this text below was moved from the old user page to here by Jheijmans 06:59 Jul 22, 2002 (PDT)
Welcome to Wikipedia!
I enjoy your writings on Judaism.
Also, I have questions regarding some of your changes to feminism and your deletion of misogyny. Would you please explain what you are doing? Ed Poor
Nice working on Homo sapiens with you today. It's so refreshing to work through differences with someone who is also truly committed to being npov. --Dmerrill
There is a new entry on Religious_Pluralism. Much of your work in the "Talk" section of some of the other articles would be great to incorporate into this new entry. RK
--- Hi, slr --
Although you weren't speaking for me, I appreciate that someone seems to have understood so well what I was saying. I thought for a bit I'd lost my ability to express myself clearly! JHK
Oh, and the talk pages aren't really meant to be part of the encyclopedia proper--they're more like the inter-office memos. I'll see if I can clean it up anyway, maybe by removing old comments. --KQ
Hi, SLR. I just saw your note. Unfortunately, for some reason I haven't been able to get on for well over a week, so I do not know what has been happening with the biblical canon page. I will take a look at it and see what I can do/suggest. Danny --- Re: Carolingians: looks like we had the same thought at the same time! Get out of my head, durn it! :) -- April
And if you wondered, my position is in the anti-gov't-policies, anti-nationalism sort of bent of things. My proposed solution to the Middle Eastern Question is to form a Middle Eastern Union along the same lines as the EU. Since this means many dictatorships would have to become democracies, I don't expect it to happen any time soon, but hey, it's a thought. :) If Germany and France can lie down together, maybe someday.... ;) (Oh, now the German and French contingent are gonna come after me hardcore... ) -- April
SLR, I will revert and protect any page you want. Just tell me which version you want. For example, "Judaism 18:46 October 31, 2002". --Ed Poor 22:36 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)
Yah I agree. It would be inappropriate to define the Arawak, above all else, as victims. Lir 15:11 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)
Slr, when you get a chance please take a look at the new entry on Holocaust theology. RK
Re: sex That page is 80% silly editorializing. Why did you stop ? 216.129.198.41 . Perhaps you should go to talk sex.
Hi Slr. Im not sure I understand why the criticisms were removed in the first place. Because they were inadequate? Because Diamond's supporters have responses? That just seems like a way of stifling an opposing viewpoint. I agree with you that the critique should be included. Danny
Careful what version you are editing, otherwise, you are just repeating my editing. Vera Cruz
I agree-I think for now the focus should not be to add to the article but simply to get what is there properly edited, 172 seems very opposed to compaction howeverVera Cruz
Hey, Slr. I've been thinking about the problem. There really isn't much that can be done at this stage. In many ways, it's indicative of several problems that have been occurring very frequently in Wikipedia lately. People are assuming ownership of articles, they are assuming authorty over subject matter about which they have have only a perfunctory knowledge, they are confusing the trivial with the essential, they are positing themselves as the central hub of NPOV, any deviation from which is POV, and they are willing to fight to the death for all of the above. Short of getting into a flame war, there isn't much that can be done about it. I think that protecting pages and suggesting bans are radical measures that should be considered carefully before even being suggested. Flame wars only lead to the person with the most persistence winning--and cranks are a persistent lot, mostly because they have so much invested in their pet theories. There are so many articles I would love to trash and redo: Israelites, Schneerson, and anything that divides biblical scholarship into maximalist and minimalist camps immediately come to mind. I don't though, not because I can't, but because I haven't got the time or desire to argue with people who are more interested in hearing their own point of view than in really considering its implications or honestly assessing other views. I still plan on redoing large chunks of the Genocide piece, but there too, I'm not willing to get into major battles. Danny
Adding a chat room or three would be a good start. Vera Cruz
That earlier version I wrote. I agreed with Vera Cruz with regard to that paragraph.
Please, before criticizing the article, keep an open mind and read the whole thing. You might have read it a while ago, but it's much improved now.
I wish people would read the whole article before criticizing it and editing it.
I responded to your comments on the Bible as history page. Take a look at Israelites, Ancient Israelites, and some of their links for further examples. (This article originally appeared in Israelites and snipped and made an article on its own right). Danny
Am I wrong in thinking that there is some confusion as to what has been deleted on the talk:IPF page? At first i thought it might have been vandalism, but then i thought, perhaps JDT got confused as to what was 'archived'. be well. ---Sv
understood.--Sv
Hi Sv. The page was full so I trying to move a chunk of stuff to the archival page to make room so I could reply to your last msg. I think you came in in the middle, so when I tried to save it, I was told that someone else had accessed the page and and I was sort of stuck in limbo. Everything moved is in the archives. I don't know what happened over your last bit, because when I finally got in again it was gone. I went back to an earlier version including the bits that went missing and saved that, so everything should now be there. Sorry about that. Don't worry, I wasn't trying to silence you at all. Because I was pressurised into trying to cut a chunk for the archives before someone came in again, I just cut a set number of paragraphs. I didn't have time to read through them and make a 'clean' cut. I hope it still is readable, but all cut stuff is in the archives detailed at the top of the page.
JT.
Vera Cruz keeps on restoring that redundant version that you reverted. I'm trying to stop him. He's more likely to listen to you though.
Hi Sirub, I'm sorry if you think you have a problem with me. I certainly don't have a problem with you. I have rewritten the famine pages a number of times to include quotes, references suggested by Sv. I know I have been a bit sharp with some people. I have been battling a bad illness for 6 weeks and that has left me bad-tempered, not just on Wiki but in general. I am normally the easiest going person imaginable. But being called a tory, a crude revisionist & having all Irish opinions dismissed as a British POV would drive most Irish people into a blind fury far stronger than anything I've said. Im only interested in producing a high quality NPOV piece on Wiki. I'm just ignoring Two16. I actually feel sorry for him. I think (quite genuinely) he needs help. But imagine how you would react if a Saddam supporter took over a page on American history,' agendized' it and then accused all Americans unhappy of being nazis & rascists and insisted that only their version (though factually rediculous) was NPOV. It would lead to bitter exchanges. I really am fed up with this row and as I have said, I am simply ignoring Two16 and Sv. Sorry if I offended you, though. You are one of the people (like Mav, Zoe, Camembert, etc) whose opinions I do take very seriously and respect. JTD 20:26 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC) 20:25 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)
I do agree that Sv and Two16 made some interesting points and I have tried to include it through quotes from John Mitchel and Seamus Metress. I will try to rephrase the point about the differences between the views of the Irish diaspora (specificially Irish America) and local Irish opinion. I guess the point is that whereas in the past Irish history was often agenda-laiden (understandably as Ireland used its history in the struggle for independence), post-independent Ireland re-evalued its history to separate the agenda-led semi-propaganda (which was notorious in how it appeared in Irish primary (junior) schools until the 1960s) from an accurate factual account, reliant on primary sources. (All states do this when history becomes just that, history, and not something to be used in a fight for independence.) In particular, during the 150th anniversary, a broad primary-sourced Famine rethink took place. The local Irish view is that whereas their analysis is based on primary sources and not black and white goodie and baddie agendas, Irish-America's view is based on folk memory, on images of Ireland frozen in time and the propaganised history Ireland used in the 1930s. Seamus Metress reflects this from a different angle, where he thinks such re-analysis is motivated with robbing Ireland of its heroes. Except we view that approach as believing history is about cardboard cutouts of Cuchulainn and Padraig Pearse, singing 'A Nation Once Again' and shouting 'Brits Out' while drunk on guinness. And it irks Ireland when Irish Americans come to Ireland expecting a Brit-hating, guiness-drinking, gaelic speaking, all white conservative catholic state, and find a liberal, gay friendly, Brit-tolerant, budweizer drinking, english-speaking country with motorways, divorce, black-Irish, Chinese Irish and MTV, more likely to be listening to Brittany Spears than singing 'A Nation Once Again'. Many Irish Americans view that Ireland as a betrayal of the real Ireland that in reality hasn't existed outside New York Irish bars and their 'folk memory' for generations. So we generally see them as living in a gaelic dreamworld of black and white revenge-seeking, stuck in the 1930s (if it existed even then!); they see us as betraying our history, culture & identity. That is the crux of the problem. (I've cut out some of my earlier comments to make room, as my browser is limiting my space to write here. Hope that is OK with you!) JTD 22:29 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)
SIrub, just read your experience with Two16 on the Revolution page. Scary, man! So obviously I'm not alone having the Two16 Experience. (Poor Mav is getting a rough time from him now because he sought to defend me on the Famine page.) JTD 04:29 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)
I wish to apoligize for primarily describing the Arawak as victims. As I would like to add some information on Salim I al Sabah[?], Kabbar[?], Abdul Aziz ibn Abdul Rahman ibn Saud, Najd, Faisal I[?], Political Titles of the Ottoman Empire[?], Warba[?], Abdulla II al Sabah[?], the First Kuwaiti Crisis[?], Abdullah ibn Hussein[?], Mashian[?], Failakah[?], Auhah[?], al Khalifa[?], al Jalahima[?], al Sabah[?], Abdul Karim Qasim[?], Jaber III al Ahmad al Sabah[?], Muhammad I al Sabah[?], the Second Kuwaiti Crisis[?], Zaki Arsuzi[?], Salah al Din Bitar[?], Ghazi ibn Faisal[?], Bakr Sidqi[?], Abdullah II al Sabah[?], Ahmad al Sabah[?], Abdul Ilah[?], and Percy Cox[?], as well as (obviously) the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of October 1922[?], the Turkish Petroleum Company[?], the Basra-Baghdad Highway[?], the Berlin-Baghdad Railroad[?], and the Abudllah Khor Waterway[?], Nuri al Said[?], Abdulla III al Sabah[?], Aramco[?], the Kuwait Oil Company[?], and the Anglo-Kuwaiti Treaty of 1899[?]; I would like to inquire as to what objections you might have to my doing so? Vera Cruz
I envy you the VC post, by the way. Graft
I’ve been busy lately, but look forward to making further contributions. I’m looking forward to working with you on that history of capitalism article.
It’s a massive endeavor, so I’ve been compiling some of my old articles (don’t worry, they’re not copyrighted).
Britannica has a good article on economic systems. An ideal article for Wikipedia would be a sort of abridgement of an article that detailed.
Hey, Slr! You been busy! Danny
Okay, I stand by my contention, btw. Danny
Do you disagree? Inquiring minds wanna know? Danny
All I know is that RK reverted my edits and nobody cared. And now, days later, you are asking him about changing something which I had attempted to change earlier. It would be nice if there was some more effective communication regarding editing.
RK is carrying on a campaign against me based purely on personal issues, that is unacceptable. Susan Mason
Ah, youre weight was due to your attachment to your "concerns", causing you to dismiss the point altoghether. The interesting part of your statement dealt with the perhaps inadvertently implied notion that my explaining a connection between these, somehow made static the concept itself, which is still utter nonsense. Perhaps attributable nonsense, but nonetheless baseless. Im not denying that your contribution was valid; its not easy to retype and reword a whole page of text out of a psych journal - but it does need some color, as Im sure you agree. ;) -豎眩sv
Of all of that I have no doubt. It certainly takes every kind of people to make what life's about. -豎眩sv
I apologise. I am in one of my very sarcastic moods (well my computer did start to playing John Denver singing Take Me Home, Country Road and a man has got to react somehow!!!). I should not have said it and I apologise. I simply do not understand what the problem is putting standard christological images with deliberately NPOV descriptions that make no theological claims whatsoever onto a page on christ. Only two of the images are in any way denominational, and that they are denominational is clearly explained in the captions. The other images are of agreed aspects of Christ's life and death are used by billions, across the denominations with no problem. (One of the images I received on two christmas cards last year, one from a Southern Baptist from Memphis, the other a Lutheran in Frankfurt.) They need no description, no definition, no exhaustive paragraphs of art analysis, simply a one line caption saying what are. It is frankly incredible that any publication that can include pictures should choose not to, and be dogmatic about not doing so, in an article about the most illustrated figure on history, dreaming up all sorts of dubious arguments about hidden POV, about supposedly required explanations forn any art included. You are not talking about pictures that are POV here, to be analysed in 15 paragraphs and 18 links. You are simply taking about a couple of standard bog-ordinary illustrations, used by many denominations, and put in to improve the visual appeal of the badly laid out, convulated page. Sometimes people on wiki seem to forget that if you want people to use a page, you do need to make it visually appealing. And the more complex the page content, the more you need to add in 'visual breaks' (ie graphics, headings, quotes, etc). That is all those pictures do, and they made a very badly structured page in terms of layout and communication, more visually appealing, which is the sole reason they were put there originally. Sorry if I sound a bit dogmatic or rude; I am not trying to be. But while wiki can be a great source to worth with, sometimes it becomes like a bizarre monty pythonesque joke and having to state the bleeding obvious is getting to be annoying, Or maybe it is just that as a writer and someone who has worked in graphic design and page layout I can see the obvious, whereas people who haven't dont. STÓD/ÉÍRE 05:47 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)
Search Encyclopedia
|
Featured Article
|