User talk:Universal Life/Archive 2

Hey there

You recently created Universal Life/Sephardic Communities&History, Judaeo-Spanish and its Dialects, but from the line "This is not an article of Wikipedia but rather an essay of thoughts and a collection of all the information I can list with time" and the title, I think you meant for this to be in your userspace. As such, I have moved it to User:Universal Life/Sephardic Communities&History, Judaeo-Spanish and its Dialects. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 15:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Nolelover, I wasn't aware that I created it in the mainspace, so thank you for the move :)

And I was, about to post this message in your discussion page, until I saw the warning :) Btw, I coudn't exactly understand how to use the talk back template. Universal Life (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• • No problem; I'm watching this page, as I normally do. :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 15:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Universal Life/Vikcionario

User:Universal Life/Vikcionario, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Universal Life/Vikcionario and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Universal Life/Vikcionario during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 20:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

PROUT article

Thank you for reading the PROUT article. Your correction of the Comment about agriculture in the Balanced Economy table was a good catch. Nevertheless...

Due to the likelihood of damage to the article, I have requested everyone to discuss changes on the Talk page before making them. I had already reverted one set of changes to the article that was objectionable (for an article on Wikipedia). And now I have reverted your correction to the lead of the article, because the original English was both better and clearer. So I also request you to kindly propose changes before making them... whether the change be major or minor, obvious or not so obvious. (Of course, if you want to translate the PROUT article into Turkish and then modify the Turkish version, I would have nothing to say.)

Thank you for your kind cooperation. --Abhidevananda (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually thank you for editing such a thorough article about PROUT. I've read it entirely. I've thought about translating it to Turkish, but I don't have the time to do such a task right now. I've few more, little technical ideas about the article, which I'll post in the talk page of the article later on. Until then... :) --Universal Life (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is a long article, so it would be a tremendous amount of work to translate it. I have already received word from France that they will be translating it there, but I don't envy anyone the task. Hopefully it will be worth the effort. If you have not done so already, you might also like to have a look at the Neohumanism article that I created just before the PROUT article. Also, please have a look at the "Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar" template that I created (with a good bit of help). There is a lot of red there that all represents articles that should also be on Wikipedia. --Abhidevananda (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian people, Einstein and the origins of the conflict

Hi UL, i thought best to move the discussion here.

Afterwards we should go back to the article to see what we might clarify in the lead, particularly once you've had a chance to research the reverse ethnogenesis point further.

I'd like to say that your post also brought a smile to my face - you are open-minded and balanced in your thinking, which is positively refreshing as it is not so common in debates on the I / P topic. And you're right about the difficultly of finding "neutral sources". Many people have asked me for recommendations, but I have never found a source which can't be criticised by one side or the other. Of course that doesn't mean there aren't neutral sources, just none which are universally perceived as being neutral.

I read the Einstein letters you posted - thank you. I have read some of his comments on the subject before, with my overall thought being that his high level comments were always thoughtful, measured and balanced but that he often was not aware of many of the nuances of the politics and history going on at the time (as he says in the second letter he didn't like to "waste much energy for the skimpy soil of politics.") However, ever since the early 1900's he was being pressured to endorse the Zionist cause - the debate as to whether he was, after all, "a Zionist" is still ongoing - see for example: [1], [2] and [3] and Albert Einstein's political views.

So you asked for my thought on Einstein's quotes from 1946. I have written some below for your consideration:

• difficulties between the Jews and Arabs are artificially created and are created by the English AND If you had an idea of the perfidy with which the English act to apply their well-tried principle of "divide et impera" (divide and rule)

=> This is undoubtedly correct at the beginning. Have a look at the writings of Lord Shaftesbury and the letters of Charles Henry Churchill to Moses Montefiore. Montefiore, the most prominent of British Jews, thought the idea absurd, but gradually came round. At this stage the concept of Zionism did not exist, and the British were interested only in balancing out the pro-Catholic alliances which the French were building in Lebanon (see e.g. 1840_Lebanon_conflict#Religious_conflicts) in the wider context of the Decline of the Ottoman Empire.

• ...the English had two interests. The first was to have raw materials for their industry, also the oil in those countries...Everywhere there are big landowners who are exploiters of the human race...The British are always in a passive alliance with those land-possessing owners...

=> This, in my opinion, is a gross oversimplification. I suggest you read Jonathan Schneer's Balfour Declaration - the book reviews the British government's archives and paints an enlightening picture of what was really going on. As an aside, the importance of the Balfour Declaration cannot be underestimated - before this declaration most Jews were not Zionists.

• It is my impression that Palestine is a kind of small model India...

=> This is an interesting comparison and perhaps explains one of the reasons that British Palestine was so badly managed. Palestine is not India. For a start, the first British governor of India was not a deeply avowed supporter of one side over another. In Palestine, the British thought it was a good idea to appoint one of the architects of political Zionism to be the "neutral" governor (see Herbert Samuel, 1st Viscount Samuel).

Separately, as you learn about this, I suggest one of the most important areas to look into is the difference between a Jewish homeland and a Jewish state. It is in my opinion this subtle difference that is at the heart of the last century of problems in the region. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)