| Revision as of 13:11, 21 March 2015 editPrinsgezinde (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers11,900 edits →Jewish views on slavery← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:14, 21 March 2015 edit undoPrinsgezinde (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers11,900 edits →Jewish views on slaveryNext edit → | ||
| Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
| What makes you think that I have a conflict on interest in the article ]? ] (]) 03:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | What makes you think that I have a conflict on interest in the article ]? ] (]) 03:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :Well... You clearly have a general interest in Israel-related matters.]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] On its own this would of course be neither relevant nor conflicting, but some of the edits you made were just unreasonable and caused me to believe you are showing a conflict of interest. Can you tell me how the sole article on the history of Jews and slavery falls under ] and ]? It puts undue weight on both views to stamp such a label on the article. Both originate from the merger of "Jews and slavery" with this article, and are thus outdated and redundant. Furthermore, the story of the Egyptian exodus is shown as if it were indisputable, which is ]. Other removals were simply too POV, despite partisan accounts reporting them. Example: "total domination of one human being by another" was not permitted in Israel according to the current article, yet tells a different tale. While most of the slaves were gentiles, it is said "The main source of non-Hebrew slaves were prisoners of war"; what war? This is not specified and it is simply dubious, as the article further states that slaves were mostly better off than non-slaves. It was a common fact that Israel was a nation where ] were treated differently. And "This law is unique in the Ancient Near East." regarding the 'equal treatment' of Israeli slaves is a huge generalization. Of all the kingdoms and empires in the ancient Near East, from Sumer to Persia, none were more gentle with their slaves than the Israelites? For such a bold claim one needs a lot of good sources. Overall I disagreed with the tone that was in the talk page generally agreed upon to be POV. I made several edits and instead of editing what you thought was wrong, it seemed you simply reverted it all based on simplicity. Don't you at least agree that it's not at all neutral at the moment? Either we make it a whole lot shorter by removing redundant information or we drastically alter it. ] (]) 13:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | :Well... You clearly have a general interest in Israel-related matters.]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] On its own this would of course be neither relevant nor conflicting, but some of the edits you made were just unreasonable and caused me to believe you are showing a conflict of interest. Can you tell me how the sole article on the history of Jews and slavery falls under and ? It puts undue weight on both views to stamp such a label on the article. Both originate from the merger of "Jews and slavery" with this article, and are thus outdated and redundant. Furthermore, the story of the Egyptian exodus is shown as if it were indisputable, which is ]. Other removals were simply too POV, despite partisan accounts reporting them. Example: "total domination of one human being by another" was not permitted in Israel according to the current article, yet tells a different tale. While most of the slaves were gentiles, it is said "The main source of non-Hebrew slaves were prisoners of war"; what war? This is not specified and it is simply dubious, as the article further states that slaves were mostly better off than non-slaves. It was a common fact that Israel was a nation where ] were treated differently. And "This law is unique in the Ancient Near East." regarding the 'equal treatment' of Israeli slaves is a huge generalization. Of all the kingdoms and empires in the ancient Near East, from Sumer to Persia, none were more gentle with their slaves than the Israelites? For such a bold claim one needs a lot of good sources. Overall I disagreed with the tone that was in the talk page generally agreed upon to be POV. I made several edits and instead of editing what you thought was wrong, it seemed you simply reverted it all based on simplicity. Don't you at least agree that it's not at all neutral at the moment? Either we make it a whole lot shorter by removing redundant information or we drastically alter it. ] (]) 13:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 13:14, 21 March 2015
Welcome
|
Welcome!
I see that you've been making some constructive edits, as well as fighting vandalism and original research. So, I wanted to get your talk page going, and officially welcome you. If you have any questions, please, don't hesitate to ask! Good job on what you've done already. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The
Adventure
|
Hi Prinsgezinde!! You're invited: learn how to edit Misplaced Pages in under an hour. Hope to see you there! Play The Misplaced Pages AdventureThis message was delivered by Quinto Simmaco (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC) |
March 2015
Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Historical revisionism (negationism) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Historical revisionism (negationism) was changed by Prinsgezinde (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.958722 on 2015-03-11T23:44:51+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at Holocaust (disambiguation). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. You have added material to an article that has then been reverted please see this page for advice on how to proceed. Amortias (T)(C) 18:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
political labels
Such as "far right" are generally considered to be "opinions" about people which must be sourced and cited as opinions. Claims made in Misplaced Pages's voice as fact must be particularly strongly sourced, which the single article does not meet for Pamela Geller. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Jewish views on slavery
Hello,
What makes you think that I have a conflict on interest in the article Jewish views on slavery? Aha... (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well... You clearly have a general interest in Israel-related matters. On its own this would of course be neither relevant nor conflicting, but some of the edits you made were just unreasonable and caused me to believe you are showing a conflict of interest. Can you tell me how the sole article on the history of Jews and slavery falls under Category:Antisemitic Canards and Category: Antisemitism? It puts undue weight on both views to stamp such a label on the article. Both originate from the merger of "Jews and slavery" with this article, and are thus outdated and redundant. Furthermore, the story of the Egyptian exodus is shown as if it were indisputable, which is in no way neutral. Other removals were simply too POV, despite partisan accounts reporting them. Example: "total domination of one human being by another" was not permitted in Israel according to the current article, yet Leviticus 25:44-46 tells a different tale. While most of the slaves were gentiles, it is said "The main source of non-Hebrew slaves were prisoners of war"; what war? This is not specified and it is simply dubious, as the article further states that slaves were mostly better off than non-slaves. It was a common fact that Israel was a nation where gentiles were treated differently. And "This law is unique in the Ancient Near East." regarding the 'equal treatment' of Israeli slaves is a huge generalization. Of all the kingdoms and empires in the ancient Near East, from Sumer to Persia, none were more gentle with their slaves than the Israelites? For such a bold claim one needs a lot of good sources. Overall I disagreed with the tone that was in the talk page generally agreed upon to be POV. I made several edits and instead of editing what you thought was wrong, it seemed you simply reverted it all based on simplicity. Don't you at least agree that it's not at all neutral at the moment? Either we make it a whole lot shorter by removing redundant information or we drastically alter it. Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)