![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The last version of this page said that it was taken from an obit written by Peter Singer for an Australian newspaper. At one point, it was written in the first person. Can any of the editors who have worked on this page say whether our article is a copy of the Singer article? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW: If you read Edwards' article on Reich in the Enc.Philos., repr. in the new 2006 ed., you may see for yourself that Reich deserves to be treated seriously, and why – in contrast to what currently can be found in most websites on him.
-- Nescio* 09:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[from our user talk pages]
Hello Newport,
you asked to avoid POV. That's fine.
Re the life of Paul Edwards I relied upon the obituary by Peter Singer, who was a personal friend of Paul Edwards and knows better about his family background than a NYT journalist. This is Singer's text:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Paul_Edwards_%28philosopher%29&oldid=31342763
There you can read:
"His family was of Jewish descent, and although neither they nor Paul himself were religious, when the Nazis annexed Austria in 1938, that made no difference."
Edwards was a humanist atheist all of his life. There may be still people who'd call him Jewish because some of his ancestors had been Jewish. But I think we shouldn't do this. OK?
--Nescio* 14:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
You can't be ethnically vaguely Jewish. Ethnically he was 100% Jewish. As Judaism is an ethnicity as well as a religion, there is nothing inconsistent in being an atheist Jew, or for that matter a Jewish cardinal of the Roman Catholic church. (Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger has always been happy to say that he is Jewish.) Hundreds of people on Wikipedia are in Category:Atheists, Category:Humanists and their sub-categories. Is it your intention to edit all of them to discuss their religious upbringing? If not, why pick on this one person? Your statement about the journalist is surely original research; you have no way of knowing what her sources were and who she spoke to. Indeed, it might be defamatory of a living person to suggest that she did not do her job properly! However, if she did no more than check the Encyclopaedia Judaica, she would have found an article by Edwards' friend and collaborator Richard Popkin. Did he know Edwards less well than Singer?-- Newport 23:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Skeptic from Britain, Among other edits on March 16, you left out Stephen Braude's academic credentials. I'm sure you felt you had good reasons. Could you please say what they are? Or perhaps you left them out unintentionally. In any case, could you please explain?
Thank you. Cordially, O Govinda ( talk) 15:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
The edits made on 16 March concerning Stephen Braude both strip out his academic credentials and add an (unsourced) statement about criticism by parapsychologists. These edits seem meant to "poison the well"--that is, cut the value of Braude's views by diminishing his standing in the eyes of the reader. This is needless. In the interests of NPOV, I propose to revert the edit. Cordially, O Govinda ( talk) 16:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The last version of this page said that it was taken from an obit written by Peter Singer for an Australian newspaper. At one point, it was written in the first person. Can any of the editors who have worked on this page say whether our article is a copy of the Singer article? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW: If you read Edwards' article on Reich in the Enc.Philos., repr. in the new 2006 ed., you may see for yourself that Reich deserves to be treated seriously, and why – in contrast to what currently can be found in most websites on him.
-- Nescio* 09:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[from our user talk pages]
Hello Newport,
you asked to avoid POV. That's fine.
Re the life of Paul Edwards I relied upon the obituary by Peter Singer, who was a personal friend of Paul Edwards and knows better about his family background than a NYT journalist. This is Singer's text:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Paul_Edwards_%28philosopher%29&oldid=31342763
There you can read:
"His family was of Jewish descent, and although neither they nor Paul himself were religious, when the Nazis annexed Austria in 1938, that made no difference."
Edwards was a humanist atheist all of his life. There may be still people who'd call him Jewish because some of his ancestors had been Jewish. But I think we shouldn't do this. OK?
--Nescio* 14:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
You can't be ethnically vaguely Jewish. Ethnically he was 100% Jewish. As Judaism is an ethnicity as well as a religion, there is nothing inconsistent in being an atheist Jew, or for that matter a Jewish cardinal of the Roman Catholic church. (Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger has always been happy to say that he is Jewish.) Hundreds of people on Wikipedia are in Category:Atheists, Category:Humanists and their sub-categories. Is it your intention to edit all of them to discuss their religious upbringing? If not, why pick on this one person? Your statement about the journalist is surely original research; you have no way of knowing what her sources were and who she spoke to. Indeed, it might be defamatory of a living person to suggest that she did not do her job properly! However, if she did no more than check the Encyclopaedia Judaica, she would have found an article by Edwards' friend and collaborator Richard Popkin. Did he know Edwards less well than Singer?-- Newport 23:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Skeptic from Britain, Among other edits on March 16, you left out Stephen Braude's academic credentials. I'm sure you felt you had good reasons. Could you please say what they are? Or perhaps you left them out unintentionally. In any case, could you please explain?
Thank you. Cordially, O Govinda ( talk) 15:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
The edits made on 16 March concerning Stephen Braude both strip out his academic credentials and add an (unsourced) statement about criticism by parapsychologists. These edits seem meant to "poison the well"--that is, cut the value of Braude's views by diminishing his standing in the eyes of the reader. This is needless. In the interests of NPOV, I propose to revert the edit. Cordially, O Govinda ( talk) 16:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)