But Wikipedia is not a chat page or a place for us to discuss our different (or similar) feelings about a given topic -- our task is to present NPOV articles. I think that in the article on Judaism, we could legitimately address disagreements and debates Jews have had over the status of God and belief in God in Judaism. But in the article in question, we are necessarily simplifying both Christianity and Jusaims in order to make some basic points. I really think that in most Jewish tradition and for most Jews how one acts and how well one lives is more important than belief in God. Of course if I am wrong please give evidence in the talk page of this article. Note: evidence would not consist of quotes from sacred texts, but rather quotes from Jewish authorities describing the attitudes of Jews. In the context of this article I think this is enough. As I said, more nuanced discussion might be appropriate in the article on Judaism ... Slrubenstein
Thank you again for your comment and gentle query on my talk page. Please don't take anything personally -- many comments on discussion pages (certainly, including my own) are so abbreviated that the context or motivation of the point is unclear -- so many times my comments are meant to make general points I think are raised by recent discussion, rather than direct responses to one person. I do agree that you like others have been using the talk pages to discuss the article. In my experience, NPOV requires two elements: first, distinguishing between the points of views of contributors to wikipedia, and points of view of the people wikipedia articles are about. I have no reason to doubt that you have been trying to describe established Jewish views, and not your own personal view. But there is a second element: distinguishing between a homogeneous view and a heterogeneous view (or multiple views). In my experience, most articles about ways of thinking or living cannot be presented in a unified, homogeneous way -- whether we are talking about Judaism, communism, feminism, or American culture, wikipedia has to represent different views of, and debates over or within, Judaism etc. I think that what you wrote on the talk pages can make a real contribution to accomplishing this. But sometimes I am a little confused by your use of questions -- I am not sure if you are asking rhetorical questions in order to make a point about how to write the article, or whether you personally are not sure and are trying to figure it out. If you are doing the former, I wish you would do so a little more clearly (i.e. explain your reasoning a little more, your sources, and how you think the article ought to be modified). I may disagreee with you, but I'd certainly appreciate your input as it is clearly directed towards improving the article. But if your questions reflect the latter, then I don't think they are really appropriate for wikipedia. The discussion pages are not meant for general discussion of the article, it is meant for discussion among editors about how to improve the article. Again, please don't take this personally. I have taken a lot of space to explain myself in part out of fear that I was unclear, and also because there have been others over the past years who have used or tried to use Wikipedia as a kind of chat room. At times I may have been one of them. Sometimes I think it is useful in the course of any discussion here to step back and ask ourselves, is this discussion really going to lead to an improvement in the article? It's a useful and sometimes necessary exercise. Slrubenstein
I appreciate the invitation, although I am not sure how helpful I will be as I have not been active on those pages, and have not been keeping up with recent scholarship on the field. But of course, I will refrain from making changes on the pages you mention, and will try to make some constructive suggestions on the talk pages, Slrubenstein
