Clutch writes:
It is of note that the Changing Doctrines material
was
a straight dump of material RK had already written and
put on another page on the Wikipedia,
You have this backwards. This essay on changing doctrines
was originally written for the subject of Jehovah's
Witnesses. After it was finished, it became apparent that
it would be useful somewhere else as where.
Further, this is not the section that Jimbo was referring
to. This is '''not'' the section that was part of the edit
wars. Rather, it was specific controversial issues within
the essay that he (and I) are referring to.
Clutch writes "RK's information dump would have been
appropriate in the talk page, but not the article proper."
Sigh. Stop attacking the analysis as an "information dump".
As the clear consensus on the Talk page explcitly states,
others agree that this material is necessary here for a
discussion of the topic.
Clutch then adds "I will refrain from characterising RK's
action, but I invite you to look at what he added, then
imagine if you were a Jew, and someone dumped something
like that in the article on Judaism, how would you feel?"
Huh? THIS WAS ALREADY DONE TO THE JUDAISM ARTICLES. There
are very detailed section explicitly showing the changing
of doctrines in Judaism; this section became so long that
it was spun off a long time ago into its own separate
article. (And I myself wrote most of this article!)
Additionally, an ever harsher view of Orthodox Jewish
perceptions versus historical reality has been written in
the section on Torah study, Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, and the
documentary hypothesis.
And even more, the same critical historical analysis of
Christianity exists in many Wikipedia articles.
I would ask you to stop claiming that people are, in
effect, out to hurt the Jehovah's Witnesses. In point of
fact, all of us are working together to describe ALL
religions, and we strive to do so in an NPOV fashion, using
critical historical and logical analysis.
I myself have been the target of harsh criticism from many
religious Jews, because they think that the Wikipedia
articles are unfair to Judaism, as they contradict the
positions they learned in Hebrew school or Yeshiva. (Most
of the criticism I have received has come in direct e-mail,
and some of it was nearly flammable. The word "heretic"
comes to mind.)
Frankly, the criticism you have given me about the
consensus edits to the Jehovah's Witness articles is mild
to what I have received in regards to the articles on
Judaism and the controversy about the origin of the Torah
(five books of Moses)!
If you would look at the big picture, you will see that
over a wide array of articles, no religion is favored. They
are merely being discussed from the point of view from
someone observing and describing that religion, rather than
being an adherent of that religion.
Shalom,
Robert (RK)
=====
"I prefer a wicked person who knows he is wicked, to a righteous person who knows he
is righteous".
The Seer of Lublin [Jacob Isaac Ha-Hozeh Mi-Lublin, 1745-1815]
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com