User:HG1/archive2007 3

Battle of Jenin issue simple indeed.

I'm restating the point I made at Battle of Jenin, making it as simple as possible.

The sources collected by "windsofchange.com" (#1) state that their version of events (#2) is a "Minor View" (#3) (eg "reports that a massacre did not occur have received scant attention in the Western news media.") Our "Battle of Jenin" article is written around this "Minor View" (#4), in total opposition to Wikipedia policy (#5).

Which of those 5 elements are you disputing?

Alternatively, are you suggesting the debate is about something different? I'm afraid that "P1" (underlying bias in English speaking media) bore no relation to what I'd said and "P2" (basic reliability of English-speaking media) is not in dispute. PalestineRemembered 09:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi PR. I'm trying to stay clear of Jenin, so to speak, but I will reply to your note on my Talk. You characterize the wingsofchg sources as sources demonstrating the Minor View and Major View. But I think that they claim to demonstrate something slightly yet significantly different: the Minority Knowledgeable View and the Majority Less-knowledgeable View. See? As a result: Since Wikipedia depends on knowledge, not just a majority, the article needs to focus on Knowledgeable Views per reliable sources. Even if you don't agree with me, do you understand how I am distinguishing our viewpoints? (Well, that sounds a bit silly but I think mutual understanding is an important step....) Best, HG | Talk 14:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If we concentrate on "Truth" rather than "Verifiability", then the deniers are in an even worse situation. They don't appear to have anything to back their assertion "100s did not die" other than an unlikely verbal statement by one Palestinian, contradicted by the statement of the PA to the UN. The circumstantial evidence points to 100s of dead, some in collapsed houses, some buried in gardens. (No badly wounded found suggests 3 times more deaths than were found in the hospital).

And it gets still worse for them - under "Truth not Verifiability" we'd have to include mention of three refrigerated trailers (it's admitted they were in the camp while observers were excluded), and the trench with 30+ bodies (mentiond by some, including the only forensic expert to go in). Under "Truth not Verifiability" we'd have to give those claims precedence over the denials of those who blocked entry to the camp.

Defenders of Israel have sources to back parts of their claims eg there is no evidence for a "Machine-gunned against the wall" Nazi-style massacre - but absence of proof is not proof of absence. (In fact we have a report of one such massacre, small, confirmed by Major-General Giora Eiland, Head of the IDF Plans and Policy Directorate).

Without lots of study on your part, you'd obviously be unable to comment on the above factoids - but I'd still appreciate your telling me which of my 5 points are problematic. You've already discovered people in this article who won't answer questions ... I'm sure you don't want to join their number! You've had careful answers to your questions from me! PalestineRemembered 16:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: your reply on my Talk. You again ask which of your 5 points I find problematic. My answer is given above (pertaining to #3 and #4 if I grok your numbering). I don't understand what's not clear in your mind here. However, I wonder if your reply regarding the mortality figures (whether True or Verified) rather misses my concerns. Why? Because it still sounds like you are using these sources only to deal with the discourse using 'massacre' language, not with the mortality count. In reply to my original comment at Talk:Battle of Jenin, you said you didn't know quite what editing changes you'd make based on your cited wingsofchange sources and your inferences. (I added a reply there too, which you might look at.) Good luck. HG | Talk 18:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem - my argument breaks down into 5 very simple points/assertions. The sources collected by "windsofchange.com" (#1) state that their version of events (#2) is a "Minor View" (#3) (eg "reports that a massacre did not occur have received scant attention in the Western news media.") Our "Battle of Jenin" article is written around this "Minor View" (#4), in total opposition to Wikipedia policy (#5). Which one of these 5 points do you think is faulty? PalestineRemembered 19:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As stated above: #3 and #4, because (as stated above) the sources would be more accurately characterized or inferred (using what I perceive to be your method) as discussing the Minority Knowledgeable View and the Majority Less-knowledgeable View. (FYI better style to put ## before the text.) Also, if you don't mind my saying so, when you write that your argument is "very simple" then your words imply that I am too dense to get it. Of course, I know you're being perfectly gentlemanly here. So I don't think you're insulting, but you are not sufficiently putting yourself in the shoes of those (Steve, me, Kyaa, others?) who question your approach. For what it's worth -- my recommendation is (i) you and I take a 24 hr break from this thread, (ii) maybe folks shouldn't fuel the heat of discussion at Talk:BoJ, and (iii) you might work on a few sentences and footnotes that rely on the wingsofchange sources. These could be new or edited sentences. It's my sense that the BoJ Talk is started to be more exhausting than editorially constructive. Thanks for staying in touch. HG | Talk 19:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies - I didn't recognise "#3 and #4" as relating to my own numbering (perhaps because I was irritated by the two halves of the discussion being in two different places until I re-united them). I still don't understand what you're saying - windsofchange.com believe that there was no massacre. But they make little attempt to demonstrate it (having, I think, only a single, likely distorted quote from one Palestinian) - concentrating on abusing the media that disagrees with them. These other media sources (they concentrate on the British papers, but I suspect they had very similar problems with US media) were becoming even more loud in their condemnation of the IDF once they've been allowed into the camp and see for themselves what has happened. Their attempt top be the "Minority but Knowledgeable View" falls flat on it's face (even if it wasn't nonsense as regards WP:NPOV).

Coming to this affair in order to write an article for the encyclopedia and with no preconceptions, we have a problem initially deciding which view is the "Major" and which is the "Minor". However, it must be rapidly obvious that the "No Massacre" people are angry, likely badly informed - and admit that they're in a minority. The article needs to be written from the "Atrocity & possible Massacre" angle, because that's clearly the "Major View". Even the "Minority View" people tell us this is the case!

The Battle of Jenin TalkPages are sad memorials to sensible, "academic" people being driven up the wall by people who refuse to engage in any form of sensible discussion. That's not what is happening here - but the Minority Knowledgeable View and the Majority Less-knowledgeable View are unrecognisable in WP policy. You'd not even make that claim if you'd looked at the sources, since the windsofchange.com are angry and badly informed, whereas their targets are reporting what they'd actually been to see. PalestineRemembered 20:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You needn't apologize. Just to clarify on your last sentence -- I'm not claiming that the sources are Knowledgeable vs. Less-Knowledgeable, it's what you call the Minor View that distinguishes itself as more Knowledgeable. Get it? When you try to use Their View to prove a point, you are ignoring that their view subsumes a Knowledge evaluation. Anyway, let's give it a rest. HG | Talk 20:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still baffled. Commentaries/Op-Eds/Blogs are always written as if they were "Knowledgable". Most of them are written as if they were "Majority Knowledgable", it's (highly?) unusual to see them claiming to be "Minority Knowledgable" - but also very significant! We'd not accept their arguments and write our articles around their view anyway - and we'd certainly not write articles around those arguments if they admit they're "Minority"!

If you think I'm wearing you down by simple dogged bone-headedness, then you'd be tasting the medicine handed out to a considerable group who've previously been forced from Battle of Jenin by tactics much more tiresome than mine. Those people were "thoughtful and academic" contributors (much like you, in fact) and they've been driven off by the "No Massacre" crowd. The biggest difference between them and you may be that they assiduously tried to answer all questions before they gave up in frustration. PalestineRemembered 21:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I fear all your good work, attempting to make better use of references at Battle of Jenin has come to less than nought. See the nonsense that's going on there now. This on top of what was going on before - it's almost as if your wise words have made the problem worse. PalestineRemembered 16:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for addressing me in a complimentary manner. You thereby expose yourself to more unsolicited advice ;--) Having glanced at this talk page, I'm no mentor, but I suggest you find yourself a diversion, a way to chill out, or a haven for uncontroversial editing, until this settles down. You won't do yourself (or what you care about) much good while this is so heated up. Calmly and respectfully yours, HG | Talk 17:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How can I make sure that this article doesn't lose the "Totally disputed" tag while it's in this shocking state? PalestineRemembered 17:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

PR, for all I know, maybe you can't make sure of that. I don't know the exact state of the Talk over the tag. But I don't need to know. The tag is not so vital you can't revisit it in a few days, a week, etc. If the tag is under current discussion, you can just leave a deliberately courteous note, about how you beg to differ and will check back later on when the discussion is less heated. I admit I might have trouble following this advice myself, but there you have it. (Hey, partly thanks to you, I've been putting my energy into drafting material on special user pages, before placing them on the Talk pages. I want to let things cool off and I don't want to exacerbate Nagle's concern that I'm feeding trollism. So maybe I'm taking the advice. Maybe you could work on a careful exposition on a user page.) 2 cents, plus or minus a half cent. HG | Talk 18:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled - the Holocaust Deniers were eventually pushed into the darkest corners of society (and/or put in prison) and I'd (perhaps naively) supposed it was honorable and determined opposition to their arguments that did it. (Not that anyone seems to have learned much - a local organiser of the ADL was sacked recently for daring to suggest there was a genocide of the Armenians). Is it only possible to stop denial with the weapon of $millions? PalestineRemembered 18:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC

Of course

An explanatory note would definitely solve the problem. I was just playing devil's advocate. I read your argument for why discussion of the title remains important and think it was considerate of you to go the trouble to do it. I agree that policy-based discussion can continue as well. Tiamut 11:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Should we delete this list

Some people are selective they would like to see only lists of their own domination, what do u think does this list warrant deletion or should we let it stay?[1]--יודל 13:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Inserted from User's Talk page

WP:CANVASS ...

... is an important guidelines for you to read. "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to influence a community discussion.[1] Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive." etc etc. Anyway, I'm busy and already have access to this info. HG | Talk 16:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention i only left u that note because i see that u have some history in this issue, with the same person user IZAK about his other attempt to delete a similer page, [3] please do express your opinion regarding the issue i alerted u its our shared interest, or i may be mistaken, then be so kind and disregard the message. Have a good day--יודל 17:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Your prompt reply is responsive, provided you stop canvassing. Did you stop? HG | Talk 17:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

yes. i found that i was guilty of the paragraph votesocking i did not know it sorry i will op it thanks for alerting me on this.--יודל 17:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Cherry-picking statements.

Please have a look at this - what do you think of quotations from Benny Morris in a section entitled "The "Arab leaders' endorsement of flight" Theory" and a subsection called "Claims by scholars that support the theory that the flight was instigated by Arab leaders"? Elsewhere we know that Morris puts the "Endorsement of Flight" (or EoF) theory as accounting for around 5% of the exodus, with the 'Transfer principle' theory basically accounting for the rest. (This problem seems to have been written into the article with the deceptive titles of sections, something I've noticed before).

I'm very concerned by statements such as "all evidence for EoF or any other cause given by any reliable historian is acceptable without qualification", suggesting that this kind of cherry-picking is perfectly acceptable, when such a policy is bound to distort the words of reputable historians (while of course having no such effect on polemicists). And the statement suggests there are editors who have veto power over what appears in articles. It may be true, but I don't see it in WP:Policy anywhere - is there a list of these infallible editors somewhere? PalestineRemembered 06:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

PR, I don't have time now to deal with that article. If you don't mind, I will nevertheless express what you may collegially assume is "tough love" or "kind but tough" talk:

• You might consider the following plausible perspectives, (1) Morris has multiple writings and they may not be perfectly consistent, (2) it looks like the quotes use Morris for evidence (e.g., Arab leaders' orders), not merely for a conclusion about EoF percentage-wise, (3) does the 1st quote itself qualifies the EoF view ("reinforces the accusation against the Zionist side").
• Even if you're right, your language is heated and a bit uncharitable, i.e. not assuming good faith. For instance, in the user's words "all evidence for EoF or any other cause given by any reliable historian is acceptable without qualification" you interpret "without qualification" (italics added) to mean that the user is giving the "evidence" without qualification (which Morris does himself, #3 above). However, it is more charitable and more grammatical to assume that "without qualification" refers to the preceding noun phrase "reliable historian", i.e. Morris is acceptable as a reliable source of evidence in every article section. But you jump quickly to a cherry-picking charge, rather than ask your interlocutor questions. It's better to clarify, or at least reflect back how you read the person, before attacking them.
• You also appear not AGF when you tell me "the statement suggests there are editors who have veto power over what appears in articles." This seems like a personalizing and escalating attack. As I recently told Itzse about reductionist characterizations of Tiamut, even if you jump to these kind of conclusions about another editor (and even if it's "True"!), the etiquette here is to keep those thoughts to yourself. You should assume, and appeal to, the best qualities and motivations of fellow editors.
• Finally, why are you sending me an unsolicited request to intervene on a substantive question for an article I've never edited? I noticed that you recently accused Steve of a WP:CANVASS violation. Maybe valid, beats me. But don't look like you're calling a kettle. Of course, I don't mind your message -- indeed, I welcome it, knowing that you'll chew any straight dope I toss back at you -- but are you sure my welcome would nullify a Canvass accusation? (If so, did you check whether the other users welcomed Steve's msgs?)
• Anyway, it was smart of you to test your reactions with me, rather than on that Talk page w/GHCool. This is an appropriate use of our relationship and I hope you'll continue to enrich it. (Maybe more self-reflective if, rather than asking me questions about content, you preface by asking for advice about your own reactions.)

Unpredictably yet nevertheless, your truly, HG | Talk 07:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you're not well up on this particular topic and I was not (I'm pretty sure) inviting you to put on your hob-nail boots and come over to Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. I was looking to you to express your views on WP:Policy. I was particularily interested in your views on 1) the practice of "cherry-picking" quotations, something that would render worthless the writings of any and every serious historian on any topic. 2) the practice of hi-jacking discussions with mis-leading section titles (Battle of Jenin suffers badly from this effect, "massacre" is the only discussion allowed on the table, even before we get "No Massacre" rammed down our throats).

Incidentally, AGF is permanently violated in this case, since this editor quotes me in ways intended to disparage my contributions 4 times on his own UserPage. I do not believe this was due to any personalising behaviour on my part.

Over and above your comments on the two Policy matters above, perhaps you'd comment on whether it would be right for me to use my UserPage to highlight this other editor's claim - eg "all evidence for EoF or any other cause given by any reliable historian is acceptable without qualification." PalestineRemembered 08:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, my boots are in storage and I wear ballet slippers in WP. You'd save me clicks if you added a Talk-link to your signature, btw. Your #1 q about cherry-picking is answered w/my 1st bullet. That is, it doesn't look like necessarily like an inappropriate quote selection (cherry-picking) from Morris. So don't lead the witness (me). But instead of trying to figure out a Policy violation to pin on your battle-partner co-editor, I really do think, PR, you could just propose in Talk an edit that would reframe the quote with a sufficient yet neutral (not over-the-top, let's make a point) qualifier, as you feel is justified by the Morris' writings. Your #2 q. To what misleading section title do you refer? Also, (another kettle critique by me, when you it's "the only discussion allowed on the table," doesn't it sound like you're trying Own or have veto pwr over the page? ;->

I'm not trying to lead you as a witness, since I'm not asking you to get involved in that article. It would be unethical to do so, it'd be unfair on you (complex new? topic) and I'd shoot myself in the foot, because it's by no means obvious you agree with every word of mine and would follow me round like a lamb.

1) I believe the clip from Morris has been abused to make it seem (to the reasonable reader) that Morris supports the EoF theory. This rather obviously degrades the integrity of articles. The article is laid out in a "Pro/Con" format (adversarial system - no problem with that part), but to confuse the identity of contributors makes a careful reading and understanding of it impossible. It's like presenting a prosecution witness to the jury as a defence witness.

2) Not only is it confusing in this one article to cherry-pick references, but it damages writing of other articles. It'll tend to drive out good references to be replaced with bad. Morris is valuable and well respected precisely because his treatment of the topic is nuanced and he has no qualms about producing both sides of the case.

3) I have big problems with the way some/many of these articles have been laid out, and the aggressive way that any changes are reverted. Battle of Jenin and Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus suffer from the same effect, they could never deal with the subjects properly, even if it were not for all the other problems. PalestineRemembered 13:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Now you've made me curious about User:GHcool's accusations and rebuttals. In what we do you feel disparaged? He doesn't directly characterize you, as a User, in a way that strikes me as his assuming your bad faith. If you stand by your quotes, then what is your concern? Perhaps you are concerned that your quotes reflect poorly on you. (Indeed, I admit I think so.) If you regret your quotes in part, then maybe you'd like the situation remedied or ameliorated. If so, I would offer to serve as an intermediary in approaching GHcool. HG | Talk 11:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello HG - you've asked people to strike out all personal attacks, incivility and so forth on the Talk:Battle of Jenin page - an excellent idea. I'm not sure I'm guilty of any. The nearest to a dodgy one is this, which I suppose I could strike through to show good will. Another one is here - but I see no reason to strike any of this out (particularily when shortly afterwards we discovered this editor was running abusive socks). I do get involved in angry exchanges - see this, but I'm calmly squashing angry and highly POV attacks on me and my contributions (watch the subsequent exchange with Isarig, the final contribution is this from me). Here's another edit that likely upset people - but it's totally non-personal and proper. Also this one, [2], [3], [4] .... I needn't go on, you can search the TalkPage yourself.

Why am I moaning to you like this? Well, it would be a shame if you came to this mediation suspecting me of personal attacks and so forth, and that I'm one of the problems with this article. I don't believe I am. PalestineRemembered 09:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Very glad to hear from you about user conduct in Talk. I'd still ask you to strikeout as appropriate, esp from recent sections. You can revise to kinder wording when a point really needs to be there. (maybe mark revisions with // x y z // ) You or I can note on the Talk page that you've started/done this. Even if others decline to do so, I can't think of any real disadvantages for you. HG | Talk 13:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If you aren't sure what people find troubling, you can say that you've started and that you're open to further changes of unkind wording that others have felt. Exceedingly politely yours, HG | Talk 13:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I trust some of the people who claimed to be so very, very interested in this article are not now going to tell you/me/us "Gee, I'll pass on the invitation to present any evidence to the mediator because I'm no good at writing coherently - but I demand you still treat me as a genuine participant in the project" If this arises, may I break my tight self-imposed restraint and blow them a raspberry?

(Please inform me when you've read this response, because I'll have to come back and strike it through in case anyone snooping on your TalkPage is offended by it). PalestineRemembered 13:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi PR. LOL, can't you blow a raspberry off-line?! Anyway, consider it struck, ta da! (FYI If you referred to me as "the mediator" let me note that I'm only serving as a temporary facilitator now.) Next question: Now that I've had a positive, coincidental interaction w/GHcool, it may be easier for me to deal with those disparaging use of your quotes. Why wouldn't you want to take me up on this? See your around, HG | Talk 11:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus

Note: HG recently made suggestions and follow-up comment(s) at Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, owing to references to said page by both Alithien and PalestineRemembered

There is a problem at the article Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus because we're not allowed to point out that at least 90% (and probably 95% or even 98.5%) of the exodus was directly or indirectly caused by the Yishuv's soldiers with guns. We're not even allowed to put this cause at the top of a list of possibilities! PalestineRemembered 14:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

PR, According to Pappé (you remember him, he is the scholar who claims the whole mess was pure ethnic cleaning and Plan Daleth the proof), 70,000 refugees of the first wave left voluntary in December 1947 and January 1948. It is already roughly 10% of the total of refugees. :wind, wind, wind... Alithien 08:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Gentlefolks, how about this idea? You are welcome to continue discussing content disputes here, provided you remain kind and let me strikeout perceived user conduct missteps (which the author can then revise). Assuming you've got some confidence in me already, I've done an example above. If thread gets too long, I may ask you to move it to a user subpage or even at the appropriate Talk. Good luck and thanks. HG | Talk 10:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Your input?

Hi HG. As you can see I have been unblocked. Unfortunately, my first edit to Palestinian people was reverted by Itzse (talk · contribs) who is once again claiming that Palestinians are not a nation. I would appreciate your input there. Tiamut 19:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No Tiamut; your first edit was to revert my edits of the previous two days; and to avoid explaining yourself, you gave an umbrella explanation of "reorganization". I then painstakingly redid my edits in no less then six edits with clear explanations in the edit summaries, so that you can/should respond to each one individually; and you call me the reverter? It's not nice to lie. Itzse 16:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut and Itzse, ... (N.B. copied to their Talk pages. Drafted before Itzse's comment above.)

My input here is prompted by your various comments on my Talk page and then on Talk:Palestinian people. I'm rather honored and pleased that you're both interested in my opinion. I think both of you are motivated and working to make positive contributions. You're also both trying to stay calm and work collaboratively, and you're certainly welcome to rely on my Talk (and occasionally me) if that's helpful. That said, you've both gotten under each other's skin and lost your temper at times. So it's hard for somebody (like me) to sort out what's going on. Without further investigation, which I'm not inclined to do, here are a few comments:

1. It seems like Tiamut realized that she thought it reasonable to add "nation" to the opening paragraph. Tiamut added "nation" around Sept 5/6. (Or is it much earlier?) Here's a relevant diff. Edit summary was helpful: "new material for introduction - after seeing the Armenian page, I realized the intro here needed some work - comments are welcome"
2. Itzse objected to addition of "nation." I think you reverted w/edit summary "Nation" is POV". (Summaries are helpful, thank to both of you!) Sept 6th
3. From then on, it looks like edit warring. Tiamut restores ("restoring "nation" and "endonymic" use") and Itzse again, etc. Sept 7th. Afterwards, note that you both try to communicate through the edit summaries.
4. Also Sept 7th, Itzse posts "POV pushing" section on Tiamut's talk. Personally, I think User Talk pages can be helpful for ironing out inter-personal conduct issues.

Tiamut: You asked for my input, for better or worse. Well, you've done many things well in handling this situation. You try to stay on substance and you appeal to third parties (e.g., me and the RfC). Your initial comments on talk ("Reverting") were \ measured and substantive. You also tried to compromise, from what I can see in the edit summaries. I can empathize with your more heated reaction to Itzse, e.g. you say he's baiting you, though I believe that was unnecessary. More importantly, Tiamut, I'm surprised you didn't go to the Talk page earlier. You know introductions are touchy. Indeed, you had already struggled with the "people" language in the opening just recently. I myself tried to be helpful there. So, I wonder if part of this conflict could have been avoided, or w/less personally enmity, if you had proposed your idea on Talk first. In addition, why not stick to Talk once you saw that Itzse disagreed with the "nation" edit?

Itzse: You've been trying to maintain what you believe to be the right NPOV balance for the article. If you don't mind my saying so, though, you start the conversation with Tiamut on a very negative note, Itzse, with the "POV pushing" heading. Personally, I think Tiamut is fairly self-aware (maybe not perfectly, but who is?) of her POV and Tiamut makes a sincere effort to not impose her POV when editing the article(s). In any case, it's not helpful -- and a bad reflection on you -- to escalate with the POV pusher accusation. It's disruptive -- for instance, it has prompted me to spend more time on this than should be necessary. Plus, it throws your interlocutors off-balance, which isn't proper. Anyway, while I'm trying not to judge the substantive merits, you seem unnecessarily combative about "nation" given the content of the rest of the article. As written now, doesn't the article show both "pro-Palestinian" and "pro-Israel" sources accepting Palestinian nationalist identity? Even if you're correct, "nation" seems a plausible term for somebody to add to the intro. So why not just contest it in Talk? (Also, you were challenged by Nadav to cite sources to back up your disapproval of "people" in a Talk section last week. So you can assume that your concerns with "nation" also need to be reliably sourced. Right?)

Well, it's my hope that you both appreciate the effort I've made here. Please don't bite the messenger! If you feel I'm off base, just let me down gently. (I reserve the option of correcting my errors above.) Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 17:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a very diplomatic summary HG. You are correct in noting I could have gone to the talk page earlier. That does not change the fact however that nation to the refer to Palestinians is controversial only to those who reject what the sources in the article say, and what Wikipedia policy itself says on the matter; i.e. collectives are generally self-defined - a point you raised in the discussion page on the naming of the Israeli apartheid article. Nonetheless, your efforts and the criticisms you raised are duly noted and appreciated. Enjoy your part-time wikibreak. Tiamut 17:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's really very difficult to let you down gently, because I find myself accused by you of edit warring which I totally reject. I understand that you might be doing it to pacify Tiamut but it’s unfair to do it at my expense. If I should speak softly then the above wrong image of me might stick in someone’s mind, which is unfair to me. This version that you are reading is a toned down version of the original. If I still hurt you (HG), then I apologize, as my intention is only to clear a wrong image of me in your mind and by extension in the mind of others.

I'm sorry to say, but you're totally off base. I'll take it that you haven't followed the sequence of events and are totally unaware of who edited what. If you would have checked out the exact sequence of events you couldn't have come to such conclusions and made such comments.

Frankly, I am very disappointed in you trying to equate us. While my reputation is unblemished and everyone who has followed me here knows that I'm here to add my knowledge on Jewish subjects for which I have barely scratched the surface, and although I am bold, I go out of my way to be fair and uphold the neutrality of Wikipedia. Tiamut on the other hand has one agenda, and one agenda only; to push a Palestinian POV. I'm sorry to say, but your trying to put her in a good light rings hollow. Please check out what many other editors have said about her and then tell me if you still think so. Sorry I cannot sit back and watch you trying to equate us. By equating us you are actually smearing my character and exonerating her which is really not fair. It seems to me that she cannot do any bad and I cannot do very much good; that's the impression I get from your comments.

Here are some things you say which I find incorrect or disturbing. The reason I am calm is because I have given up on her, given up on the mediators, and almost given up on Wikipedia. Only people who think that they can win or accomplish something are passionate in what they do. I'll talk straight and pull no punches. I made my comment on your page only to show you that Tiamut is lying, in the belief that maybe you’ll open your eyes. Tiamut hasn't gotten under my skin at all; I know what she is up to and want to stop it; but if you (not you necessarily) will try to stop me instead of her, then I'll bid all of you good bye and let you have what you deserve. I have no softer way of putting it, that I just can't take this crap that Tiamut thought it reasonable to add "nation" to the opening paragraph. No, she knows exactly what she is doing and such comments are what lets her get away with it. While Tiamut has lost her temper many times; I haven't lost my temper even once; disappointed, yes; lost temper, no. You say that you're surprised that Tiamut didn't go to the talk page earlier; I wonder why you're surprised; don't you see that she first tries to get away with whatever she can, then she'll engage in talk with no intention of compromising but to get part of her pushing accepted and put off the rest for another round. You say that I started my conversation with a negative touch by its heading of POV pushing. My purpose is not anymore to set her straight, which I have already given up. My purpose is to point out her POV pushing to all of you. Actually I think that I'm treating her with kid gloves compared to how administrators would have dealt with her, if they only wanted to. Lastly I completely object to your equating us both as edit warring. When one side explains, but the other side says one thing on the talk page and does something else on the article; then the explainer shouldn't be labeled an edit warier simply to be able to play the equation game. Please get it straight; I am an honest editor and she is a POV pusher, and the twain doesn't meet. She needs to be admonished not mediated; you cannot mediate with someone who will only play the game of mediation with no intention of good faith editing.

Her response to you is a game which allows her to do what she wants while she is engages in dilly-dallying and in false placation. Tiamut has learned to play a game with all of you. She pretends to engage in discussion but in reality does what she wants and then has the audacity to reverse the sequence of events to make it look as if she thought she was doing the right thing. Now watch her threaten that she will report me; that's also part of her game, and if she succeeds then Wikipedia doesn’t deserve any better.

It's time to call a spade a spade; because otherwise Wikipedia will lose its valuable editors and stay with the crap. I’m really fed up with Wikipedia, and ready to bid everyone farewell. Itzse 21:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, not sure what do say, Itzse. I do appreciate your frankness. Let me focus on your clearest, most factual claim. You say, "I made my comment on your page only to show you that Tiamut is lying..." In the comment to which you refer (top of this section), you said that Tiamut's "first edit" .... "gave an umbrella explanation of 'reorganization'" and that "it's not nice to lie" when she claimed that you were reverting. However, as linked in my first (#1) point, above, there is a diff showing that Tiamut made a significantly earlier edit to add 'nation' to the intro. Therefore, it looks to me like you (Itzse) have not given me her "first edit" but rather a second edit. Furthermore, her second edit summary does not merely say "reorganization" as you state, but rather also clearly shows that she is "restoring nation" (cf. see my #3 point). If I've misunderstood what you call "the exact sequence of events", I apologize, but right now it looks to me like you've incorrectly presented the information. I assume you haven't been intentionally misleading or lying about Tiamut's "first" edit, you just make a mistake. (Or else I have, it happens to the best of us!) Otherwise, it's hard to discuss your message. Maybe Tiamut is as uncompromising and game-playing as you say -- I sincerely doubt it, based on my limited, positive interactions with her, but I can keep an open (i.e. suspicious) mind about her. On the other hand, you are explicitly stating a refusal to assume good faith with her. Itzse, I imagine you have much to contribute on Wikipedia. However, besides making yourself look intransigent and uncooperative, doesn't this explicit refusal to AGF effectively disqualify you from collaborating on any article Tiamut is editing, if not Wikipedia overall? In sum, I'm not convinced that she is lying given the edit history, and I am concerned that the static position you've adopted undermines your credibility in what is essentially a gigantic collaborative project. Even if you still think I'm off base, I hope you can understand I've tried to be responsive to your specific concerns. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 00:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Picking up from there, I have to say that I'm at a loss at how to proceed. Itzse's comments on the talk page [5] seem to revolve solely around attacks to my character, rather than a discussion of the content issue (which I cannot even identify now). In the first paragraph, he rejects my explanation for the edit, accusing me of "dishonesty" and reverting changes that don't "fit with my agenda". In the next paragraph, he explains his edit summary using the words "Gruesome details" as being his way of pointing out that the reason I want to include mention of the 1948 Palestinian exodus in the intro "to paint a picture of the Palestinians as victims; which again is your agenda, and to us Wikipedians is called 'POV pushing'." And so on and so forth ...

When I used the words "very diplomatic" to describe you summary HG, it was my way of intimating that you might not have gone far enough in condemning Itzse's behaviour as totally out of line with Wiki policies and guidelines. As he says above, he didn't like being treated as though he were like me, when in fact, I have not stooped to his level and my edits are totally in line with Wiki policies and guidelines. I don't mean to come down on you HG, because I think the diplomatic approach is important when dealing with a content dispute. But this has gone beyond being a content dispute. The content's not even being discussed. The only things Itzse is writing now have to do with attacks on my character. I don't accuse Itzse of POV pushing based on his religion or background, whereas I think his problem with me is centered around my being Palestinian, and not being shy about having opinions - opinions which I do try to keep at bay while editing article space (and nobody's free of bias and I'm sure it does come into play sometimes) but I try to keep it in check. And I'm pretty damn proud of my efforts. And I'm really sick and tried of listening to Itzse smear me all over this encyclopedia. So how can I get it to stop? Tiamut 01:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tiamut. Not sure why you are asking me. As you know or can guess, I'm less interested in mediating conduct than content disputes, at least for the time being. Yes, I suppose once somebody has exhausted efforts to discuss user conduct disputes through ordinary means, it is appropriate to move to other grievance procedures. (If you're asking me what argument or evidence would convince Itzse to stop saying that you are a POV pusher etc., I don't quite know. I did feel that Itzse was responsive in our earlier exchange, I'm not sure what will happen now.) Are you asking my opinion about whether further ordinary Talk discussion would be useful, or which grievance procedure to use? Presumably you can get better advice elsewhere on pursuing a user conduct grievance. This doesn't mean I'm trying to close the conversation, as I hope you'll appreciate. Thanks. HG | Talk 02:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Shucks, I forgot my point. If you do move to a grievance procedure, it would be courteous to take into account that Itzse may be incommunicado Wed - Sunday due to Rosh Hashanah. HG | Talk 02:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi HG. Well, I have to say that I am a little disappointed with your response. The diff] I gave you in which he accuses me of "dishonesty", "misleading reasons", "POV pushing", "having an agenda" and so forth, on the article talk for Palestinian people came after your discussion with him. While it's your right of course, not to get involved in user conduct issues so as to focus on content, offering your positive assessment on Itzse's potential for responsiveness above, while ignoring the content in that diff is getting involved. It's ignoring that what he said there is just a series of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith and incivility - and basically excuses such statements. I'm not going to take this to dispute resolution now since, as you have pointed out, Itzse probably won't be around during Rosh Hashanah. But it's a little disturbing to me that while you have not yet hesitated in the past to point out where I could improve my tone with other editors to lessen the potential for dispute, in this case, you don't see anything wrong with Itzse continuing to slander me without providing any evidence. The onus is not on me to provide him with an "argument or evidence" so that he stops making such claims. The onus is on him to stop making them. Period. It violates Wiki policy and does nothing to promoting a collegial atmosphere in which productive editing can take place. I feel it's reached the point of harassment actually. If it continues when he comes back, I'd like to know where I can go to get help to get it to stop. Thanks for listening. Tiamut 11:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, thanks for expressing your reaction. Sorry, but now I feel misunderstood. Perhaps I was too indirect? In my reply to Itzse above ("Hmmm..."), I tried to show him that he had made severe mistakes in accusing you of lying and in persistently characterizing you as a "POV pusher". I then say, in effect, that such behavior disqualifies him from Wikipedia. So, I feel that you're missing something when you say ("you don't see anything wrong with Itzse" etc). In addition, I have not offered a "positive assessment" on his potential. You didn't realize, and I wasn't clear enough, that I was referring to our earlier exchange here. At that juncture, Itzse was responsive. Now, as I told you, "I'm not sure what will happen." This is not a positive assessment. But what are you asking of me? To rebuke him more forcefully? I'm willing to give it another shot. (Who knows? Rosh Hashanah is a time of teshuvah, so it would be appropriate for Itzse to return, apologize and agree to stay civil.) Anyway, that's why I broached the idea of going to a grievance procedure. It's up to you to decide about that. I had assumed you don't need my advice on Resolving disputes, but perhaps a Wikiquette alert would be the next step in the sequence. Thanks again for such open communication. HG | Talk 14:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. I already have a much different working relationship with you than with Itzse, so you shouldn't expect me to treat you both the same way. Since you tend to be responsive, and at least welcoming, I feel more comfortable commenting on your tone. (Along these lines, as you write about your dispute, I'd advise sticking to WP policy jargon and not terms like "slander" or "smear.") Take care. HG | Talk

Thanks for clarifying your comments and position HG. I'm sorry if I sounded harsh. Have a happy Rosh Hashanah yourself, if I don't get to speak to you again before then. Ramadan starts today or tomorrow and while not Muslim myself, my husband's family is (my husband's an agnostic like myself), so we'll be commemorating our own holidays too. When we break bread, I'll think of you and yours and maybe even Itzse. :) Tiamut 15:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi HG; I'll only address your first point to show you that my accusation wasn't baseless. You're saying that since it was the second time that she placed the word nation in the article so therefore she is right that I (Itzse) who removed the word nation was the reverter and not she when she added it the second time; therefore I made an honest mistake.

I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt but in reality it is as I said. Here is the exact sequence of events. On Aug. 5 she added the word "nation" among other things and gave the reason as "(new material for introduction - after seeing the Armenian page, I realized the intro here needed some work - comments are welcome)"; that's what you call her first edit where she didn't actually explain why the new material like the word "nation" is ok. On Aug 7, I noticed that the word "nation" had been added, I didn't need to check by whom and why it was done as it was clear who did it and why she did it (which is to push her "fact" that there is a Palestinian nation). So I removed that word and explained that "nation" in the intro is POV; that's my first edit. I also made some other edits and explained each one individually. So far so good. Now along she comes and the first thing after being unblocked she reverts this edit and all the other ones with an explanation of "(reorganization - moving PLO definition into etymology section, rearranging paragraphs in intro - restoring "nation" and "endonymic" use)". Tell me, is “restoring nation" good enough for an explanation without addressing my reason for its removal which I gave that "nation" is POV. It could be that you agree with her that "nation" is correct but others, including to his credit Steve don't. Therefore "restoring nation" without explaining why, is a revert of my edit, not an honest second edit on her part. Now taken as a whole that she reverted all my edits in one shot with the blanket explanation of "reorganizing"; that's why I accused her of POV pushing.

Look, I think if I remember correctly; you're a lawyer; but if not, then you have the qualifications of one. A lawyer can and will rationalize anything and could even prove the opposite to be true if he must do so to free his client. I do not blame you for trying to vindicate her as you're trying very hard to be nice to both of us; but it comes across that if you need to lose one of us; you'd rather lose me. Why? I don't know; maybe because your political beliefs are more in sync with her then with mine, or for some other unknown reason, which I just don't know. Either way, it is clear to me that you will not side with me, which is your prerogative.

I do think that I made a major mistake in thinking that Wikipedia has a self correcting mechanism to eventually get everything right. As part of the mechanism I thought that arguing on the talk page is part of it. Little did I know that not only isn't WP full proof but actually every editor is open to the whim, prejudices, alignments, power and capabilities of those arguing different then you; and if you are left alone to fight you will actually get overwhelmed at what's up against you. I made a mistake by taking the course I took. While Wikipedia:Assume good faith makes it clear that if there is strong evidence that someone is not editing in good faith, you don't have to assume good faith. Also WP:AGF makes it clear that "playing games with policies" is also considered "bad faith editing"; so I was right to accuse her of bad faith editing. But what I didn't foresee is that most editors who agree with me will take the silent route, and that arguing on the talk page will get me nowhere, and the only way left to stop her would be the "brass knuckle" approach. The minute I realized that I cannot accomplish anything with reasoning on the talk page, because I don't have a fair partner(s) for that; I should have given up, instead of trying to expose her motives.

If an honest Wikipedian see's strong evidence of someone not editing in good faith; then the "assumption" of good faith is forfeited and there is no obligation anymore to assume good faith; we even have an obligation to adomonish them, as all the talk pages of WP will testify. So my position on her is correct, responsible and within Wikipedia's guidelines. Therefore originally I had thought of compiling clear evidence of her POV pushing, her utilizing WP's mechanisms and rules to play games and outsmart her opponents, and showing that she is editing in bad faith. I am actually capable of doing that, but to do that it would take me at least a day of tedious and nitty-gritty work, establishing the before and after and even during; with clear markers on when he said, when she said, when others said; and in the end we'll argue similar to the above on who had the first edit and who was actually the reverter, and was it vandalism or an honest mistake. The bottom line is that we'll need to waste days if not weeks trying to prove positive, and without a shadow of a doubt that someone deliberately, not honestly, with bad intentions, decided to edit in bad faith. Therefore if anyone is ready to pay me by the hour what I earn an hour in real life; to compile all the evidence; I'm willing to go ahead with it; otherwise it's a waste of my time, your time and everybody else's time to even get started. Suffice it to say that you can check out the record of many editors who have accused her of the same, you can start with Jayjg then move on to all the rest of the editors she was involved in edit warring. Believe me; those who are involved in these types of pages and who came face to face with her maneuvers, shenanigans and machinations, are well aware of what I'm saying. Lastly I don't feel that I will accomplish anything as she will surely get a lot of help to wiggle out of it, and at least remove the "shadow" of a doubt; so from my perspective it doesn't pay to get started?

As I don't feel that I have with whom to work with; I basically give up. I'm taking leave of that page for now and handing that page over to Tiamut on a silver platter to do as she wishes. I will watch from the outside to see what happens. To me this page is the barometer of Wikipedia. If this page can become neutral without Itzse then it will show that WP indeed has a built in self correcting mechanism and I'm in; but if this page stays as a Palestinian propaganda POV page; that will tell me that the great experiment called Wikipedia has failed and I'm out.

I don't mean it as a threat; I actually feel that if Wikipedia cannot be what it was designed to be, then it's a big waste of time to be part of it. Itzse 20:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Itzse, one thing I love about Talmudic discourse is the high premium placed on the ability to see the other side, and (as you say above) "even prove the opposite to be true" as needed. Let's accept your sequence and why you referred to her "first" edit. Fine. I've stated my concerns with her actions above and on her Talk. Again, this shouldn't be about taking sides on persons/personalities, and it's not about "whose side are you on" for me. I didn't think I was showing a preference on whom to lose from Wikipedia. But here are some comparative factors. Only you've talked about leaving, repeatedly. It's not a helpful way to build relationships with a community. You also haven't consistently spoken to me kindly. Tiamut, on the other hand, doesn't say she's leaving (though she gets quite frustrated). She has been friendly and conversational with me, despite (or due to) our obvious differences of opinion. Furthermore, you've taken a firm stand (i.e., to insist the she is acting in bad faith, to call her a liar -- lashon hora, btw) and publicized it in a manner that is contrary to my advice to you and, far more importantly, a violation of Wikipedia policy. Isn't your stance itself a step toward resignation? Conversely, Tiamut has been responsive to my suggestions and, more importantly, she affirms Wikipedia policy when confronted with wrong conduct. (Granted, she could be like the sinner in mYoma who says, I will do teshuvah and then sin again. I myself don't see a pattern of misconduct, so I'd grant her there benefit of doubt, as I did you.) Both of you could be valuable contributors -- it'd be a loss if either of you depart for greener pastures. I appreciate your farewell to me here, if you do leave, and I welcome your staying, esp. if you find a way to be more forgiving and less accusatory to those with an antithetical point-of-view from your own. Maybe the yamim nora'im will be useful in this regard; in any case, I wish you well. Shanah tovah. HG | Talk 21:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

N.B. Jayjg an administrator did take the "brass knuckles" approach with her and eventually gave up and now he's gone, it seems, because of her. The question is who is next? Itzse 21:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I just don't have the time to answer, and maybe its better that way so I'll make it short and (sweet?).

First let me start off by saying that you're a good man and maybe even too good of a man. The reason I use sharp language is because IMO it is the only way to get across some points, and the reason for sometimes using unkind language is admittedly because I sometimes feel that you stick too much up for the wrong side at my expense; and it hurts. Tiamut isn't threatening of leaving as why should she? She is actually doing a good job in getting her POV embalmed on Wikpedia. Yes occasionally someone comes along and stops her in her tracks but ultimately she always wins and if she was hired for the job; she deserves a raise. You say that she is nice to you; true, but because she has a lot to gain by doing so. She is a veteran here and has learned to smile to everyone and praise everyone but when push comes to shove she does what she wants. There are many examples where she votes outright against the arguments of those she smiled to, and with a smile does the opposite. You keep on saying that I've taken a firm stand on her. That is correct and I've explained it many times why. I am going based on my experience with her and as already explained I'm within Wikipedias rules on this and I have a right to believe what I believe. You want to believe otherwise, that's fine; but you can't tell me that I shouldn't believe what I know and can prove. On the other hand I have had a debate in myself if I should be editing Wikipedia altogether. Unlike others who find it fun; I mostly do it to share my knowledge, and just for your knowledge, I happen to be an expert on some subjects where very few have trodden. I shy away from those subjects for now as then I would be easily identifiable, and for now I prefer to be anonymous. I am actually very close toward resignation from Wikipedia altogether, as I have said, this article can prove to me that WP can be worthwhile or not; I happen to be pessimistic on that; therefore I am actually a step away from resignation. I think I'm done with this subject and I thank you for trying. I wish you a Shanah Tovah and who knows what the next year has in store for us. Itzse 22:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

HG - innovative attitude to mediation

I know you're becoming unsure about the mediation attempt at Battle of Jenin. I think if you'd seen this you'd have been convinced it was impossible! (Start reading from the 5th contribution, first outdent).

This flat refusal to discuss the operation of WP:Policy with an administrator, or accept any contribution from the non-involved is just 3 days before you offered to mediate on the other article. It's little wonder that both articles are so diabolical with WP:Policy being operated in such innovative ways. PalestineRemembered 09:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

HG - think about your reputation!

I'm concerned that exchanges like the following section on a TalkPage seen at Battle of Jenin could cause lasting damage to your reputation!

Hi HG. It is with reluctance I treat you as a mediator since our previous dealings have been dominated by disagreement. It's a bit unlikely we'd start agreeing now over this article!

However, I've complied with your suggestions (and requests) as if you were the mediator and I will not be abusing you over your arguments, views, comments or anything personal I might have picked about you.

You may have forgotten this, but you were actually called to this article in the apparent hope and expectation you'd be partisan against me (based on the argument we were having on your TalkPage). It is bizarre indeed that I'm the one prepared to work (and actually working) with you, while the parties that wanted your assistance are now accusing you of being "far to buddy-buddy"(sic) with me and your "mediation" page a "witchhunty kangaroo court".

It's taken 11 months, but I've suddenly started to wonder why people like you treating me in a collegiate fashion seems to enrage so many other editors. What can it be that brings down the red mist about Yours Sincerely PalestineRemembered 07:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)?

• This is a fantastic example of appeal to fear. Kyaa the Catlord 09:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears that you've accused User:HG of bias towards me purely and simply because he was collegiate in his dealings with me. It *cannot* have been because you knew anything about his edits or opinions, since they're (all?) diametrically opposed to mine (as he was already aware). The question is - why do you have a problem with him treating me as a regular editor?

And, of course, you've immediately set about breaking up the threading of this section - a practice that I've reported another editor to ArbCom for doing, as you know. Why are you attempting to make this section impossible to read? PalestineRemembered 14:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Folks, I posted a reply on the article Talk page. You are welcome to continue your personal dispute here, if you'd like. Content issues are best discussed in an orderly, rational and depersonalized/non-accusatory manner on article Talk. I still don't know Kyaa very well, so not sure what to say to you. For PR, I appreciate your concern but I don't feel that my reputation is at stake, nor do I assume that Kyaa is making any serious accusation(s) against me. Also, PR, I really like how you've accepted/assumed that I'll try to be open-minded and fair-minded. I don't find it bizarre, since it happens often in my life, and I'm glad to treat you as a regular editor. Nonetheless, you've been getting bent out of shape, in my opinion, more than is wise for your own good. I think I've said as much before and hope you take it in a friendly way. Perhaps you find it hard to assume good faith due to Kyaa's style, so you're welcome to bounce your impressions off me (e.g., before responding to Kyaa). In any case, hope things can settle down. Be well. HG | Talk 16:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Mentoring

PR, greetings. As you may know, I commented here about Jenin, which you mention above. For what it's worth, I wouldn't necessary "run a mile" away from the idea of mentoring you. I enjoy our repartee and your good humor in dealing with me. Plus, it's a fine challenge to develop a relationship with somebody with whom I likely have many substantive disagreements. We seem to be able to assume good faith with each other and we seem to be fairly straightforward with each other. That said, if you would like to explore the idea of me as a possible mentor, I probably would ask for some conditions or procedures that you might not like, though I believe that they'd benefit us in the long run. For instance, if only to make the process feasible in terms of my time, it would help if we agreed on ways to limit the scope or frequency of your edits. (I thought I had advised that you back off in some ways, but perhaps I spoke too obliquely.) Since you might find this frustrating, perhaps we'd set up a user page for me to review your various proposed edits (and you can always keep your proposed changes in an off-line document). As you say kindly above, you've been quite receptive to some of my suggestions, so maybe mentoring would work. But I tend to err as a micromanaging supervisor, so there is a risk you'd feel unduly constrained. Philosophically, too, as you probably know by now, I am very conservative about deploying official grievance procedures to raise concerns ("accusations") about user conduct. Given your current situation, though, perhaps you could live with my quirks. Let me know what you think. In any case, no hard feelings. Good luck. HG | Talk 18:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I would have no difficulty living with your quirks. I particularly like the idea of having a "share-page", because there are dozens of good, well referenced and relevant edits I'd like to make. I don't do them because there's no point in doing so unless I'm prepared to battle for weeks over it, making good new "contacts", only to see those people personally attacked and often driven off too. I should warn you though, I've been round this exact route very recently - not only will you suffer the kind of absurd personal attacks that you've already seen, the other tactic is to tell people lies about me. That's what happened here, where another potential mentor is trapped into accusing me of edit-warring, something I've never done. I'm afraid I let fly a bit on that occasion ..... PalestineRemembered 19:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. The warning is fair and I'll talk to Avi (or others) about handling any side-effects, but generally these should not be your worry. So, it sounds like you'd like me to propose some conditions/procedures for mentoring, is that right? If so, let's start by you posting me the diff that contains the decision requiring your mentorship. I'd like to read that. Meanwhile, I'll throw some ideas your way now. As soon as you find some condition of mine that you don't think you can stomach, and that I don't seem to adequately adjust or compromise, then we can call off this exploration, ok? Thanks. HG | Talk 19:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are some questions:

1. Would you consider us trying mentorship on a renewable, short-term basis? For instance, maybe we agree to try it out for 3-5 days. Then we both renew it for another cycle.
2. Presumably, the mentoring would cover all edits of any type in Wikipedia. If so, then I would review (or have a prior option to review) all article and article-talk edits, and whatever you might want to write on various Wikipedia process pages (e.g., AfD, ArbCom, AN/I, etc). Plus, Talk pages of any users with whom you are conflicting. The only exception would be that, in my absence, you could respond to process pages in which your own misconduct is alleged. Ok, this would be tough. Hence the 3-5 days basis. Does this sound too broad?
3. As you might imagine, I may ask you to strikeout or delete certain statements you've made. This would be limited and kept reasonable, but you may not like it. How this so far? HG | Talk 19:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is my worry - I owed the person trapped on that occasion some quite serious favours over a long period ...... and yet he still fell for what he'd heard! What do I owe you? Here's the diff you asked for - remember what I told you, this occasion was the very first time accusations against me even came with any evidence. Many people clearly and genuinely found what I'd said offensive - but only because of the culture they came from, people from civilised nations don't give a toss. I don't know if I can make sense of your proposed ground-rules - do I have to run it past you first before I ask if someone has a COI? I can't see a problem with striking out anything you think is out of order. PalestineRemembered 20:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that the level of mentoring oversight would depend on the type of edit. Let's say, for instance, you'd be encouraged to engage in exchanging messages on the Talk pages of your friends and allies. Likewise, I'm willing to assume that I can review a posteriori (after the fact) your substantive edits of articles that we agree are non-controversial. On the other hand, I am suggesting that you share with me in advance, and discuss with me as needed, your edits in more controversial or problematic settings. I suppose we should agree on the goals of mentorship -- such as improving collaborative interactions, anticipating and satisfying the objections of other editors, and strengthening the use and critique of reliable sources. I would expect that you'd spend more time preparing and patiently analyzing proposed edits, and less time making and arguing over edits. While I would try to be as gracious and as fair-minded as I can be, my conditions would be pretty tough, at least at the outset. This arrangement would mean that our goal is to modify some of your editing behaviors, which I gather is the point of the required mentorship. I'm not saying it would be easy for you -- indeed, I think it could be exasperating -- so that's why I suggest trying it out in short 3-5 day efforts. Take care. HG | Talk 00:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There are three major problems with what you're trying to achieve. One is that any "friend or ally" (or even exchanger of collegiate posts in between complete disagreemnt, like yourself) is going to be harrassed with accusations aimed at their integrity (or more serious attacks, such as sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry, as you and others have discovered). Secondly, with illiteracy and edit-warring rife in some of the articles that most need attention, careful editing is often a complete waste of time. Good edits will be turned into garbage, even if they're not edit-warred out immediately. (I think I just caught one of the editors I'm thinking of demanding to be free to edit on topics they'd just told us they knew nothing about!).

And there's a third problem - because despite what you might think, I spend very little time arguing over edits (I refuse to edit-war, as I'm forever telling people). I put most of my effort into attempting to either act to WP:Policy or asking (demanding) people tell me what they think policy is. I find an article quoting "an historian" who says things such as :"Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands." That is gross indeed on two unambiguous levels, making the guy utterly unsuitable to be used. Note, I've done nothing to interfere with the article, I'm only pointing it out in Talk, resulting in a small explosion of anger. (This "historian" also wrote a book called ""Israel Explores Deir Yassin Blood Libel, 1969" - I've no idea what's in there, but I think I can guess!). You were canvassed to go to the Battle of Jenin article in order to stop me pointing out that 'The minority view sources we're offered themselves tell us that their claims were ignored in the western media' - I wasn't editing, just pointing out something very obvious, and "demanding" the article be edited to the "Major View", not some trivial "Minor View". (Another editor has told me that "the world bought the Palestinian propaganda" on this subject - and blusters when I point out that the article most certainly doesn't match what he's just claimed to be "The World View"!).

In other words, each of your aims "improving collaborative interactions, anticipating and satisfying the objections of other editors, and strengthening the use and critique of reliable sources" is unobtainable. It strikes me that editors of good-will such as yourself don't much suffer from problems of the kind I get, so you imagine there must be something wrong with what I'm doing (even though nobody can put a finger on it with diffs in all the CSNs, ANI, etc etc). You recognise that I have information and some forms of "logic" behind what I seem to be trying to do, but you keep me at arms length because I'm having lots of problems that you manage to avoid. You believe you can "help", and I'm almost embarrassingly eager to accept ..... until you tell me what you see as the problems. It's then immediately obvious (to me, at least) that we'll not get anywhere.

However, I've said I'm agreeable, and I am. If you are open to a suggestion from me, it would be that you open a sandbox page (either your space or mine). I suggest this space has a top half (edits nearly ready to be entered into articles, waiting your approval or further suggestions) and a bottom half (issues with articles that are not ready to be dealt with as yet). Shall I voluntarily limit myself to 50 issues at any one time? PalestineRemembered 08:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi PR. In terms of a mutual agreement about mentorship, is your suggestion (sandbox page) that you first write down your edits in the sandbox, perhaps revise and discuss them with me, and only implement them after my approval? If so, then at least we may be close to agreement on how the supervisory procedure could work. This means that if I do not approve an edit, you agree to not make the edit (at least during the mentorship period, however short or long). Ok? It sounds like it needs to cover edits anywhere, whether "friend or foe" users, whether article content, article talk, or WP: pages. Right? Let's revisit goals once (or if) we agree on this basic procedure. Thanks. HG | Talk 08:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

For the goals or expected outcomes of mentorship, what is it that you would like to learn? This might be a combination of what the CSN requires and how you might sincerely like to improve. My 3 suggestions are based on my sense that the CSN focused partly on the use of sources and partly on your interactions w/other editors. If you are willing to do the required mentorship in good faith, then wouldn't this mean that you are agreeing to try to modify your conduct on Wikipedia in some way? (But pls first answer q's above about procedure!) HG | Talk 09:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sort of - but there clearly aren't problems with all my edits (it must be debatable whether there are real problems with any of them, otherwise the air would be blue with diffs). Worthwhile mentorship is about lifting the standard of those parts of my editing that have the potential for improving articles, not about preventing me from responding in off the cuff ways to people that I treat in a collegiate fashion. These off-the-cuff responses are the very things that persuaded you that cooperation between the two of us could be productive!

What do you want me to do, write edits, transfer them to the sand-box and enter "This space bagged by PR for the edit at [this link] - some material may be chit-chat intended to ease your discomfort at correspondence with an editor who appears to self-identify with a hugely unpopular and suffering minority"? (Please note - I'm not being awkward, but we are writing the manual for something that is not part of WP:Policy and never will be if we mess up).

I'm a bit disappointed that you've ignored my identification of three areas where "improvement" is meaningless, since they're problems that have nothing to do with me. I thought you put yourself forward to drain the swamp, not to muzzle the very most cooperative and friendly alligator! PalestineRemembered 09:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes -- with what you said about writing the edits into the sandbox, providing the link (so I know the point of intended insertion of the edit), and a heading like your quote (but less glib).

Well, it would help if you could evaluate yourself in a more critical and self-reflective way. Above, you had said the goals were unobtainable, not "meaningless." Anyway, you seem to ignore this key dynamic --> "lifting the standard" of your edits, for the sake of "improving articles," is thoroughly related to one's ability to engage in chit-chat i.e. Talk that other users will find collegial and constructive. It's not just what we say, it's how we say it, that makes for good collaboration. By the way, if I recall correctly, what persuaded me about cooperation is quite the opposite of what you've said above. I was faced with off-the-cuff comments that appeared inappropriate -- but once I assumed good faith and got into it in more depth with you, I found that you were much more reasonable and thoughtful than your off-the-cuff responses suggest. Sorry, maybe you just don't realize the effect of what you sometimes write. (And many WP users don't realize it about themselves, either!) This is partly why I would like to see you more sensitive in anticipating other folks' reactions. (The other part is about their reactions on your content/policy ideas.) I hope this is blunt yet useful, ok? HG | Talk 09:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've hinted before that some significant part of this is about culture-clash - all you've managed to do is persuade yourself that this is the *major* part of an otherwise unbelievably woolly "problem" that others are supposed to have identified. That's what you're saying now, and you're not seriously expecting me to re-edjicate my brain and change my native use of English to a non-standard version. If you don't understand what I say, but discover I'm talking sense (or at least, saying something logical) when I'm challenged and express myself again in bite-sized words, then that is your problem, not mine. (PR)

A communication problem isn't owned by only one side. Assuming both parties want to understand each other, doesn't a misfired communication result in a problem for both? HG | Talk 13:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've gone over each of the other possibilities with you, and have credibly asserted that they're endemic problems - if I have problems with them, it's because any determined editor will have problems with them. (PR)

Which "possibilities" are you referring to here? There were my 3 numbered "questions", then your three major problems, then my 3 suggested goals or outcomes for mentoring.HG | Talk 13:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Think about it - you just embarked on two simultaneous projects. The first of these was welcomed by me with open arms and excellent cooperation, it was then torpedoed below the waterline by the most outrageous cries of "foul" aimed at yourself. The second of these projects involved putting my behaviour under a microscope, and coming up with near-conclusive evidence that, whatever my real faults, they're not the cause of anything even hinted at in the CSN. (PR)

As I've said before, the gripes against my intervention in Jenin were hardly "the most outrageous cries of foul" and barely merited a response. I've not been a victim. In any case, what project or effort of mine has been torpedoed? If you mean Jenin, my efforts haven't been torpedoed. Jaakobou picked up on the idea and some folks have identified issues for mediation. Some of their Talk has focused on such specific issues. I'd also note that there wasn't agreement to mediate before my suggestions, either. Regarding the second project (mentorship), I don't quite grok your intent. Are you saying that I am proposing to demonstrate (via "evidence") that the CSN misjudged you and focused on a false reading of your faults? HG | Talk 13:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In other words, your editing doesn't have the same kind of problems I have (at least partly) because you're not actually a "determined" editor, taking on real problems that can be identified. Your recipe for a congenial life involves taking the path of least resistance - and bullying a cooperative and thoughtful editor is 5x times easier than ironing POV out of articles. (There's yet another very serious problem described in the section immediately below this one, and it concerns the same article you planned to mediate. This is on top of all the problems I identified at your soap-box page, none of which have been touched). (PR)

You're criticizing me for not being "determined," in general? Ok, I cry foul! :) Anyway, for the umpteenth time, PR, I did not "plan to mediate" the Battle of Jenin. You have projected this onto me. HG | Talk 13:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest you go back to your pay-masters and tell them that you don't understand this particular problem. I'll tell the same people you should have a pay-rise because of the skill and determination you've applied to this affair and the wisdom with which you've decided there is no problem to be found. PalestineRemembered 11:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, PR, you've sorta lost me on this last point. But perhaps I don't need to: Overall, it sounds as if you're saying that your difficulties are due primarily to a culture clash, not a bona fide problem ("woolly... others are supposed to have identified") that requires mentorship. In other words, you don't agree that the CSN has identified any problem(s) that you would like to be mentored on? Is that right? HG | Talk 13:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC) PS you can skip the interjected q's above, the main question is here at the end. Thanks very much.

The cultural differences between my society and yours are huge, and we've just exposed another one. You apparently consider it perfectly proper to demand I confess to various (presumably serious but so far example-free) faults and answer questions until I slip up and apparently defy my CSN "In other words, you don't agree that the CSN has identified any problem(s)". (Very much like what happened at the CSN itself, in fact). It may be "due process" in your system (shades of Presidential impeachment), but it'd never pass for due process in civilised nations - where the accused must be told what he's charged with.

Having been tripped up once already, I'm not going to open my big mouth and tell you what problem(s) I agree that the CSN identified. That'd be what's called "a fishing exercise". This fish refuses to bite.

There are a host of serious problems, the ones I'm telling you about, the one(s) that have personally affected your participation, and the ones that others are telling you about. The CSN arose because I believed I had detected a serious problem in the editing of Battle of Jenin - the CSN proceeded as if Conflict of Interest was perfectly proper. This long discussion, in the context of this particular article, makes it look exactly as if the monstrously POV editing of this article is perfectly proper too.

I think you should open the "Mentoring" page we both want (and I think we agree with how it is to be used) and I'll get on with filling it up. PalestineRemembered 16:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Mentoring II

(outdent) I've gotta say, PR, can't remember the last time I so enjoyed talking with somebody even while we seem to talk past each other! Yes, I am glad you noticed what I wrote and you didn't defy the CSN. However, you don't quite say how you plan to comply either. I'm less sanguine than you that I should set up the mentoring page because "we agree with how it is to be used." I still are requesting guidance, and presumably buy-in from you, on what I would try to achieve as your mentor. After all, the CSN arrangement sounds like the kind of mandatory training that people get nowadays (e.g., due to driving violations). I really do expect you to open your mouth and tell me what you think I would be trying to mentor or train you in. Once we agree on the goal, and my various stringent conditions, then I'd like to run this by Avi and see if it's kind of arrangement he has in mind. (Do you know how long the mentoring is supposed to last?) Anyway, to be responsive to you, I'll set up the mentoring page with an intro, which we can then argue negotiate over. But I'm not agreeing to mentoring, yet. Sound ok? HG | Talk 16:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC) PS I will be out-of-touch from Wednesday pm to Sat night. If we agree before then, this could be our first trial period. Take care.

I'm very much inclined to reject your idea of being a Mentor over the coming weekend when you're away (and I'm not sure you've got your heart in it). Don't take it personally, I'm sure we'll work productively together in the future, but it's almost as if I'm my own worst enemy being so cooperative, and I'm asking to be trampled underfoot. Your mediation on Battle of Jenin could have been really useful (even though I recognise I'd probably still be quite unhappy with the result). Prove to me that you can make a good hand of that, let me see you operate "due process" (as has been most startlingly not present up until now) and I'm sure I'll consider taking you up on the other thing. PalestineRemembered 20:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for your encouragement on Jenin, though I'm not sure that I'll do much more there. Also, I won't be away, just indisposed for Rosh Hashanah. Anyway, let me know if you change your mind. See ya. HG | Talk 20:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding whether and how to mentor with a "P.S." note after your edits (rather than a prior screening by the mentor), see my comment here. Thanks! HG | Talk 20:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see you just added potential edits onto the User:HG/workshop/Mentoring page. I find this confusing, since above you apparently decline the mentoring arrangement. Right? Placing edits for review would imply tacit acceptance of the conditions. So, please PR, only add potential edits on that page if you intend to follow all the guidelines there. If you reject or are dissatisfied with the proposed guidelines, please discuss them before placing edits for me to review. Thanks! HG | Talk 21:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Placing edits for review is simply an invitation for you (or perhaps others) to introduce factual confirmation or refutation of what I believe should be entered into articles. If you have any interest in or knowledge of this affair (and I'm not sure that you do?) you might remind me of any mistakes, alternatively you might just view the presentation and tell me whether it's readable or not. It might be that you've seen the same thing at your "Clarify Jenin" page, but then you'd not have wanted to express any opinion/add any material there. The presentation there is obviously based on other one, but it's stripped down considerably, in a day or two I'll look at it myself and figure whether the 'lite' version is the most useful. The work of improving the encyclopedia goes on whether or not other arrangements hold good. PalestineRemembered 22:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

PR, thanks for explaining why you added material there. As a matter of courtesy, since that user page is set up to follow the stated guidelines, I'd appreciate your removing the material from that page. Perhaps you can set up your own user page to prepare your edits and invite folks to review in advance. Sound good? Also, let me know where you've moved the material in case I take you up on the invitation. Thanks very much. HG | Talk 22:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You know me, I'm forever bending over backwards to meet people's demands on me, and I'll comply if you insist. But I find it astonishing you don't want to see the edits I'm considering making. Why did you offer to "mentor" the edits I do or might do if you've no interest in looking at any? Even if you had never intended to offer your services to me again (which is not your declared intention), I presume this is a task within WP that is interesting to you and that you hope to do well for others - my contributions to this page help you get a handle on what kind of things you might face in the future from other editors. (PR)

With all due respect to you and Menachem Begin :--) , Israeli-Palestinian issues are but a tertiary interest and area of expertise for me. So, and I assume you'll take this graciously, I'm not so invested in your (or others') substantive interventions. I am motivated to improve/use my facilitation skills, with mentoring to contribute research & writing pedagogy to WP (where training would help, in general), and overall to make WP a much more collaborative and congenial working arena.HG | Talk 12:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The more I look at this, the odder it becomes - there's been clear abuse of your clarify Jenin page. I did some work on it, very properly as far as I can tell, and my work is diminished by the nonsense. So why is it you're demanding that a single purpose page (concerning nobody but me) be cleared of carefully prepared content, yet you've not lifted a finger to defend a general purpose page, proven to be of interest, against defacement? This is deeply puzzling now! (PR)

First, I've already stated clearly why the mentorship page needs to be cleared until/unless we reach an agreement. Second, the clarify Jenin page hasn't been "abused" in my view, not at all. That's hyperbole. (I.e., the "nonsense" section did not interrupt or detract from your more constructive use of the page.) But, look PR, even if it had, I don't have the authority or time, (or desire), to try policing all the "nonsense" associated with Jenin. That's why I asked for self-monitoring of civility. As you should register from my exchange below, Kyaa also has the impression I should come down harder on people. (See also Tiamut and Itzse above.) Yes, I would do so if asked, and if authorized as a mediator or mentor, but mostly I'm seeking to modulate the "nonsense" by modeling better user conduct and by suggesting ways to structure discussion (e.g., clarify page). Does this make my motivation and approach less puzzling? HG | Talk 12:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And the mystery goes still deeper - some (all?) of the edits I propose refer to what would appear to be quite serious faults in articles - does it not concern you that some observers (eg me) consider the encyclopedia to have faults? The faults I detect appear to be quite serious, and my objections (to some of them, anyway) appear to be quite detailed and credible and well referenced. Does accuracy in articles not concern you? (PR)

Yes. I work with my primary/secondary expertise differently than w/Isr-Pal stuff. Again, I'd like to improve accuracy here mostly via facilitation and mentoring. Notice, too, that I put "use and critique of reliable sources" as a mentoring goal. (Again, note that both you and Kyaa apparently expect me to intervene directly on Jenin re: sources. Unrealistic, sorry.) Further: you are welcome to distrust me in your mind, but Wikietiquette expects you to not openly imply that I'm not acting in good faith with regard to WP's accuracy. HG | Talk 12:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And some of the topics concern what might appear to be really serious abuses of entire families (likely ongoing) - did you really intend I whitewash away evidence of the suffering of other families, even while you prepare to go away with yours? (PR)

It's hyperbole and not AGF to imply that I would collude with the "whitewashing" of evidence. HG | Talk 12:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that some of these questions may appear to be rhetorical, but I think you should make some attempt to answer. I've bared my soul as regards what drives me - and you've now left me very, very puzzled about what drives you! PalestineRemembered 08:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, PR, I've sought to explain what drives me, my motivations and approach etc., in interspersed comments above. Hopefully, I will still remain a Mysterious Other for you! But kindly go ahead and remove your material from the mentorship page, soon, before I need to break for Rosh Hashanah (Wed pm to Sat pm). Thanks again. HG | Talk 12:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

HRW

Armon and Kyaa insist that only "Palestinian sources" have described the Israelis use of force as indiscriminate. The Human Rights Watch report states unequivocally that "Palestinians were used as human shields and the IDF employed indiscriminate and excessive use of force." The report describes the Israeli use of force as "indiscriminate" some ten or fifteen times. There is a 8-page chapter in the HRW report on ""Disproportionate and Indiscriminate Use of Force Without Military Necessity by the IDF," and a subsection within it on ""Indiscriminate Helicopter Fire." Of the overall situation they say "the destruction in other areas of the camp was indiscriminate in its effect on the civilian population, and disproportionate to the military objective obtained." They reiterate and indeed strengthen all these findings in their annual report, and put them in the context of Operation Defensive Shield, of which they say: "Israeli soldiers repeatedly used indiscriminate and excessive force, killed civilians willfully and unlawfully, and used Palestinian civilians as humans shields." Faced with this, Kyaa and Armon are now claiming that these don't represent HRW's conclusions, but rather "Palestinian sources" because HRW collected their data in a Palestinian refugee camp. This is what I'm referring to as outright dishonesty, and no I don't mean it rhetorically. At that point it's chicanery in the form of a shell-game with the word "sources," engineered to discredit the claims. But there's yet another dimension: while they well-poison this finding of HRW's, edit-warring to ensure that it's described as a Palestinian claim, they want to present as definitive another of HRW's findings – in the same damn report – the finding of "no evidence of massacre." And remember, the whole damn article has been structured to present this second finding – the one they've selected a la carte to be burnished – as debunking, of all things, "Palestinian sources," the very thing they've just finished insisting the HRW report by definition represents. It's Kafkaesque, and frankly I've had enough of it. I don't want a pro-Palestinian article. I want a straightforward, encyclopedic account of Jenin, in all its dimensions – the way the sealing of the camp affected the perceptions of the outside world, the debates about the ethical dilemmas of urban warfare, the allegations of war crimes on the one hand, and media manipulation on the other, etc. And trying to collaborate with editors who want a pro-Israel propaganda piece, one that focuses exclusively on this media-manipulation "fake massacre Pallywood" blah-blah angle and promotes it, and are willing to shut their eyes and put wax in their ears and go through the sources a la carte for only what they want – I'm finding it just about impossible.--G-Dett 04:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

My comment on Palestinian

Actually, it wasn't tongue in cheek - it was quite serious. Perhaps unWikian, as I pointed out, but serious nonetheless.

When I made this suggestion, I was thinking primarily of Wikipedian readers. I see many articles that are simply bad, because editors of dramatically different POVs make a mishmash trying to come up with a version that is acceptable to both sides. I think that in many cases readers would be much better served if, instead of reading one obfuscated version presuming to be NPOV, they could read two perfectly clear versions, each representing an explicit POV. Like advocacy journalism, only advocacy encyclopedianism.

In the case at hand, my personal opinion is that the article on the Palestinian Nation is a good one, and pretty balanced. But Itze's POV, noxious though it is to me, is one that is not a fringe opinion in many circles. Moreover, it is an opinion that has been supported by scholarship for a number of years. If Itze is serious, he could certainly write a well-documented article about Palestinian Arabs which, while presenting both sides of the debate, would leave the reader with the clear impression that there is no Palestinian nation.

I worked as a journalist (Associated Press foreign correspondent) for 10 years, and in that time I learned that neutrality is a myth. When writing on controversial subjects, a writer better serves his readers by making his point of view explicit, and trying his best to be fair to all sides.

I allow myself to make this suggestion because the Wikipedia is the world's most successful experiment in pluralism. The Wikipedia is not a mere encyclopedia in the way that EB or Worldbook is. The range of topics and the way that Wikipedians approach them is in many cases fundamentally different. It is a place where minds are open, discussion is free, and experiments like this are possible.

Having said all that, I certainly don't plan to pursue this idea beyond the single post that I made. I am much more interested in writing my own little pieces about things so esoteric that no one would ever dream of arguing about them (Ignaz Schuppanzigh and Walter Willson Cobbett for example) rather than engaging in Wikipedian politics. --Ravpapa 05:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry

Your header could have been more clear. Feel free to revert the changes. It's only a sandbox (and, most importantly, it's your sandbox!). -- 146.115.58.152 05:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

How about: NOTE: THIS PAGE IS ONLY A WORKING DRAFT FOR A POSSIBLE RE-ORGANIZATION. You are welcome to cut and paste existing text, and rename, create or remove sections. However, please do not add new text or remove existing text. -- 146.115.58.152 00:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm trying your suggestion. HG | Talk 07:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin

Hi again. Sorry I've been busy or slow on the uptake. Belated q's. Let me ask you about this comment: "Perhaps if HG corrected PR's mistakes as I posted out above, I'd have more willingness to deal with him. But he hasn't and my lack of faith in his neutrality stem from him not adequately policing the rules he's proscribed. Perhaps it would be best for us not to fight amoungst ourselves and let HG speak for himself and maybe convince me that this, like all the efforts previously, is not a lost cause or even worse, a sympathetic ear to one side of the debate. Kyaa the Catlord 01:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)" If you remember, I can't tell from the thread what were "PR's mistakes" that you would have wanted me to deal with. In any case, I'm also wondering, do you think you might have given me a bit of a catch-22? On the one hand, as you and I know at least, I may have been trying to facilitate a bit but I was not in the role of mediating the dispute. On the other hand, you seem to have expected me to proscribe rules and police them, which is rather a tall order for a non-mediator. Is that realistic? Meanwhile, I do appreciate your hesitancy about me, and your concern about not wanting sympathetic ear attuned too far to one side. Ironically, I have some trouble teasing apart the multiple sides of the Jenin talk, which is why I thought it might help if folks clarified their respective concerns/disagreements. Given that I have no particular incantation to convince you of my good will (nor magic to ward off lost causes), and assuming that you also have no litmus test with which to be convinced, I'm curious about whether you think I might play a constructive role. If so, what? Thanks for hearing me out. Good luck with the Jenin article regardless. HG | Talk 07:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You might be able to play a constructive role if you ever get past the "collegiate talk" bullshit and actually try to direct PR past his attempts to insert his POV, his poorly sourced claims, his desire to include emotional commentary rather than calculated and encyclopedic content. It is nice to talk kindly to people and I admire your patience with him when he tries to lure you onto his side, but I don't see you making any effort to rebuke him and a good mentor would not shy away from correcting his "pupil". Hell, I've only been editting Jenin for a couple weeks, my edits to the article have been mostly copy editting and sourcing. My input in the discussion has been focused on suggesting that we include what RS sources say. And I've been attacked and called a racist for it. Kyaa the Catlord 08:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Kyaa, thanks very much for taking the time to respond. If I may point this out, you seem perhaps too preoccupied with my role vis-a-vis PR. There are whole unproductive discussion sections in which PR is not involved. For instance, the weasel words in lead section involving among others G-Dett, who had asked for mediation. Anyway, in terms of PR. I agree that a mentor should be more forceful, but I am not his mentor (though I'm willing to try). I don't think a facilitator can simply barge into a Talk and start rebuking folks whenever the facilitator-type sees POV or other problems. Believe me, I'd be rebuking all day, and not just PR! (Hey, didn't you get tired of just cleaning up your own chit chat? ;-->) Well, let me back up, if you honestly think you guys want a facilitator to police the tone, and everyone agrees, I might consider doing some of that. (E.g., to stop you from being insulted) But it's a distracting and time-consuming effort, much better that people catch themselves -- or diplomatically point out problematic statements via each other's Talk pages. If you want to find a view-from-nowhere judge to decide who is pushing POV harder than others, that also might be unrealistic. Don't you think? Even if all agreed, wouldn't Ploni withdraw agreement if he felt I sided against him too often? Anyway, a mediator could help w/ POV and source disputes if you all could sustain a narrow, focused discussion. That's why I was suggesting that you all identify some points of dispute that you could then focus on. But maybe you'd like the discussants to find another mechanism for dampening distractions, be they POV or tone? Sorry if I rambled. Let me know what you think, thanks. HG | Talk 15:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I've avoided the talk page on Jenin for a few days to allow myself some time to chill out. I started responding in a "mirror" fashion, but eventually the constant incivil tones of G-Dett, Eleland and PR caused me to become pissed off. On the subject of G-Dett's international sources issue, labelling the sources "international sources" is just as bad as leaving it as "some international sources" it still does not identify who these sources are and she's fought tooth and nail against us when we've tried to point out exactly who these are. Kyaa the Catlord 17:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Who these are exactly is HRW and Amnesty, the same sources (writing in the exact same reports) described as "outside observers" for the findings of "no evidence of massacre."--G-Dett 17:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the "I can't be correcting him yet, I'm not the mentor or mediator", when you created the subpage and placed rules on it, you assumed some authority over it. (And I don't mean the mentor page, the proto-mediation one.) PR went and broke these rules and you should have corrected him at the very least let him know his statements needed to follow the rules you placed. (Which is part of the reason why i completely ignored the rules when I posted there....) Kyaa the Catlord 17:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Kyaa, kudos to you for chilling out. You seem like a good humored person so maybe you'll appreciate this -- maybe you and PR can bond over your complaints about me! You and PR both assume that I should exercise more authority over the Clarify subpage. Here's my response to PR (above) which I'm inclined to say to you, too:

"... the clarify Jenin page hasn't been "abused" in my view, not at all. That's hyperbole. ... But, look PR, even if it had, I don't have the authority or time, (or desire), to try policing all the "nonsense" associated with Jenin. That's why I asked for self-monitoring of civility. As you should register from my exchange below, Kyaa also has the impression I should come down harder on people. (See also Tiamut and Itzse above.) Yes, I would do so if asked, and if authorized as a mediator or mentor, but mostly I'm seeking to modulate the "nonsense" by modeling better user conduct and by suggesting ways to structure discussion (e.g., clarify page)."

Partly it's a matter of my time and attention, which I don't want overly-devoted to chasing down incivility and rule-breaking. Still, I believe I did correct PR once about the page's guidelines (he then changed his "reverts" subsection). If everybody suddenly wants to invest me with more authority, maybe I could efficiently wipe out incivilities, but I don't agree with your assumption that, merely by creating the Clarify page I can now tell folks what to do or edit their efforts (engendering another cycle of discussion), esp when I'm inviting folks to visit it and explore the potential for mediation.

Hmmm. But let's say that both you and PR are right, and I'm wrong. Can you and PR discuss (jointly or individually) what kind of authority you'd like to hand over to me? I'm open to experimenting with you. The experiment has to be narrowly defined -- I decline to tackle the whole article/Talk, but I would consider changing my approach to the Clarify subpage, or a well-demarcated Jenin Talk section, or the like. By "authority", do you want me to rebuke, to delete/edit "abuses" and enforce rules, to firmly refactor discussion, to set up tightly-structured input (e.g., like Clarify), what? I'm willing to risk messing up, making misjudgments or over-reactions etc, if you all want to define what types of authority you believe I could exercise responsibly. I'll taking your ideas seriously, so pls give it some thought. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Cause offense to Palestinians?

HG -> would you cast your beady eye over the following and tell me if it's reasonable of me to stir the pot with this futher proposed edit? This is a portion of the discussion at [6].

User:Burgas00, there might be a cultural difference here. the reason palestinians use the term martyrs capital is because it's a sign of pride and respect among what they call resistance. if you consider the resistance terrorism, then you also consider "martyrs" to be suicide bombers and terrorists... however, if you subscribe to the culture that calls their activity "resistance" and "jihad" m then martyrdom has only good connotation and nothing bad with it... do you think posters of suicide bombers are in children's bedrooms because they consider "martyrdom" a bad word? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

p.s. we're here to report the facts, not judge which culture is better/worse and who's language bears what POV with other people. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If we're to insert translated material of dubious provenance that Palestinians (apparently) find offensive, I wonder what other material we should be inserting into articles. Some youtube videos of settlers are so shocking I'm reluctant to write the key-words to help people find them. PalestineRemembered 10:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

read my comment again, your reply here doesn't make any sense. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You really don't know what Israeli settlers are shown saying on video about Jesus and their part in his death? I'm quite sure you'd object very loudly if anyone put material so offensive into the lead of articles! No duplicitous translation, it's all in English. Offensive material against Palestinians in Jenin has no place either. PalestineRemembered 12:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, my beady eye (an insult in some cultures, PR!) infers that your proposed edit is to strike the "martyrs' capital" clause. Before you "stir the pot", were I mentoring I'd ask you to (#1) demonstrate that you understand Jaakobou's reasoning, and (#2) you have good counter-arguments. To save time, here's my thinking about what you've actually written:

• Your first response is too oblique. You haven't specified the dubious provenance concern. Plus, it sounds like you're making a "I-don't-like-it" or "it's offensive" claim (a fairly weak, deprecated claim in this context) buttressed by a rather snide, "I could retaliate with stuff you don't like" kind of support. Plus, the retaliation idea may distract Jaakobou, which may contribute to his inability to quite parse your reply as logically responsive to his argument.
• Your second response does not address his statement about not understanding you. (Granted, he might have said more nicely, "I can't make sense of your reply", but his wording isn't so bad.) Instead, you basically repeat your same points -- it's offensive and I could retaliate (and w/"translation" you more obliquely repeat objection to the source) -- but now you're wording is more rhetorical and heated (what Kyaa above calls "emotional").

Do you see how I've analyzed your responses?

If you don't mind my saying so, your dialogue might be contrasted with Burgas00, who follows. He begins by conceding to Jkb the use of info, but disputing its relevance to the intro. A much more narrow objection than yours. He then acknowledges Jkb's cultural argument, which he deems irrelevant, w/explanation. He then states why the contested term is a biased POV phrasing, at least in English. Finally, he uses the preceding points to argue against Jkb based on "poisoning the well", a logical objection with much import for Wikipedian neutrality. In sum, he proves that he's understood Jaakabou, he counters specific points, and leads up to a strong WP-based arguments. He is calm and measured. (Except his parting shot.) See also how he narrows his claim to the lede and, later, sounds reasonable about the sources ("Ok maybe I'm being hasty. I'll look into the source...") After Burgas leaves, the discussion considers the sources but then gradually devolves and get distracted by folks on both "sides," so the chat ends up focusing again on user conduct rather than content. (P.S. Personally, I suspect that Burgas could eventually persuade Jaakabou to at least move the phrase, if not omit it entirely, because I intuit that the source aspect won't compensate for the neutrality problem. But will the thread ever get back there? Will Jaakabou feel so attacked as to dig in his heels?)

Anyway, this is what I might try to accomplish in mentoring. Understand arguments, counter-arguments, demonstrate listening, how/why to be calming when arguing, avoid distractions, responsively satisfy plausible objections to one's own argument, analyze a thread and enter it effectively, and identify the most relevant policy/style considerations for a given editing question. Plus, for controversial pages, the more one can do in advance, on the Talk page, anticipating objections, the more likely one can edit without raising eyebrows. We're not just here to stir the pot, we're trying to get a collaborative and efficient outcome. PR, you strike me as someone with a good eye for POV problems and other nuances, but you'll need the right tone and argumentation to put your insights into effect. Thanks for hearing me out on this. HG | Talk 14:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me wish you a good break. In my hurry to see how you'd judge things, I think I've sent you to look at a confusing case (and maybe one I knew I wasn't handling very well, which I'd simply have dropped if I'd not got you to turn to). Although it's been stated elsewhere that describing Jenin as "martyrs capital" in the lead is insulting to Palestinians, Jaakobou doesn't see the problem. He's defended his position on it and part of what he's said is tolerably sensitive. On reflection, I'm not even sure I think "martyrs capital" is insulting, though I do feel it's unencyclopedic to have it in the lead. (Note, I've never discussed this particular part in Talk, I've not really thought it through atall).

The point I'm making about the settlers is that it would be very, very easy to stigmatise them on the basis of what a few (many?) claim for themselves, just as it is so easy to stigmatise Palestinians. In the settler case it really would be deeply, deeply unpleasant! Do you not know of the English-language YouTube video I'm refering to? PalestineRemembered 16:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi PR. Thanks for your well wishes. On that phrase, I encourage you to think about just why it's "unencyclopedic" -- if not for reasons already mentioned by Burgas et alia. On the video, well, frankly, the last thing I need personally before entering the next few holy days is to watch offensive YouTube stuff. (And as I said above, it's not germane to the current topic.) Be well. HG | Talk 16:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

request comment

i request you go over the material and state your observation on this subsection in regards to removing one of the concerns regarding the totally disputed tag issues raised. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are you asking HG to look at this stuff, when he laid out a special "Clarify Jenin" page to help us sort out the factual stuff (at least), and you've refused (or failed, anyway) to take part in it? The "Totally Disputed" tag is there because the article is, well, "Totally Disputed" (and the death toll is only one part "totally disputed").

As you well know, the nearest we have to an official estimate appears to be "around 375". (That's for the whole West Bank, the other major attack was at Nablus, with 80 Palestinians and 3 soldiers dead). That figure was given to the UN on 7th May. International observers testified that the camp stank of rotting bodies, more of which were being found under the rubble until at least early August. Israel targetted the infrastructure of the whole region, imprisoned all the men-folk they could get their hands on, kept out the bomb-squad, shot up the residents even in short breaks in the curfews and made two other incursions in the weeks after this event. It's not surprising it was impossible ever to do a proper count. (There is another figure of 56 alleged to have come from the PA, it's included in the article - despite coming only from two sources that cannot possibly be acceptable to the encyclopedia).

I think I've entered the figure of 375 into the article twice. It's been edit-warred out of the article, as with so much other good material. The figure we're showing is 52, which was never accepted (the UN says something along the lines of "at least 52 and probably not as much as 500").

Many other serious faults with the Battle of Jenin article are listed on this page, no attempt has been made to challenge them - and the page is defaced with attacks laced with allegations against HGs good faith!

Three other items (of many) that belong in the article are as follows:

• A small massacre is reported (Nov 2002, perhaps once it was clear that Israel would not investigate, despite admitting the incident) by Amnesty International (also the Independent newspaper 21st April) allege that three unarmed and unresisting men were gunned down in an alleyway and guarded for an hour while they died. (One survived, hence the evidence and the names of two of the soldiers).
• Sharon says (early March) "Palestinians must be hit and it must be very painful ... We must cause them losses, victims, so that they feel a heavy price." Even the apologist Time Magazine is telling us that the incursions were intended to be punitive ("communal punishment" anyone?).
• Zalmon Shoval (adviser to Sharon) tells the BBC that the United Nations special envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen "has no business whatsoever to tell us what is right or wrong" (18th April).
• Why would we accept any denial of wrongdoing by Israel, or any of their figures, when they failed to completely cover up what they'd done, and their attitude is so blatant? PalestineRemembered 17:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm, gee whiz PR, if you've noticed my reply to Jaakobou, I haven't yet said that I would comment and, if I do look into this further, I wouldn't want my Talk page to be a place to debate the substantive issues. Sorry. And PR -- look, I do appreciate your cooperation with my proffered page to Clarify the issues. However, I've borne personal attacks in my life, and I don't see one on the Clarify page. Here's why (a David Letterman list?):

1. It is not an attack to reject somebody as a potential mediator.
2. Kyaa did assert that I am far "too buddy buddy in tone with PR," which hopefully neither you nor I interpret as an insult! Plus, G-Dett speaks kindly there on my behalf, so it's actually a pleasure to read that page.
3. I'm starting to feel miffed that you've declared on various pages that I've been attacked. Since I disagree, it sounds like you deem me too dense to notice when I'm attacked. Well, I'm not. Call off your full-court defense!
4. For me, this is a season of forgiveness. So why not join in and chill out about Kyaa or whomever else you think has attacked me.

It'd be great if you'd delete/revise wherever you've said I've been attacked. Regardless, please stop treating me like a target on some battleground. Thanks, I'm confident that you're doing this for good-hearted reasons and the gesture itself is duly noted! Take care, HG | Talk 21:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Only just seen this request from you ..... I see an accusation, and it doesn't concern a mistake you might have made, it concerns your Good Faith. I'm not sure where I've used the word "attack", but each time I see it, what say you I replace it with "allegations concerning HG's Good Faith" - how about that?

Hmmmmm - first I find from me is the following (above): "any "friend or ally" (or even exchanger of collegiate posts in between complete disagreemnt, like yourself) is going to be harrassed with accusations aimed at their integrity (or more serious attacks, such as sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry, as you and others have discovered)" - I've no idea what I can do with that! PalestineRemembered 07:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

PR, please start by rephrasing your claim above "the page is defaced with attacks on HG." I'm open to your suggested "allegations concerning HG's Good Faith" -- if you provide a supporting diff or quote. As stated in WP:TALK, "Don't misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means: Be precise in quoting others. (etc.)" Likewise, please delete or edit the following recent statement from Talk:Battle of Jenin:

The other problem I see is that your earlier suggestions and work were simply ignored, with accusations against your good faith. I don't see how that can be acceptable - if there are real objections to your contribution, someone has to put together a reasoned case for it. Drive-by assassinations will need to be treated as serious disruption of the project, and acted against. PalestineRemembered 07:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I disagree that Kyaa (or anyone) needs to make a "reasoned case" against accepting a specific mediator. I do think it would be helpful if Kyaa or Jaakobou (et al) would respond to Eleland's question about the need for mediation. But until they respond, you don't need to rub their face in it IMO. Thanks! HG | Talk 17:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Shanah tovah

Thanks for your good offices once again. I'm going to be off wiki for a couple of days too, and will be be so mild, so cool, so cucumber-ish, you're going to miss the old G-Dett.--G-Dett 01:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Impressed

I am impressed by the good work you are doing at the allegations of apartheid and the way you have managed to navigate the perilous waters of this dispute. If at any time you would be interested in serving the community as an admin, please let me know and I will be glad to nominate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I would co-nominate. I think a co-nomination of this sort would say a great deal. Not many can, to borrow Jossi's apt phrase, navigate these waters.--G-Dett 20:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be fantastic, G-Dett. HG: your call. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't participate, as a rule, in RFA's. If the two of you co-nominate, I will [participate in the RFA and support you]. Jd2718 23:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the above comment (in brackets). Given that I do not normally participate in RfAs, I do not think a nomination from me would be appropriate. But when Jossi and G-Dett, two intelligent editors who edit from strongly opposed viewpoints indicate that they believe you are a good nominee, and the little interaction I've had with you seems to support that, well, that would be enough to draw me to the RfA. Jd2718 23:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, per Jossi's suggestion, I've asked for an Editor review. HG | Talk 04:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

AoIA

Did I goof and edit what I should not have edited, here? If I did, could you pardon me, alert me, and revert me, in no particular order? Thank you. Jd2718 00:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

AoLA LOL

Don't worry HG. That was an addendum to a conversation 6SJ7 and I had way back, in which I was explaining the crisp distinction in my mind between supporting an article about an apartheid analogy (on notability grounds) and supporting the analogy itself on moral or empirical grounds. Obviously, many of the "allegations" article's I've moved to delete focused on countries with vastly worse human-rights records than Israel (Saudi Arabia, China). Lebanon is a sui generis case which sheds even more light on the relevant distinctions. It has the most liberal institutions of the Arab countries, but its treatment of the Palestinians, in my opinion, could fairly be described as apartheid-like. As that analogy however isn't advanced or debated hardly anywhere, it doesn't constitute a notable discussion. I said to 6SJ7 that I'd emit friendly barks at any such comparison in the public sphere, but would snarl rabidly and/or bite children if anyone created a Wikipedia article trying to conjure the mirage of notability around it in order to make a point.--G-Dett 15:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It is time to work for the Lord

[This] may give you the basis for my PROD tag on that subject. The articles had a bit of context to them but was primarily the verse itself. I am still a bit iffy about this one so I just tagged it to alert other editors to weigh in. That is all. Cheers! Spryde 13:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've further commented there.DGG (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Pardes (legend)

Shana tova. I largely replaced the article with a portion of what I had written about the legend at Elisha ben Abuyah. The article could be expanded with sections about how the fates of the three rabbis have been interpreted. Or we could delete this article and editors can include that interpretation in each rabbi's article if they choose to. Obviously it's most significant with respect to Elisha. I don't favor one approach over the other. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Do a table on RS

Seeing the success of Eleland's tabulation of the death estimates at Battle of Jenin, I'm wondering if we couldn't do the same thing for the RSs. I think we could quickly discern which of the various sources available we should be using. I'm confident we'd want to exclude some of them because they don't come across as reliable, either by their language, their adherence to good information, or what others say about them. What do you think? PalestineRemembered 22:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting idea. But I'm a bit confused. You'd like to list RS's in reference to what topic or question? If you want one for Jenin in general, that seems rather vague and a tall order, no? Ciao. HG | Talk 00:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest looking at the sources we've used in this article, in relation to this topic. It's possible that the Washington Times is reliable outside the Middle East, for instance. (Though I rather doubt it, for reasons I think I've given you). PalestineRemembered 06:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Back – fit, tanned and rested

Hi HG, I'm delighted you'd consider becoming an admin, because I think you'd make a great one. I'm afraid I can't offer much advice about the process; except for a few instances of vote-stacking, or badsites-related mayhem (see the Gracenotes RfA), things usually seem to be relatively straightforward. I promise to give it some more thought,--G-Dett 20:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

(copied for record) Your mediation skills are great. I originally visited the Hawaii article when I saw you get complimented, I wanted to see what you did and how you did it. At some point, I'd like to talk more about how you handle your placement within the RfC. Regardless of what others there say, I'd urge you to hold to your self-identification as a mediator, not an involved party. Sure, one side or another may try, in effect, to recruit or claim you for their side (or attack you as biased for the other side). I've see that happening subtly or bluntly w/me. But if you're interceding as an uninvolved party, stick to your guns (or the sea god equivalent)! So, I'd still suggest that you refactor your statements (and your direct interlocutors, like me) elsewhere on that RfC. But we can go into this more later, as you wish. Take care. HG | Talk 21:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks HG. It's my first real mediation effort on a subject I'm not involved in editing. Having positive feedback from you (as another uninvolved party) is therefore quite nice. I guess I should refactor the statements. I haven't yet since I sort of find the distinction between mediation and involved party kind of hazy. Ethnographic studies wherein the ethnographer in question recognizes that they are not an objective observer and that their presence indeed has an impact of the environment they are studying have influenced my outlook in this regard. Plus it seemed that Laualoha's interpretation of involved party was anyone who was party to the discussion prior to the RfC, even if only as mediator. After she moved your comments to that section, I just followed suit by posting there, not wanting to get into a tiff over comment placement. If you feel it's important to move them, by all means do so, I won't object. But I don't really think it's that important. I prefer to make the distinction in the content of my comments rather than their placement. I guess I'm a bit bohemian and unprofessional about mediation in that regard, or else it's just a more new-agey hair-down approach. ;) Thanks again for your kind words. Tiamut 21:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(copied) Hmmm, didn't realize you're such a bohemian. LOL. Sure, the distinction is hazy, esp since a mediator can end up suggesting and implementing edits. But the distinction may be a key to your effectiveness, both in how you are perceived by others and your ability to keep an open mind to competing views. I'd guess that your friendship w/Laualoha won't be altered if you play a neutral role, as you define it, but it's up to you. (Alternatively, you can serve as an advocate for her cause, I can't read your mind.) Anyway, given what's happened, I don't feel comfortable refactoring your comments unless Laualoha chimes in here w/her ok. BTW, it's a good sign that Jere is back, because he exemplifies more clearly what it means to be an involved party. Ciao. HG | Talk 21:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I will ask Laualoha if she wouldn't mind if I did that if you think it's that important. It's good that Jere is back yes and your latest comments were useful too. I'm not trying to be Lauloha's advocate though I'm sure my sympathies for her general plight are quite apparent. It's hard writing from the persepctive of a people or nation without a nation-state. (Sorry I couldn't resist referencing that.) Anyway, I'll drop her a note and follow up when I can. We just bought a really really old house that needs a lot of work (like plumbing, electricity, windows, etc. ) Yes, I (and my husband) are really are bohemians. ;) Will be spending less time on the screen and more time sanding down old shutters, and replacing broken colored glass in the days, weeks, months, and possibly years to come. It's a huge project. We're very excited. But I don't think I'll be able to break my Wiki addiction, so I'll still be seeing you around. Tiamut 21:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(copy) I wouldn't have said all of the above were I not confident in your ability to set aside (compartmentalize) your sympathies when choosing a neutral role. One trick would be to focus on the dissimilarities between the Hawaiian and Palestinian "nations" (I'm glad our relationship has weathered that stormy little argument) and their situations, and to find ways to sympathize w/Jere's view. Don't get lead poisoning or too much particulate dust during your rehab breaks... Adieu. HG | Talk 22:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to Legal Status of Hawai'i Comment

Hi HG. I just wanted to bring to your attention that I posted my reply to your comment on my page here, since it might be hard to find. (I've tried editing for clarity but it's no use, I'm too tired right now. Sorry.). BTW, I noticed the discussion w/Tiamut above. Yes, I think it's fine if you guys put your comments wherever you feel they are appropriate, as long as it's not misleading. It might help if you were to add a comment on your own post there, disclosing (as she did) that you were involved before. Hopefully this phase of the never-ending-weight-discussion is mostly pau and doesn't matter much, but I like to see things set straight. Aloha, --Laualoha 10:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replied there. Be well. HG | Talk 21:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: (WP:US/R) Scheduler for WP-work or wikibreaks

It's less feasible than the current wikibreak enforcer in most circumstances, because the system needs some way to remember whether you've logged on already that day in the general case. It would be possible to write if any of the following conditions are true:

• You use the same browser and computer for everything
• The times at which you can log on are determined in advance (for instance, only allowing logon between 9am and 10am, and between 7pm and 8pm each day)
• You don't mind information about whether you're logged on or not being publically available

Reply to this on the requests page, thanks. --ais523 15:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments on 'Psychiatric abuse' article

HG, thanks for intervening and making some common sense remarks about the NPOV dispute. There's only two editors wrangling away on that article, both 180 degrees apart. There has been another comment (from Chupper) that the article was good and interesting, but misleading, so I made changes to it that he suggested. At what point can one declare that the NPOV dispute is resolved, and take off the tag? Neither scuro nor I would be likely to back down. Is this sort of thing (NPOV dispute) subject to polls or votes? No one has rated the importance of the article yet. I'm not sure it it would be appropriate for me to do it, since I wrote it. S. M. Sullivan 07:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"fringe" in law

Aloha HG, and thank you for your note. I suppose to elaborate on my point, legal journals, and lawyers for that matter, are in the business of coming up with arguments, regardless of how "fringe" they may be - the novelty of an argument does not make it unacceptable for publishing in a legal journal. So if a professor of "international law" makes a proclamation that the Thracians were illegally displaced from their homelands, and deserve international reparations, and builds an entire article dedicated to that premise, a legal journal will not out of hand dismiss it.

However, that same professor, submitting a plea to either the ICJ, a U.S. court, or some court in the Balkans, would be laughed at and dismissed with prejudice.

In many ways I think this represents the Homeopathy issue - there are fervent believers in Homeopathy, who insist that it is real science, and real medicine. [7] But it is not science, it is pseudo-science - there is no evidence that water can have a "memory" once it has been diluted to the point where none of the original molecules in the solution remain. Just as the pro-sovereignty movement is not law, it is pseudo-law.

That being said, I believe that covering this "pseudo-law" movement is important - but in the context of a social phenomena, not a legal one. Were this an actual legal movement, over the past 30 years, we would have seen actual court action. There has been none. The primary reason for this is that in an adversarial format, the premises and basis of the pro-sovereignty argument would be ripped to shreds - they can only maintain their rationale if they don't allow anyone to challenge it. As an example of the conclusions made when all sides are given time to argue and defend their points, see the Native Hawaiians Study Commission Report, particularly the section on Existing Law, Native Hawaiians, And Compensation.

The hallmark of this movement has definitely been an attempt to make their current claims legal ones - and to do that, they've resorted to legislation like the Apology Resolution and the Akaka Bill. But as I illustrated before, one cannot legislate facts, and the Apology Resolution, tested in court in Rice v. Cayetano, was cited but ignored. So are these people creative? Absolutely. Are they doing a good job of muddying the waters enough to convince the layperson of their legitimacy? Perhaps. But they have not dared step into the courtroom.

In conclusion, I believe that there is a place for an article on challenges to the legal status of Hawaii, but it must be done in a context of psudeo-law, rather than being given full weight as actual law. For example, the abortion debate in this country, or the gun control debate in this country, has a long judicial track record on both sides. We would consider "fringe" any other "legal" POV that does not actually engage the judiciary system, such as the Free Vermont movement. Or are we willing to create a Legal status of Vermont page? --JereKrischel 15:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not opposed in principle to a Vermont page, except that I found no law journal articles on the topic. (There is a book review.) Conversely, simply searching for "Hawaiian sovereignty" turns up 119 articles on Nexis, many clearly on topic. Anyway, I like conversing with you and we both seem to be pretty civil and making intellectual arguments. (Do you feel the same way so far?) I think we're at an impasse but we've really narrowed down the reasons for our disagreement. Let me push you a bit no clarify the disagreement again. (1) You think peer-review law journals are publishing "fringe" views, as defined by WP:Fringe, whereas I argue that widespread peer-review publishing demonstrates that they are not "fringe" views. (2) You believe that failure or dismissal by courts today indicates "fringe", whereas I think lack of practical success is not sufficient evidence to make a legal argument fringe. Also, you downplay the relevance of the sovereignty view in at least one old court case (1910) and in such recent cases as Rice v. Cayetano (you concede that the view was cited but that's irrelevant because the court ignored it). (3) Based on what you say above, you further want to distinguish between legislative efforts and the courtroom. If the courts do not give much or any hearing to a legal argument, then you believe the argument is "fringe" even if the legislatures including Congress are open to discussing the legal arguments. Conversely, I believe that the legislatures, the courts and peer-reviewed law journals all comprise and determine the mainstream discourse of law, so plausible arguments published in any of these settings are "fringe" views. If you feel the above portrayal of our disagreement is a bit slanted, maybe you could suggest some edits. Then, given our impasse, maybe we can use this description to elicit other opinions. What do you think? Thanks very much for your thoughtful analysis and responsiveness. HG | Talk 16:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Type of sources

Hi. I noticed in your edit summary, for Battle of Jenin, you mentioned primary and secondary sources. Though I don't know you, I hope you don't mind my recommending the Wikipedia policy about primary and secondary sources. Maybe this seems counter-intuitive, but a key point is that "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." This is because the encyclopedia is mainly a "tertiary" source that depends on solid secondary sources, and because the interpretation of primary sources would draw us into original research, i.e., to be avoided. If the topic concerns media coverage of an event, then you are right to see that a given media report like Ha'aretz is functioning as a primary source, which therefore means that we should rely on secondary sources that put the Ha'aretz and other coverage into the proper context and analysis. I say this without prejudicing whether your proposed finding ("evidence of massacre") is correct or not. See what I mean? Hope this is useful. HG | Talk 16:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:HG - your explanation is admirable, but I think Haaretz is a secondary soure (ie the level at which some kind of fact-checking goes on). Our "Tertiary" level article should be able to treat Haaretz as an RS. Best Regards, PR^talk 21:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC on scuro is being deleted

Have a good holiday. It is possible that the last incident where my talk post vanished (today), was caused by a computer glitch, and scuro denies deleting the post. So I'm deleting the RfC on her.S. M. Sullivan 22:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sullivan and Psychiatric Abuse page

This is all just becoming a giant waste of time. No real forward progress has been made on any front. The page still is obviously biased to the point that one could label it propoganda. I can not do my job as an editor and alter it because my edits are reverted. Can you think of any reason why I shouldn't simply ask for a mediation cabal where this can get settled quickly?--scuro 23:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

workshop

What a work ! Good job !
I will see what I can do. If I understand English good but my writing is not very good.
Regards,Alithien 09:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my contribution is near from zero...

Would you mind adding a pov-tag in the article Allegations of apartheid

I added one twice justifying me in the talk page but it was reverted without discussion and I would not want to start an edit war about that.

Thank you, Alithien 14:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

La positive attitude

Do you know there has been a famous joke about that in France 5-6 years ago. A famous singer wrote a song named "positive attitude" and at a meeting the French Prime Minister asked to population to adopt this "positive attitude" so that the country move forward.
In political matters, there is no positive attitude ;-)
I cannot deal with the content of Israeli apartheid. I don't know enough about that. I just say it will not be a neutral work with the current choices.
But if you want to involve your own "positive attitude" as mediators in Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus or the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, you are welcome. That is I think what lacks to them so that contributors can move forward with these subjects.
Kind Regards, Alithien 14:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)