Hi. I reverted the addition of 'an Egyptian' because (a) it seems to be more complicated than that; and (b) it is already explained much not further down the page. On wikipedia we have a Neutral Point of View policy that means we explain both sides of a dispute rather than taking sides. Morwen 21:17, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)
Morwen thank you very much for you note. Clearly I need to create an account and start using it ;). I read the NPOV page and you note above. What are we to do with facts? I live in the United States for several generations, yet neither I nor my family will ever be native Americans...we simply are not the indigenous inhabitants of this geographic region (unless we marry into an American Indian family).
Yasser Arafat is/was an Egyptian, born, and raised there. He has lived most of his life outside of any geographic region that could be called Palestine. He calls himself a Palestinian. That designation is surely applicable to those born and raised there. When does it become applicable to an aspiring individual. I don't know. This illustrates a core issue in the conflict. Large numbers of individuals on both sides moved into a single geographic area over a period of about 100 years. Once population lost a war and now tries to claim precedence of inhabitation. The facts indicate otherwise. How do we maintain the facts without jepordizine the NPOV.
I am seeking guidance and reasoned dicussion here.
How do I contact you? Talk:Morwen, I presume?
- Right. Click on the user name in the signature, created by typing ~~~~ at the end of a comment, then choose the post a comment link on the left. Jamesday 01:21, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Another Question: how does one create Alias Pages. [[Wailing Wall] is actually a rather degratory term. Jews (except for those distant from their heritage) always refer to the western retaining wall of the Temple Mount as the Western Wall. In a way this fits in with the Yasser Arafat question, how do we determine the naming of an idea, a place or a person?
- Best to ask in the talk page of the article concerned - the general convention here is to use the common English name as the article title. Chances are that the questions a newcomer has have already been considered and you'll end up being told why it hasn't been done yet. The technical way to do it is to create a new article with #REDIRECT [[destination article]] as the sole content. But probably better for you to wait at least a few days and some more discussion and learning before doing that, so you have a better feel for what's already been created. Also, use search to see if a suitable alternative already exists - they often do. Same search first advice applies to creating new articles - if you're expecting something there's a fair chance that it's here and a redirect page under the name you expect is what's really needed. Jamesday 01:21, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hi. A pragmatic request: contributions by those who are editing without an account are generally viewed with more suspicion than those from someone with one and since you're editing controversial articles, you'll probably do better if you create one. It's not mandatory but it is pragmatic. Better to pick a name which at least somewhat resembles a normal human name rather than one identifying a role, principle or religion (but like almost everything here, that's not mandatory either). Doesn't need to be your real name, just a convenient identifier. Looking over your contributions I see that quite a few have been edited again by others. Don't be too concerned by that - if you disagree with the reason given for the change, discuss it in the talk page of the article, explaining why you think that your version is better than what was there now. If you partially agree, you might try one more edit trying to reconcile the disagreement but beyond that, discussion is the most fruitful approach to take. If you do create an account, let me know and I'll move all this over to your talk page (or you can do it yourself). Don't leave a redirect behind here, though - someone other than you will eventually be at this IP address, so the redirect would end up going to the wrong place. Jamesday 01:21, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Jamesday: I have created the account OneVoice...perhaps the name reflects that we each have one voice among many that participate in this project. OneVoice 02:37, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Well, I like it.:) I've moved the discussion over here - feel free to delete anything here which you don't want here or everything if you didn't really want it moved. Jamesday 07:22, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Ah, but anti-Turkish feeling is still rife in Greece, and anti-Greek feeling is still rife in Turkey, so how is that case any more successful? --Delirium 22:03, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)
The population transfer has not removed the anti-[Greek,Turkish] feeling. It has separated the populations resulting in a significant decrease in violence inflicted by one population on the other (<pc mode> and vice-versa </pc mode>). That is very successful. Better that they hate each other from a distance than kill each other. Over time, perhaps generations, they may come to feel that it i s not proper to kill/main/loot/rape/abuse each other. Perhaps this is the most progress that can be hoped for in ethnic conflicts. In other words: stop the killing, then work on the feelings. The reverse is unworkable. The feelings will not be quelled as long as the killings continue. OneVoice 23:42, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Minor edits. Thanks, snoyes 20:34, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
זה מתחיל להיות די מייגע לנקות אחריך בכל פעם שאתה מתעקש להחדיר לכאן דעות הנחשבות לקיצוניות גם בארץ ולהציג אותם כמתונות ומקובלות. אמנם להערכתי לא תוכל אפילו להבין את זה. למה שלא תנסה לתרום כאלו מאמרים לויקי בעברית ותראה איך הם יתקבלו. Nah, you probably couldn't. Danny 21:01, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Danny, you wouldn't be trolling, would you? How did you enter that? Typing in the & # codes seems to be quite a burden. Is there an easier way?
Perhaps we should discuss each of the changes rather than summarily deleting material contributed by others. OneVoice 22:01, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Danny, Zero0000, I am not claiming that Ben Gurion never spoke of moving the Arabs out of the area that became Israel. To cite that and not cite the statements of Arabs regarding relocating all Israelis to Europe or simply murdering them all is highly deceptive. It makes it appear that one side is without blame. Surely we can agree that this horrible conflict has resulting in all parties making statements that are, at best, ill considered. That said lets not hide facts. Example: The PLO was founded in 1964 to establish an Arab state in place of Israel. It may have changed its policy or may have adopted an interim policy of West Bank and Gaza first. It does not change the history of the organization. History is vitally important. A number of times this plain, simple, indisputable bit of history was removed from the PLO page. That is not only POV, that is apologetics. Let us be honest. OneVoice 22:14, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it probably should say Korean players are currently strongest. But when you say China used to be the best until Japan overtook them, do you mean millenia ago? :-) The impression I get is that the best players were from Japan for the last 500 years or such... Evercat 22:55, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Totally unrelated:
- To date all leap second adjustments have been positive, adding a second to the current UTC.
Although positive in the sense that they added an additional second that wouldn't have otherwise existed, that actually subtracts a second from the UTC, doesn't it? What would have been midnight becomes 11:59:60; so "the time" is shifted a second earlier... Evercat 23:08, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
OneVoice: when I check the Current Event's history diffs, I get very wide diffs: only the left column is visible; to see the right column (version after the change), I have to scroll horizontally. Maybe you are experiencing the same problem, and see only the text marked yellow, with the "-" in front... Lupo 22:22, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- exactly the problem. thank you.
What exactly are you trying to achieve at Zionism? This article is the product of weeks of co-editing by people of widely differing views, and its structure represents a series of careful compromises to achieve a balanced presentation of the topic. I am happy with edits that add information to the article, bit I am opposed to mere re-arranging of the text for no good reason. Adam 14:13, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Re your comments at my talk page (which I didn't notice initially because you dumped them on my user page rather than the talk page):
If you read back through the talk pages at Zionism you will see that we had all these debates at enormous length while the article was under construction. Danny and RK, who are both Zionists, had a lot of input into it (and also anti-Zionism and had no objections to the final article.
You say: "The "Zionism today" section gives one the impression that Zionism has been discredited among Jews in some way." It does no such thing. It says very clearly that the great majority of Jews are still Zionists.
You say: "The page as a whole reads as if Zionism was in some way archaic or shameful." I absolutely disagree. The article gives a fair and balanced assessment of Zionism, in fact I think it gives a generally favourable view (which is balanced by the unfavourable views aired at anti-Zionism).
Your analogy between anti-Zionist Jews and pro-choice Republicans makes exactly the opposite point to the one you are trying to make. The existence of even a few pro-choice Republicans (and there's enough of them to have a website) does indeed prove, as a matter of logic, that a simple identification between anti-abortion views and the Republican Pary cannot be made. Ergo, my analogous argument about anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is also valid.
In short, I am not persuaded by anything you have said that the Zionism article needs substantial changes.
Regards
Adam 06:48, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)