User talk:OneVoice

Notes to other Wikipedians

Hello, nice to met you.

Please add new material at the bottom, in the section labeled New Material. Feel free to add subsections there if you wish.

I delete material from this page from time to time. The material is not lost. Its kept in the page history. When a discussion concludes and is acted upon or some material no longer serves a purpose for me....well, then its just clutter and I remove it. Please dont be insulted if I remove your words....its not meant as an insult to you or a devaluation of your comments...rather there is comparatively little that anyone writes that merits retention for prolonged periods.

Proposed format for Peace Plan Articles

Hi, I think your proposed draft of the Saudi peace plan is a good model for other such articles, with a few reservations, which are explained on the talk page. No-One Jones (talk) 01:29, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Current Events

No problem. You're the one who deserves the thanks for posting a current news story. :) --Dante Alighieri 20:13, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Soul Kitch

If you look at Soul Kitch's contributions [Special:Contributions&limit=500&offset=0&target=soul%2520kitch] you will see that he appears to be sock puppet/troll who simply appeared for a brief moment to cause mischief. His comments on Talk:Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004 were inane. If we have a vote, let's have a vote among real users. -- Viajero 11:15, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, I've taken the liberty of moving the comment you left on User:Soul Kitch to User talk:Soul kitch. Note the real username has a lowercase 'k', so that user wouldn't see your comment where you left it. As I've moved the comment, I'll delete the User page (for the non existent Kapital K user). Don't ya just love case sensitivity? :) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:21, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I also note that since I moved it, someone appears to have altered it. I don't know if that was you or if it was someone else, but you might like to check, as it may be that someone is trying to make it appear that you said things you didn't say. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:47, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Viajero is deleting all contributions by Soul kitch...

No, he's just moving them to his talk page because he feels they are not appropriate to the page he is posting them to.

I do not understand the seemingly personal animus that Viajero has against this person.

You should ask Viajero about that. I expect he thinks this person is not contributing to the discussion in good faith, and is therefore using the technique of returning their contributions to them. This is often done to prevent one user being disruptive. See, for example, the movement of The Fellowship of the Troll's text back to his page by Tim Starling and others.

is there some history here that I am not aware of? OneVoice 19:51, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Check the user's contributions. I know no more than that will tell you. Angela. 23:18, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Terrorism/ Violence against Israelis

Please refrain from engaging in the revert war over the redirect at Terrorism against Israelis. The matter is in discussion at the talk page of Violence against Israelis and that's the place to sort out what the article should be called. If you revert again prior to the matter being resolved by discussion I'll protect the page so resolution can happen through consensus rather than a revert war. Jamesday 16:35, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And I see that User:Ed Poor protected it before I did. Jamesday 16:43, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The best I can say is that the way to resolve things is to use discussion and seek the assistance of others to discuss things on the talk page. There are plenty of disputed articles or peer review mechanisms to use so I suggest using them to obtain the assistance of parties you believe to be more neutral. I have views on using the word terrorism or not (and those vary depending on the case) but there's one near-certainty in this wiki: using edit and revert repeatedly is a way to make losing in any dispute more likely, because people react negatively to those things. Discussing reasonably is the more likely route to success. On the use of terrorism in the article title I think you won't be able to prevail because you'll face opposition from those who want the article to include attacks which are less obviously terrorist (are attacks on border posts terrorist? How many civilians killed were in the Israeli reserve forces and hence arguably military targets are two issues you'd have to deal with). IMO you'll have more success and the Wikipedia will be better if violent incidents of both sides are listed together, so people can see more of the picture and neither side is likely to argue so much. However, it's up to you to choose which course you want to take, even though I think I've outlined the one which is likely to be most productive and less frustrating for you... the facts are sufficent to do all required condemning, IMO. That's the route I took when I described IRA activities as "operations" and proceeded to list the casualties in the most notable of them. Few people react well to casualty lists which include children, regardless of what you label the act.:) Jamesday 20:59, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Amin al-Husseini

Yes, I'm very sorry that I haven't been able to get around to merging the two articles. I'll get around to it eventually, in the mean time you can always merge them youreslf. --Alex S 22:41, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

WP:AIC

I would like to formally invite you to join others at Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Arab-Israeli_conflict to work with us toward resolving issues that have arisen and resulted in edit wars here at Wikipedia. Also, I would like to formally request that you agree, along with the rest of us, to refrain from editting each of the articles that are listed as currently under protection or subject to edit wars on that page till the issues regarding that particular article have been resolved and we have removed that article from the currently under protection or subject to edit wars list. OneVoice 15:48, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I truly appreciate your candor in your invitations to open dialogue. However I disagree with your pledge, and the premise that you (or anyone) is in some position to dictate terms without discussion. But I understand that you simply wanted to start discussion on the groundrules right away. I do have the same reservations as James, with the addition reservation that protected page policy cant be modified to suit one Wikiproject. It works the same in all cases quite well. We can be more formal about how we go about it, and that I will agree to, when we discuss it.-戴&#30505sv 22:11, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ive been busy. I hate to say it, but you may have a legitimate grievance - you should take it to the Wikipedia:Mailing lists (the Wiken-l list). Also, you should continue to be patient, and to work on the important thing right now, (which I wish I could do now) which is the WP:AIC - organizing articles, that we can "collaborate" on 1. renaming (so many of them are poorly named) and 2. refactoring them - daunting perhaps. People have been wanting to do exactly this for a long time, and it requires a centralized place to work with. -戴&#30505sv 20:31, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Muhammed al-Dura

Everyone, parent or no, is saddened by seeing children gunned down, yes; but the sad truth is that his death became a source of yet more strife, with Palestinians holding him up as a martyr and both sides trying to blame the other for his death. Therefore I thought that his nationality was, unfortunately, a relevant fact. --No-One Jones 20:51, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oberammergau

I removed the Oberammagau reference because it said "...anti-semitic in that it blames the Jews for the death of Jesus". The Gospels (best records we have on the subject) clearly record that the Jewish authorities had at least some part in Jesus' death. I have real trouble when a piece of work is accused of Anti-semitism just because it retells history. Now if the play overemphasises the part of the Jewish people, that's another matter, but it's not what you wrote. DJ Clayworth 22:50, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Antimesitim in the accusion that Jews are the murderers of Jesus lies not in the question whether the some Jews took part in the crucifixion of Jesus by Pontius Pilatus but in the blaming of all Jews in all generations for that event. This is the religious antisemitism that states that all Jews, including those living 2000 years after the affair, are guilty and are the "murderers of God". MathKnight 21:26, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Multiple Accounts per User

Wikipedia doesn't have a policy against multiple-user accounts, as far as I know. Secretlondon 21:39, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

No, there is a policy against it. I forget where.

OV, I'd like you to work on the /boilerplate subpage for WP:AIC - and use that instead of the one youre using, which prejudices the invitiation with an unnecessary stipulation. Thanks. -戴&#30505sv 03:05, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Infiltration

I agree that Infiltration is not the right term to use. Its pejorative - and to say "its not necessarily pejorative" is like saying the words "f*** me" arent "necessarily" sexual harrassment --because that could be said in different contexts. In the context of pro-Israeli's characterization of Palestinian re-immigration to lands they had just been forceably evicted from --the term is unquestionably pejorative if not entirely racist. As for Viajero not apparently following protocol in protecting the page, I have to suggest you take it to the mailing list - or the mediation boards. I dont have time to deal with it. As this seems to continue, I will assume for the moment that others let it continue, due that you have lost some good will in the community - otherwise, you would have more power. The best way to make friends, is to be honest, sincere, forthright, knowlegeable, and eager to help others with consensus. If you have demonstrated hostility or deception towards your neighbors, it will bear ill for your case against Vj and Zero. If your cause is one which seeks to promote hostily toward fellow Wikipedians, then you will lose respect, and any complaints you make to the list will tend to be dishonored. Its a catch-22 - the only way out is to abandon rhetorical terms you may be used to, and give respect where it is due, namely to every human being you meet, until they do something (personally) to lose that. If you have a case against Viajero, and your personal capital is sound, then there will be little delay in admonishing Viajero for violating protocol, if he has done as you say. -S 20:18, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Look, first of all your claiming that the term "infiltration" refers only to a migration of vandals, while people coming in to try to reclaim their lands were something else. You dont say which are called what - or what are called who - and you give no reasonable way of distinguishing between the two. You prove my point - that the term "Palestinian infiltration" was a very real term - but just a term, not a phenomenon - a term used to pejoratively describe the quite natural actions of human beings in attempt to reclaim stolen property. Once we accept the term of infiltration, no doubt we are supposed to forget your claim that there would be distinctions for who the term applies. If you want, add a subsection on vandalism and malfeasance (resistance, maybe) to the article. The one-sided view of history will always yield the kind of analysis that you gave.

Stevertigo, infiltration applies to both activities per the definition of the term, just as trespass in the example I provided on your talk page. I said we could have two pages one on infiltration for the purpose of immigration and use immigration in the title of that page, and a second page with infiltration in the title. Infiltration is not "pejorative", just as trespass is not "pejorative". It is a defined term. There are several uses of the term infiltration but all involve moving across a boundry with the immediate goal of not being detected. Certain people and organization spend considerable effort on learning how to do this well. It is a skill....just as shooting a rifle well is a skill....regardless of whether one is shooting targets, tin cans, animals or people. It is a skill....this is value-neutral.

Secondly, you use the term "illegal" as if it had any merit. It has no merit when it comes from a state which legalized theft, and spoke openly of the "transfer" of Palestinians out of Palestine. If you knock it off with the attempt at using terms straight out of biased and one-sided propaganda, you might have a case. I have no interest in using such loaded terms, including "terrorism" which in reality means "violence against us" - our violence against them is "justified" and "defending country." Do you see that as the world gets smaller, these views grow more and more absurd?

"a state which legalized theft"....wow...that is pretty POV and as far as I am aware not very widely accepted POV. Illegal acts are those defined by the government as such....different governments define different acts as illegal. The UN MAC, as far as I know, considered the movement of people across the armistice lines without authorization from the governments to be illegal and a violation of the armistice terms...I may be mistaken here, but I dont think that I am.

You say "terrorism" means "violence against us"????? September 11th was certainly violence against the people in the towers, the people in the planes and self-directed violence against the hijackers (can we use the term "hijackers"?). It was terrorism. If you disagree with this please let me know.

Finkelstein - an impeccable voice -- claims that Morris deserves some credit, but in fact gives a watered-down dolled-up view of history, in an attempt to moderate between the truth and the standard ethnocentric view. I see this kind of quasi-truthful history with regard to US issues as well. While I have no direct knowledge of Morris' writings, if he seems bound and tied to preserve rhetorical terminology that originally by any objective POV would be seen as a pejorative, I certainly might start with Finkelsteins logical and well-reasoned cautions in looking at Morris's work. If I had time that is. --Respectfully, S 01:25, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Finkelstein (Norman, I assume) is human...therefore not impeccable. He is capable of error and perhaps even prone to error...just like all humans. If you disagree with this, then I dont know what to say and will remain silent...this is not an ultimatum rather that I dont know how to speak to a person that believes that any human (human, not divine, dodging all Christian issues here) is impeccable (without fault or error, not capable of sin [1]).

Perhaps I should pause and give you a chance to respond. OneVoice 19:22, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes, noone is perfect, and indeed it's not useful to get into matters of taste. Certainly Morris is no slouch, and a valid source even if Finkelstein otherwise considers him "pretty much a thug." As for what is divine, we can perhaps agree that truth and truthfullness are divine, at least where humans can come close to it. (This is a good part of what "Christian" principles in fact mean, BTW, regardless of what the dogmatists say.)-S 00:42, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Allergic reactions

LOL - yes, and like rhythmic footsteps on a suspesion bridge, it becomes exponentially worse. Consider that its just as bad for the other "side" as well. The only thing to do is to cool off, and try to look at it from a new angle, albeit without capitulating if you have a valid point. I think thats what youve been doing. Things can get heated, certainly, as you know - its best to just keep your own stress and insulin levels within normal paramteters. You calm down, others calm down, WP becomes enjoyable - even in debates.

That would be nice ;)

You say "terrorism" means "violence against us"????? September 11th was certainly violence against the people in the towers, the people in the planes and self-directed violence against the hijackers (can we use the term "hijackers"?). It was terrorism. If you disagree with this please let me know.

Let me answer that this way: Shortly after 911, Bush called the victims "innocent civilians." Later, in pumping up his wartalk, he called them "the first soldiers to die in the War" against Terror." Now, correct me if I'm using English properly - but an "innocent civilian" and a "soldier" are two different things. If they were "soldiers", then 911 was a military attack, against a miltary target. If they were "innocent civilians" then that's what is called "terrorism." Unfortunately, that term, too is only a one-sided view. -S 22:04, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Stevertigo...this response concerning "terrorism" doesn't answer the question...it seems to give the question a wide berth, one large enough to involve George W Bush. Come let's be frank with each other. In my opinion the attack on the World Trade Center was terrorism against the people in the towers, the crew on the airplanes and the passengers with the exception of the perpetrators. The perpetrators were terrorists. They also committed acts of self-directed violence. I believe that this view is widely held. What do you say? What is your opinion/understanding of the matter?

By the way what of infiltration? OneVoice 22:16, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I apologise for being so short. Let us agree that "terrorism" is a political term, usually applied to the violence of others. On the other hand, violence by "our side" is glorified, regardless of what it is. This is the point well-made in Bowling for Columbine. The world isnt quite as "good versus evil" as they want us to think, and in fact, to come right down to it —they dont want us to think at all. Perhaps better said: they don't think very much, and assume others should do the same. Your friend, -S 05:38, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Stevertigo, as I understand language, and I am neither a linguist nor a expert of any sort regarding language (a single philosophy of language class at University and some additional reading does not an expert make), terms are added to languages to express ideas, actions, items, (not an exhaustive list) that are distinct enough in their charactersitics from other ideas (etc.) that people need to be able to identify them without using long descriptive phrases...in a sense words are an agreed upon cipher. We talk about "male" and "female" when the distinction is important enough to the material at hand that using "human" does not answer.

I do not agree that "terrorism" is strictly a political term. Terrorism like many other terms are often used in politics to obscure or convince rather than to inform, such it seems is the nature of that beast. Nor do I agree that "our side" never engages in "terrorism". There are a set of behaviors that are different enough that a distinct term was created to refer to them, and that term is "terrorism". A "simple" ;) example. Were I to shoot a person at the entrance to a bank using a rifle from a distance and not visible to the victim or others, say sitting in an unilluminated room far back from the window, that would be murder. If I was to do the same act repeatedly, that would be serial murder. If I was to do it while making monetary demands, it would be blackmail. While making political demands, it would be terrorism. This is in regard to naming the act. The effect of several of these acts would be to terrorize the local population...sometimes there is an asymmetry between the name of the act and the name of the effect. Your thoughts please.

Oh and lets not forget infiltration ;) OneVoice 14:07, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OV, I agree with what Danny says below, and your response to it gives us (the community) two possibilities, 1: You're young, dont know what you are talking about, and ask that we all be patient with you while you pick up speed, or 2:Your just here to waste people's time. If its the first one, then that's pretty forgivable. If the second, I hope that someday you and people like you might come to realise how dishonorable a goal that is. But I prefer to think that it's the first one.

As for all your above points, (which I completely missed -- you used the typical newbie -interject- form for your responses... sign each entry, and initial -SV, each of the persons your chopping up, if you do that.) ...I will not repeat what's been better said elsewhere... Your Assignment: Check out Hegemony or Survival from your college library, and we can discuss some of the issues that you disagree with there point by point. Why? If you have factual disputes with the book, it may be a source for a project thesis, after all, Norm Finkelstein built a career out of debunking a pro-Israeli book, maybe you can come up with something against Chomsky. Nobody has - people accuse him of being anythng from "anti-Semitic" to "moralisic" but they always fail on the facts. The only remotely valid critique of him I've seen is "supporting Pol Pot" before the Cambodian Killing fields were known, and even this attack is flooded with fabrications, personal attacks, and moral-relativism ("in context of this situation..."). I eagerly await your critique of the first chapeter of H/S. :) -S 22:21, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

unprotected pages

Articles should be protected as briefly as possible. The items I de-protected had been protected for over a week. That should be enough time for people to cool off and come at the dispute with more perspective. If not, then the articles will be re-protected - but we have to give the articles a chance again. Other people might come along and want to help. They should not be prevented from editing. Kingturtle 03:07, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You asked to know what it is about the Timeline of Anti-Semitism page that angers me. I will tell you. First of all, the study of anti-Semitism is my profession. I work in the Education Department of a museum devoted to teaching the Shoah. It is a field I know intimately, and I work with some of the leading authorities in the field of Jewish history on a day to day basis. I therefore resent what Salo Baron describes as a "lachrymous approach to Jewish history." You, Humus Sapiens, RK, and a handful of others are busy listing "facts" about how the goyim wanna kill us. You present a philosophy of Jewish life which is defined by persecution, and you actually distort historical events to do this. The result is an Us vs. Them mentality which informs all other contributions that you are making to the encyclopedia--the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a case in point. On a much broader, philosophical level, however, I think you are doing even more damage to the cause of fostering Jewish identity in that you are letting that identity be defined by the other, in this case supposed persecutors. In other words, you are not Jewish because of the rich heritage of the Jewish people (whether it is expressed Torah, ethics, culture, the arts, science, etc.), but seemingly because outsiders tell you that you are a Jew and you have externalized that, with all the negative connotations therein. If I may remind you, when Balaam said Am levadad yishkon he meant it as a curse. In brief, I reject the inherent insinuations of that article: "Be Jewish, because that way you can get the shit beaten out of you." Hardly a source of pride. More likely a source of paranoia. Oh, and it wouldn't hurt if you guys spent a little time reading up on the history. There's a lot more to it than a bunch of Aish HaTorah websites, which is a good thing, because frankly, the people that put them out are a bunch of am haratzim. Gut Shabbes. Danny 16:16, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

You need to go to the [2] page and vote regarding the changes some are trying to make there.

Misc

Do you know exactly what "copyedits" mean? (it is usually written in a description of one edition of Wiki article) MathKnight 17:27, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is anti-Semitism actually real?

Are Nazi's and the KKK really anti-Semitic, or is that just a Zionist/Jew claim? Once again we have someone making the outrageous claim that any use of the word "anti-Semitic" is a POV violation, and that the Nazis and KKK are not really anti-Semitic. For some time we have had trouble with articles on the Anti-Defamation League, Jew and Holocaust denial, with people repeatedly rewriting these articles to make proven instances of anti-Semitism out to be merely Jew accusations. Fortunately these edits have been fought back each time. But we again have a problem with someone damaging the Anti-Defamation League article. I thought that this might be of some interest. As far as I can tell, this is not about NPOV policy; this is about someone trying to whitewash Nazis, the KKK, people who spread the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, etc. This is about someone's agenda to whitewash anti-Semitism, and make it look like those silly Jews are just whining about things which probably aren't real. RK 02:56, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Vote: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis. Thank you. IZAK 12:00, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK. Thank you. IZAK 03:18, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

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)

israel's border wars

Hello. I deduce from your edits that you may be in possession of Morris's book. I am currently looking for an information about the creation of Unit 101 to check an hypothesis made by Benziman. According to that last one, Sharon provocated deliberately incident in 1952 (which seems to be a fact) but in order to convince (or force) Ben Gourion and Dayan to set up Unit 101. From what I know, he has been asked to set-up this unit and do not push for this. I asked Morris by email and he told me the information was in his book. I would be very grateful to you if you could indicate to me what Morris writes about these events in his book and in definitive what was the real involvment of Sharon in the *decision* (not the formation) to create the unit. Thanks a lot ! User:ChrisC

A page you started (False messiah) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating False messiah, OneVoice!

Wikipedia editor Alpha Monarch just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I've reviewed this page, It has been so long time without a review.

To reply, leave a comment on Alpha Monarch's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey?

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas ^{I'm researching Wikipedia} _Questions? 16:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)