Jump to content

Talk:Zion Square assault

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Issues

[edit]
  • Is there a single reliable source that calls this the "Zion square lynching"? The closest I've seen is that is was described as an "attempted lynch".
  • Seems like a good part of this article is based one two blogs, one from the New Yorker (strangely without a link) and one from the NYT, both unattributed. Other op-eds are used as well, again unattributed.
  • The bit that starts with "Ma'ariv reported" actually comes from the Times of Israel and should be attributed properly, per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.
  • There's probably more, but I don't have the time right now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to Zion Square assault. There are some good references calling it a lynching in the headline, but not all of them do. it is a rather loose and sensationalist use of the word. Attempted lynching is the closest to a description, and is what it would be in US law. But I think we have very seriously tried to avoid the term in titles.
What I would really like to do is consider a redirect and partial merge to the paragraph on Israel in Lynching, which already has a ref to the NYT article. If nobody objects here, I will do the redirect, nad people can add the appropriate contents later. There are more such incidents that could be added. The article already covers attempted lynchnings, so it's within scope. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the Hebrew press it is the default term used.
Lynching is a calque here, just as it is in Japanese, for any episode of attempted mass violence based on ethnic enmity,and this usage borrows from the primary sense of lynch in English which was used to denote acts as varied as tar-feathering and whipping.
The word 'lynch' is used by the investigating police in Jerusalem to describe the incident to the press. Many sources give 'lynch', others 'attempted lynch' (apparently 'lynch' is a successful murder attempt), so I'm fine with "Lynch attempt in Zion Square' (2012). I've only begun the article, so I'll add many more sources today.
The suggestion is that we can have 2000 Ramallah lynching dealing with Israelis on the West Bank, but not '(Attempted) Lynching in Zion Square' when Palestinians were the object of mob violence. I'm all for consistency: I do not believe it coherent POV-wise to keep the Ramallah article title, which apparently used the wording of the local Hebrew press, but hold to ransom the same local press default nomenclature for the title of an article regarding an attempt on the life of Palestinians in West Jerusalem.
As for Ma'ariv. Needless nit-picking. The Ma'ariv notice is referred to in the footnote, where I specify self-evidently where that came from.Nishidani (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit that you created this article to make a point, and that your idea of NPOV is that if there's an article with the word "lynch" in the title where the victims are Israeli, we must have an article with "lynch" in the title where the victims are Arabs? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give some evidence from what I have written here for that illation? As for creating articles 'to make a point', look around. That is basically what underlies most of User:Activism's work here, on the face of it. Nishidani (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are referring to the Ramallah analogy. Actually I noted the Ramallah article, which I've long been familiar with, only after reflecting on DGG's change of title this morning. In plain man's terms, I wrote an article which followed Israeli press reports which everywhere write of a lynch in Zion Place (anyone can check this in 10 seconds). I use that language because it is Israeli usage. It is challenged as not proper to wikipedia. I think of the analogy with the Ramallah article, and, genius!, you suggest I wrote the article in order to make a point about the Ramallah article. Where did you study logic? Nishidani (talk) 09:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Israeli press does not "everywhere write of a lynch in Zion Place". Only Ynet uses the term lynch with no qualifications. Indeed anyone can check that in 10 seconds.
And you were the one who brought up the Ramallah lynch (as if it is comparable to what happened in Jerusalem), so what do you want exactly? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You just removed 'beaten almost to death'. I'm not halfway through the sources I downloaded but that phrasing is easily verified. Please see Lahav Harkov, 'Rivlin to Arab J'lem 'lynching' victim: We're sorry,' at Jerusalem Post, 23 August, 2012:'Eight teenagers were arrested this week for beating Julani almost to death just after midnight in Zion Square last Thursday.' I'll put that source in now, and would appreciate if you accepted its reversion to the original language.Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you show me that most sources use "beaten almost to death" rather than "beaten unconscious", I won't object to restoring that language. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Israeli press does not "everywhere write of a lynch in Zion Place".

Of course. The Israeli press everywhere writes of a 'lynch' that took place in 'Zion Square'. So, what's the problem? Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Israeli press mostly does not use "lynch" unqualified. I'm sure you know this and anyone can check the sources, so what are you going on about? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who said the Israeli press used 'lynch' unqualified? Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So why do you want to use "lynch" unqualified? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When did I say that I wanted to use "lynch" unqualified? I gave the reasons why I adopted the title I gave the article: because 'lynch' was the default term used by politicians, journalists of all descriptions, and police to describe what happened. Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, let me rephrase. Why did you use "lynch" unqualified? It certainly is not the "default term used" and any quick review of the sources in the article shows. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a small courtesy but please run your eyes over the titles of the smattering of sources in the ref.section. I have downloaded over 40 sources, and the word is recurrent in most of them. Sometimes it's qualified, mostly it is not. There's not need for a psychiatric diagnosis of 'why' I used "lynch" unqualified. It's all over the sources thus, and I haven't even troubled to use the Hebrew sources yet, which are far more interesting.Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have, but let's go over them just so there's no confusion.
  • Harkov, JPost, 'lynch' in quote marks in the headline, doesn't appear in the article.
  • Kershner, NYT, "described as an attempted lynching"
  • Mackey, NYT blog, 'a lynch' in quotes in the headline, reports other people describing it as a lynch in quotes in the article.
  • Kalman, Times of Israel, "lynch" in double quotes once in the body of the article.
  • Davidson, New Yorker blog, "lynch" in double quotes. (Here's a link to the article)
  • Weiss, Irish Times, "attempted lynch"
  • Mozgovoya, Haaretz, can't see the article. This is the correct link.
  • Oppenheimer, YNet op-ed, calls it a lynch in the headline, attempted lynch in the body
  • Harkov et al, JPost, (Correct link), 'lynch' in quotes in the headline, doesn't appear in the body.
  • Lis, Haaretz, can't see the article, 'lynch' in quotes in the headline.
  • Rosenbeg, Haaretz, can't see the article, "attempt to lynch" in the headline, "referred to as a 'lynching'" in the first paragraph.
That's the first column of the current reflist. I think I've proven my point. "Sometimes it's qualified, mostly it is not" is simply incorrect. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. It's late here, and I'll look at this tomorrow. I surmise you think that lynch in quote marks consistently in headlines over a broad range of newspapers does not provide a legitimate ground for writing 'Zion square 'lynch',' or some variant thereof, as the article name. Why this should be so is obscure to me. If you look at Bat Ayin ax attack, only one source appears to refer to it in that way, and, ironically, that is the Palestinian news agency, Ma'an. Actually, the article does require the Hebrew source expressions customarily used to describe the event, and I welcome editors to add it or them to the lead. Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you didn't read very closely, but most of those don't even have "lynch" in quote marks in the headline. The fact it's in quotes is a good indication the newspaper isn't comfortable using the term as its own and wants the reader to understand its using someone else's words. And that's the headline, which is not necessarily written by the journalist who wrote the rest of the article. Not a single one of those sources uses "lynch" unqualified, except for the YNet op-ed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the main difference between the the title of Bat Ayin ax attack and your proposed title for this article is that the former is correct in normal English usage (ie, someone carried out an attack with an ax in Bat Ayin) while the latter is not (open a dictionary, "lynch" means murder. Your assertions about Japanese usage notwithstanding). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, I'm highly offended by your accusation at me, which is complete bull. Accusing me without even having me here on the talk page to defend myself... I thought we finished with the whole debate on how most of my articles aren't even related to I-P... You could say the same thing about any number of other editors, which I know of plenty off the top of my head... --Activism1234 00:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming Activism considers satire of his work to be an "accusation" of some kind, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, . . where's my accusation at you? This talk page has taken on the paradoxical quality of being increasingly fascinating as it is tedious in its barrel scraping for non-policy-based objections to, well, anything, and personal innuendoes. I can understandf NMMGG who just remarked on another page that he has a personal vocation on wikipedia to keep bad people like myself 'honest', but your remark here is cut out of imaginary cloth, much as NMMGG's extraordinary pettifogging about the use of lynch.Nishidani (talk) 07:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily, I'm not the only editor who objected to your use of "lynch". Let me guess. DGG and I are on some kind of mailing list? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DGG has made a considered and nuanced practice and policy-based set of objections. He did not cast about for any stick to throw at something he dislikes, as is apparently the case with your objections.

(a)There are some good references calling it a lynching in the headline, but not all of them do. (b)it is a rather loose and sensationalist use of the word. (c) Attempted lynching is the closest to a description, and is what it would be in US law. But I think we have very seriously tried to avoid the term in titles.

(a) concedes that my provisory title had good references behind it.
(b) argues however that it is a ' rather loose and and sensationalist use of the word', My reply would be that, as at Gaza War, many long objected to the Arabic terms as a 'loose and sensationalist' use of the word massacre, but sources consistently used it, and it had to be adopted because we go by sources.
(c) In US law it would be 'attempted lynching'. Some sources actually do use that combination, and I have no objection to a solution of this kind. I do object to the idea that it cannot be in the title
(d) on the basis that 'we (on wikipedia) seriously try to avoid the term in titles'. In the I/P area I gave the instance of 2000 Ramallah lynching. Most English users associate lynching with a killing by mob violence of an innocent member of a minority community, almost invariably by hanging. I have no objection to the use of Ramallah lynching because the word there reflects usage in the Hebrew sources, though instinctively I would have described it as a slaughter (or massacre, though the former is more precise because massacre implies several) or butchery, which is what it was.
I can argue with reasoned objections, but answering someone whose rapid-fire challenges resembles those of a machine that scrambles excuses for eliding on any grounds something disliked is rather pointless, NMMGG. Nishidani (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. This is not the first time I make an objection and you argue with me but when someone else makes the same objection you accept it without argument. Can't say I care as long as the problem is solved. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The public debate in Israel section

[edit]

This section is full of mostly un-notable people, all saying pretty much the same stuff. So I'm not sure why it's called a "debate", nor why all these people are quoted, other than the usual coatracking we've come to expect from some editors. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template used in most of these recent articles organizes the page around an incident which is then followed by International reactions, Israel, the US, etc.etc., consisting of off-the-shelf customary sound-bites by the usual line-up of heads of states or politicians. Before I edited Price tag policy (look at the history), most of the page and the sources added were all to do with declarations by every imaginable politician or rabbi or member of the commentariat expressing condemnation (at one incident). These lists are read, I suspect, by no one. In the present case, since one of the main points of agreement by politicians was that we have an educational issue, the press interviewed many local academics whose professional life as teachers keeps them in touch with that area. Again, my practice is to refer to the article what sources choose to highlight or quote, without fear or favour. I don't think it is our job to make judgements about the 'notability' of people who, in mainstream sources, are interviewed because the local Israeli press considers their views noteworthy, and broadcasts them to the public. What they say is certainly more reflective than the standard brand name utterance we usually get (certainly not here in Rivkin's exemplary words) all over the world from politicians. Jürgen Habermas recently spoke in Israel on this issue, of which he is an authority: civic discourse underlies democracy and can't survive if it is supplanted in the public sphere by the inauthentic jargon of pollies and their spin-meisters.Nishidani (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And, by the way, when someone reverts on a hypothetical objection (might be a copyright violation) a whole section of a page rather than civilly adopting a readily available alternative, i.e. collaborating in rewriting the section so its language is sufficiently distanced from the source to avoid that possibility, in the I/P area it usually flags 1R gamesmanship strategies. It induces the original author to restore it, and then other editors step in to rerevert, and make editing the page impossible. I hope this is not the case here, since I have quite a lot of work still to do. Nishidani (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. If there's a copyright violation it should be removed immediately and I did not remove "a whole section", I removed exactly what I thought is probably a copyright violation, which was a paragraph that contained whole sentences you copied from an article, including "creative language". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Benjamin

[edit]

I am adding Jessie Benjamin, 'A Lynching in Jerusalem: Anatomy of Jewish racism,’ at Mondoweiss, August 21, 2012. From experience I know people might challenge this as not RS, which however (see that guideline) is certainly is for Benjamin's views. He is participating, as a sociologist, in an American Jewish community reflection, he had academic standing as a sociologist with a career interest in and publications on these issues, and, as a yeshiva drop-out from Jerusalem, (like two of the suspected perpetrators), with an in-depth personal knowledge of the youth culture at Zion square over the decades, considerable insight. His piece reflects information in the Hebrew press which, so far, I have refrained (this is the English wikipedia) from using, but I will not use anything in his reportage that has to do with facts (which would violate RS guidelines, since Mondoweiss is problematical as a source for facts reportedly bearing on the unfolding of the event). My synthesis of his approach and conclusions clarifies that these are his personal, if sociologically informed, views as a member of the community debating the event.Nishidani (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec):For the record, I posted this and opened a discussion on the edit I made. Without an the slightest attempt at responding to my analysis here, Activism1234just repeated NMMGG's revert with the edit summary.
Mondoweiss is WP:FRINGE dedicated to covering any negative story on Israel and reporting it; often repeats anti-Semitic slurs/cartoons; not RS for Wikipedia.Actually that is close to a WP:BLP violation since Philip Weiss is not known to be a purveyor of anti-Semitism, or a self-hating Jew except in fringe ultra-Zionist websites. It is not only inaccurate, it is certainly RS for what an Israeli-American academic sociologist writes under his own name, and therefore this deletion looks pretextual, if predictable.Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If NNMG made a revert, I didn't notice it when I went to check my watchlist and saw your edit that put in a reference from Mondoweiss, which I reverted. For the record, we're not putting into the article that Mondoweiss is an anti-Semitic fringe website, so it's not really BLP at all. I'm not sure what an "ultra-Zionist website" is though, but I'd assume then Mondoweiss certainly isn't a "moderate" website but rather the exact polar opposite. Indeed, this accusation is baseless, as I never said anything about Philip Weiss himself, just his website. Perhaps you should check out this article in The Atlantic (is that too ultra-Zionist?), this piece in Tablet (is that too ultra-Zionist?, this rumination (not an RS, a blog, not ultra-Zionist either, but a good essay), etc... No need to include it. --Activism1234 16:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go, the usual swarming, no argument, no iontelligible policy, just a use of Ir and a quippy assertion.Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that's great, compare people to locusts and vermin... --Activism1234 16:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What revert did I allegedly make of Mondoweiss? Here we go, the usual baseless accusations. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its WP:UNDUE to include him if his view was notable he would be printed by WP:RS--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it has been mentioned at A/I that you do not often write intelligible remarks. It is not intelligible when you write 'he would be printed at WP:RS,' and the statement only underlines that you do not understand wiki policy, on WP:Undue or WP:RS.
You really don't understand what Shrike was saying? If so, I'd question your competence at WP, but I know full well that you understand what he said... --Activism1234 16:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, after a WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE reference was removed, you just reinserted it... Really? --Activism1234 15:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, While copying and reformatting my references to include the quite unobjectionable note from Benjamin high up, in which he clarifies what the word 'lynch' means in Hebrew, I pressed the button, and found, on checking the page, that the Benjamin section had been removed. Don't let's get into this game of swarming to edit, while someone else is drafting, to make it look as though I am misbehaving. Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I simply think that it would make sense to leave it out for now. I also would appreciate if you stop comparing people to locusts and vermin. Although I don't expect you to commit genocide, it is a precursor and terminology used in many genocides (see Holocaust, Rwanda, etc), and the usage of it is despicable and offensive. Thanks. --Activism1234 16:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinions 'I simply think', are totally irrelevant. And what does for now mean? Are you saying that, 'okay. For the moment let's not put that in. Let's put it in later'?

I also would appreciate if you stop comparing people to locusts and vermin.

You'd better document where you think I said that very rapidly, because it is offensive, untrue, and reportable, as an extreme case of WP:NPA, and you are insinuating that my language favours genocidal terminology. Bees swarm, and Vergil wrote a marvellous poem on the phenomenon without any classicist I know ever interpreting this as propaganda for Roman genocide in Gaul. I expect an immediate retraction and apology.
Please note that apart from these patent attempts to get me wound up, so that the concrete issues of article construction are ignored or bogged down by petty bitching and innuendoes, neither you nor Shrike have given one reasoned policy based ground for removing what you excised.Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote "I simply think," if you'd read the rest more carefully you'd also notice I wasn't saying "I simply think we shouldn't include this person," but rather "Once someone reverted it with reasonable objections, we should'nt reinsert it back into the article just like that." All of this is clear English... The comparison is that you said "the usual swarming" in regards to some editors' objections. Intentional or not, it's offensive. Also, reading what I wrote, you'd notice I said it is used as a precursor in many genocides, while I don't expect you to commit one, so saying I insinuated that you favored genocidal terminology is absurd, and that may call into question one's competence with English, would it not? Nowhere in the world did I mention anything of the sort - I just noted the comparison between the two and how highly offensive it was, along with a polite request to desist from such terminology in the future. Well that's irrelevant, if you'd read what I wrote again, you'd notice I (and others) mention such policies as WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. --Activism1234 16:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel you're looking too deep into something or misreading it and interpreting it in your own way which isn't how it's written, and I hope that the above would clear that up, although it's a side point that I don't think is worth getting into here, and which I believe was reasonably explalined above as simply a polite request to desist from intentional or unintentional offensive language. --Activism1234 16:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English wikipedia where English usage is observed, and we do not countenance people reading into common idioms in English connotations that exist alone for, say, the customary word used in a foreign language to translate words, as here you have interpreted my innocuous use of 'swarm' in the way it is used in current Hebrew. I expect an apology, if only because, as a linguist, I object to this kind of infantile confusion, esp. if it has a polemical and offensive edge, as your remark had.Nishidani (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you're thinking I interpreted it in a Hebrew sense? But that's not true, at all. I viewed it as offensive, because it's using an animalistic activity to describe human beings, that's all, like comparing human beings to mushrooms or cockroaches, that's it. I haven't misinterpreted anything you said, but perhaps you simply haven't realized that what you said is offensive, intentional or not. I don't see the need to apologize for someone else's offensive terminology, intentional or not, and for a polite request to desist from such terminology (we're not in 5th grade...). Preferrably, you would just simply understand the concerns of another editor and desist from the terminology and move on to the main topic at hand. --Activism1234 17:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh terrific! I misinterpreted my mother-tongue, and have wasted 5 decades on philology with the misapprehension I understand it! :::::What you think privately consider offensive is not offensive in English. The verb “to swarm” in Hebrew specifically connotes insects. It's reasonable, given your egregious misprision, to infer that you are linguistically cross-wired on this.Need proof of the obvious?
When Rabin said he would not have Palestinians "swarming" in Israel, foreign reportage has to gloss the point to get over into English its original implications. Yitzhak Rabin said Wednesday he would not allow Palestinians “to swarm among us,’’ as an indefinite closure of the occupied lands entered its second week. . .The verb “to swarm” in Hebrew specifically connotes insects.” See Lisa Talesnick, 'Rabin: Palestinians not allowed to ‘swarm’ in Israel,’ Associated Press/The Daily Gazette, Thursday April 8, 1993 p.13
The word is standard in mainstream newspaper coverage exactly as I used it.

The two words that political headline writers pair most frequently are “lobbyists” and “swarm.” As in: “Lobbyists Swarm onto Cable Issue” (Los Angeles Daily News); “A Finance Overhaul Fight Draws a Swarm of Lobbyists” (New York Times);”Credit Card Industr Lobbyists Swarm Congress to Defeat Refdorm Bills” (Colorada Independent):”LObbyistsm, Bankers Swarm US AGRICULTURAL Committee” (Reuters); “Lobbyists Swarm Capitol to Influence Health Reform “(Centre for Public Integrity) and so on.' Joshua Holland, The Fifteen Biggest Lies about the Economy: And Everything Else the Right Doesn't Want You to Know about Taxes, Jobs, and Corporate America, Wiley & Sons, 2010 pp.149-150

That you find it offensive and use your incompetence with nuanced English to misinterpret what I, for one, say is a problem, and best addressed by a simple polite retraction of your vicious innuendo.Nishidani (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Woah! You can read my brain now! Damn it, I got caught lying again, you are right, since your brain-reading abilities show that I was interpreting it in some "Hebrew way." Well, what can I say, you know my brain and what I think better than I do! I'll let you know if I have any similar problems in the future, or if I think something but I'm not sure whether that's actually what my brain is thinking. Thank you for the help. I'll need to read more into this, as it's confusing why I would interpret it in some "hebrew way" when I don't speak it that much and it's not my mother tongue, but I trust your mind-reading abilities. And I of course apologize, now that I was caught in the act by someone who can read my own mind better than I can! --Activism1234 17:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not your mother-tongue all the worse, because you are not using English competently in making that hallucinated connection between 'swarm' and 'genocide'. Two things (a) I provided evidence that you attribute to an English word an intrinsic innuendo the word customarily lacks (b) when this was pointed out, you changed the goalposts. I'm sure you can google up a translation of Heidegger's neo-Romantic affirmation:Die Sprache spricht, nicht der Mensch. Der Mensch spricht nur, indem er geschicklich der Sprache entspricht. It is an acquired truism of modernity that we are as much spoken by our language(s), and here your usage is conflicted by some associations not natural to English usage. No need for wild imaginings about my putative mind-reading abilities. Nishidani (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mondoweiss is indeed nothing more than a group blog, and your assertions notwithstanding, Jesse Benjamin does not seem be an expert in the field. Here's his bio [1].
Instead of whining that people are trying to entrap you using 1RR (which, by the way, I could easily report you for at this point), you should just stop editing warring. If someone reverts you, even someone you don't like, don't just turn around and edit war the information back in. In this specific case, someone reverted you and another editor supported the revert, both on the grounds of reliability and UNDUE. What you're supposed to do at this point is take it to RS/N, not put it back in the article and attack other editors, although I understand you have trouble resisting both urges. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I intended to do, before I had to air the house after burning a cutlet. If you think I attack people report it, if you think I suffer from urges to revert anything but the kind of mechanical nuisance-making I see in unproductive layabouts who regard reverting per distaste as a right, you're mistaken. Nishidani (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you intended to do, but what you did do is put it back in the article after two editors objected. And apparently you think you do have a right to revert "mechanical nuisance-making" (read: policy based objections you don't like) by "unproductive layabouts" (not an attack, obviously). Well you don't. Feel free to continue to whine about people trying to entrap you with 1RR, though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're public declaration that you have to keep me honest is fine, but in practice this suspiciousness of malevolence behind what I do is getting a tad, well, yawnful.
look at the time stamp I was working with two pages open on the article, on two different sections, slowly. I did this, and then this, within 10 minutes, closing both pages as I concluded my additions to each section, and only then looking over the page did I realize Activism had removed in the meantime my source for the innocuous statement on the meaning of ‘lynch’ in Hebrew. Paranoia is interesting, but the hermeneutics of suspicion are far more complex than deductions about bullshit in the cow’s paddock. Nishidani (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A. Imagine the amount of fun you'd have if someone you don't like used "you're" instead of "your".
B. Very interesting story. I guess someone who didn't think of that himself is paranoid. I wonder what happened to the edit conflict you get when you try to save something someone has already changed? Nah, let's not let that kind of stuff get in the way of a good tale.
Bottom line - you restored material that was removed by another editor and objected to by a third. Perhaps this was unintentional but you didn't correct it when it was brought to your attention. Instead you made accusations about swarming, although I do notice there are now at least 3 of your buddies editing the article. I assume they're not "swarming", but engaged in a lovely ballet of article improvement? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All round though, a good day’s work. I wrote only 4 kb, compared to 20 yesterday I guess, so I was slowed down to some effect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

not on

[edit]

Bali ultimate just reverted me with the edit summary of "not on". That doesn't sound like a policy based reason to revert. Please elaborate. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to obscure what happened because you are here as a propagandist for a cause. Your claims that such information needs to be excluded are laughable. The entire point of your edits is to slant the article. That is what I mean by "not on." You are part of a group of people who have no interest in neutral content. Clear?Bali ultimate (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you were looking in a mirror. This article is already slanted and I'm trying to give it some semblance of NPOV.
There is exactly one source that says they were "beaten nearly to death". Most either say "severely beaten" or "beaten unconscious". The language as it is now is an NPOV violation, not to mention obviously sensationalist.
There is exactly one article that has a large quote from facebook, that mentions the claim that police treated the area as a murder scene. Why does this belong in the first paragraph of the lead?
Where does Tibi say he's talking about what happened in Jerusalem rather than in Tel Aviv, which seems quite obvious from the context?
Do you have any policy based reasons for your revert, or just silly accusations? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Ynet article, contra your edit summary, connects the two issues in the first sentence, explicitly. The bit you dismiss as "from Facebook" is actually from Haaretz, which I think you know is a large Israeli newspaper as well. You want to disqualify Haaretz? Take the paper on on its merits. Your summaries explaining the reasons for your removals were deceptive. i don't have a dog in the Israeli-Palestinian fight. But you do. And it's sad.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ynet does not connect Tibi's words to this incident. Neither does Tibi. It says that in general what happened in Tel Aviv "could be another case" and that's it.
The bit is from facebook, quoted in Haaretz. Not analyzed or discussed, just a piece from a long quote. I don't want to disqualify Haaretz, I want to know why this is in the first sentence of the lead. It's not even mentioned in the body of the article and has no other source.
No response on the "beaten to death" thing?
As for your dog, please, I've seen you around. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on this, uniquely, NMMGG got it right here. 'To death' is the Facebook account, in all but one source, though a good many sources say that was the state paramedics found him in. Since attribution is lacking, I have adjusted to ' beaten unconscious'. His objection to the Tibi comment is wrong. Tibi's comment clearly connects the two, as does Ynet.Nishidani (talk) 06:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hatred in their eyes

[edit]

Regarding this:

After the assailants fled, others in the vicinity stood about shouting with hatred in their eyes.

Perhaps it would be better to quote the actual facebook thing here? Having this outside of quotes seems to be using the facebook post as a reliable source. The NYT source its cited to only quotes the passage.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Bali ultimate for a good fix!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This, and the taxi fire-bombing

[edit]

From the lead; I was going to remove the comma but then it occurred to me that I can't tell if the "this" means the 13 year old's lack of regrets or the incident itself. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"micro cosmos"

[edit]

I can't see the Haaretz article that this is sourced to. Is it really two words in the quote? It's usually one in English, but of course we have to respect the quote.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine the word should be "microcosm." If it's a quote, sounds like a common malapropism. Adding: It's a faithful reproduction of what was in the ynet article. I suspect the speaking was done in hebrew, and this is a poor translation/copy editing job. One solution is to paraphrase something like "The Knesset speaker said it was a small example 'of a national problem that could endanger Israeli democracy.'"Bali ultimate (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should selfban myself for such shit. The statement '"This is a micro cosmos of a national problem that could endanger Israeli democracy," the Knesset speaker warned,' is in two sources coming from a mistake by a source translator which then was picked up by others who copied.
Ynet and then tThe Irish Times got it wrong (I rushed all this, and copy and pasted quotes).
  • The correct translation is in the New York Times:-
'Reuven Rivlin, the speaker of Israel’s Parliament, called it “a microcosm of a national problem that could endanger Israeli democracy,” and said the government itself is responsible.' news source = Jodi Rudoren and Isabel Kershner, ‘After Attacks, Israeli Schools Confront Hate,’, New York Times, 27 August, 2012.
My apologies. I'll wait till you're through before editing.Nishidani (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm through. Maybe you can fix that one since you have the source?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sorry for the bother. I hope I haven't removed anything. Shuffling stuff about is tricky while you're editing in new stuff as well. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Benjamin again

[edit]

I don't think any reasonable arguments have been advanced to deny the utility of at least this source (rephrase the point as one will) for the commentary section. I'm reposting it as originally drafted before it was expunged, for review.

*Jesse Benjamin, an Israeli American Associate Professor of Sociology at Kennesaw State University, writing for Mondoweiss, the alternative news website run by Philip Weiss and Adam Horowitz, contextualized the incident within a detailed memoir of his own youthful experiences as a Jerusalem yeshiva dropout in Zion Square, and argued the attack constituted a wake-up call to challenge what he called Jim Crow practices. Jewish allies within Israeli society are needed to assist Palestinians in exposing the problem, he argues, but concludes that, 'the globalized West still holds onto Jews as the victims par excellence,' and after 9/11, is even more comfortable in denying humanity to Arabs.(Jessie Benjamin, 'A Lynching in Jerusalem: Anatomy of Jewish racism,’ at Mondoweiss, August 21, 2012.)

  • That it appears in Mondoweiss, which, I repeated has nothing to do with antisemitism, -unless one pushes for the nonsensical equation of Jewish critical anti-Zionism with antisemitic self-hatred, is irrelevant and frankly idiotic. It is an op-ed by an Israeli-American academic with deep experience of the youth culture of Zion square (perhaps it could be entered at that article).
  • Everything said in my synthesis has been said by other mainstream commentators in the sources of this article, so the WP:fringe or WP:Undue objections are erratic. But, in addition, what Benjamin's essay has is far more depth on the youth culture behind that attack, which no other article here has. I'll leave it to others to determine whether or not it may be reintroduced.Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sources

[edit]

It is immaterial whether Max Blumenthal is an activist journalist or not (who there isn't). He is a known commentator, widely published, and the author of reliably published books. The same is true of the other volume. No one so far is imposing a criteria for RS citation that says every fact has to come from an technical specialist on each and every issue: were that true what is Alan Dershowitz doing everywhere here, when he knows nothing about the subject and gets his facts wrong. I leave that crap in because he is a name and reliably published, etc.etc.etc. etc. As to removing Aviv Tatarsky, he is a field researcher for Ir Amim and is regularly published in mainstream news outlets because he is a specialist on Jerusalem. I.e.,

Max Blumenthal is not a reliable source for facts. As much as it dismays you, that's the conclusion every single discussion about the guy arrived at. Neither is Alon Gratch, some guy who wrote a book. +972 is a group blog. Anyone can write whatever they want there. When it's someone unknown that is not a reliable source for facts. None of these sources are reliably published.
You know all this. Restoring these sources is just another indication of your tendentious editing. I'm glad your google fishing expedition resulted in some catches, but some of them are unfortunately not good enough to be included here as sources of fact. You have also violated 1RR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Every single discussion about the guy arrived at.'
Incorrect. The latest request at RS/N had only one external and highly experienced editor commenting, and he clear using Blumenthal is perfectly acceptable.
see here. If Ian Lustick, one of the finest scholars on the I/P conflict, thinks him important enough to debate, and in the debate explicitly rercommends to university students that they read MB's books, and the debate was amicable, what wiki editors with a clearly identifiable animus against a Palestinian POV think is neither here nor there. Apart from yourself, Plot Spoiler and Bad Dryer, -all utterly preditcable positions,- only one person supported your view with arguments that show a complete unfamiliarity with Wikipedia, a newbie blow in with almost no edits, who said his piece and disappeared, User:DaniDin. The only independent indisputably neutral editor there User:Rhoark found Blumenthal’s book acceptable. ‘Reliability is always in a context. There is no blanket reason material by Max Blumenthal should be considered always or usually unreliable, in or out of the Israel-Palestine topic.(2015)
The only other discussion I have found is here. One outside opinion User:Owain the 1st here says he’s fine.(2011)
If I have violated 1R please clarify, and I'll get Nableezy to check, and if you are correct, I will of course revert. But the material goes in. Both sources, whatever they are presently cited for, will inevitably be included for the simple reason that WP:EVENT edtc criteria demand the page indicate that an incident is discussed over time, and those two books are part of the evidence that the episode is mentioned over the succeeding years. In that sense, the removal of them constitutes removal of exactly the evidence required to show that the article does not deal with an event that, once reported, was then ignored.Nishidani (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are misconstruing previous discussion as well as wikipedia policy. The ONUS is on you to find consensus a source is reliable, not on me to find that it isn't. What wikipedia policy or guideline says that the fact someone debated him makes him reliable? That's ridiculous.
Max Blumenthal is not a reliable source for facts about anyone except himself. If the stuff he said is a fact, it should be quite easy for you to find other sources that say what he does. The same goes for that random psycologist you found while searching google books. He is not an expert in the field and his book is not by an academic press. What exactly do you think makes him RS? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating your personal convictions is not an argument valid for Wikipedia, which is ruled by policies. Since when have you or anyone else argued that articles in the I/P area require an academic imprint. The only academic who counts, for that matter, is Lustick, who, as I said, disagrees with you. Don't of course take my word for it. Anyone can check the debate. For you he is unreliable, for Lustick his work is important. As to the other, all editors use google to get information, so repeating that when I do what everyone of necessity does, it becomes a 'google fishing expedition' is prejudicial. As to Alon Gratch, he's an Israeli, raised there, educated there, with a PhD, writing of Israel, and reliably published. Journalists are no more reliable for facts than someone of his background and formation, and your objection is petty and subjective. If you have a problem with this, go and challenge it at RSN. Most of the articles I see you now editing, are full of mediocre sources. Not a whisper from you - they happen to say things you appear to like. Up comes an Israeli psychologist writing on his country, after years as a psychologist with police departments (i.e. violence control) and you split hairs. This kind of argument is utterly pointless. You cannot insist in good faith on an extreme high bar on anything an editor like myself might add, while showing a complacent insouciance to mediocre sourcing added by anyone else if it makes one party to the dispute look either good or a victim.Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that any Israeli with a PhD that gets a book published is a reliable source for facts about Israel? That's a very slippery slope you know. I'm very curious to hear your answer, apropos good faith. Let's hear it.
Again, what policy are you basing your idea that the fact Lustick invited him to a debate means anything he writes is reliable for facts? Seriously, that's a ridiculous argument. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editors considering +972 Magazine are singularly lucky that there are independent reliable third party sources cited right there in the Wikipedia article detailing exactly how 972 fulfills the requirements of being a reliable publisher. That saves a lot of gumshoe work. As for Blumenthal, I haven't even heard a complaint, except from the fact that he's critical of Israel. If you think he's wrong, that's fine, but the right response is not suppression but to bring sources you think are right. Rhoark (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you think makes +972 a reliable source? The fact it's a group blog? When an established journalist posts something there, it could be reliable. When other people do, it's just a blog.
As for Blumenthal, you haven't heard a complaint? Seriously? Here's just one example, by someone who's agrees with him politically. He is quite obviously not a reliable source for facts, particularly the kind of fact he's sourced for here, which should be quite easy to find elsewhere if it's true. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So Eric Alterman got upset? Philip Weiss was remonstrative about just one point, and Lustick does not look disconcerted as he is painted out to be - check the video. Nina Burleigh likes it, while being critical. J.J. Goldberg notes he misspelt Moloch and got "moshav" wrong and hates it. David Dean Shulman [2] that:'"There is much truth in its gruesome vignettes of modern Israeli hypernationalism" etc.etc. Blumenthal answered much of this 'opinionizing' here and and here making a solid case that they were ignoring the book, their own muddled records, and just being upset. No one is saying Blumenthal is making everything up. Many recognize that the things that horrify him about Israel are quite real - Lustick agrees, so does Shulman. Alterman and Goldberg don't want to hear about it - the problem is them thair Palestinians. This diversity of opinion is as it should be. No one has yet to demonstrate that the author has a long track record of making things up. That was a charge never leveled at him in his earlier muckraking investigative days, then he looked at Israel, and suddenly the same techniques he used to report on US politics were suddenly bad, bad, bad if applied to Israel. It's the same old story. Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that many of people who agree with him politically say he's not a reliable narrator, should be enough of a hint as to his reliability. This guy is an activist and polemicist and not a reliable source for facts.
You seemed to have missed my question above: "Are you saying that any Israeli with a PhD that gets a book published is a reliable source for facts about Israel? That's a very slippery slope you know. I'm very curious to hear your answer, apropos good faith." No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The link to The Nation contains no examples of factual errors, rather criticizing Blumenthal on his choices of tone and emphasis. Rhoark (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have missed my point at the outset:your opposition is has no policy basis is based on a personal impression, probably of a writer you've never read, and finally you were shown to be flat wrong in the assertion you made at the outset: i.e.

Max Blumenthal is not a reliable source for facts. As much as it dismays you, that's the conclusion every single discussion about the guy arrived at.

As shown, in two RSN discussions, the only external input was positive. C ould from now on in you try to use evidence for your arguments, rather than harping on about your personal feelings about sources?Nishidani (talk) 07:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly show me where CONS says it is made only on "external input", apropos "policy basis". Could you from now on in try to use actual policy for your arguments rather than harping on about your personal feelings about who participated in a discussion? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's it. You're playing games: I expect following my edits and trying to 'stir' me into some endless argument has some major function in your life - you don't appear to be able to do without the Nishidani pursuit - but you'll have to play it one-handed. I've said what I have to say on this and am under no obligation to provide you with a discursive anodyne for a restless boredom. CheersNishidani (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you having a bout of paranoia or what's going on? As you well know, I've had this article on my watchlist for years. I don't need to follow you here. Nor do I enjoy talking to you, so I try to keep that to a minimum. And yes, like it or not, you have to provide policy based arguments for inclusion. Luckily for you Rhoark showed up here to support your Blumenthal edit so I'm going to take that to RS/N, but nobody has supported your inclusion of Gratch, nor have you provided any sort of policy based argument to include him. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As I said, since you are alone in this, you do well to take it to RS/N, and I'd appreciate the courtesy of a notification when you do.Nishidani (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Got an email about my name being mentioned. I want to quote an answer of Nishidani to a question on the talk page "There is almost no encyclopedic writing in wiki articles". With this attitude, no wonder Blumenthal is considered RS. DaniDin 09:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the evidence that despite an extremely nugatory contribution under this name to wiki, you have a commanding knowledge of the minutiae of my past edits.Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
His diff is your direct reply to something he said, as can be easily be seen by clicking it. No commanding knowledge of any minutiae needed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Zion Square assault. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zion_Square_assault&oldid=1206147447"