User talk:Bibigon

Welcome!

Hello, Bibigon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 22:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ISM

Those are fair points you make, Bibigon, and I didn't even notice the bold. The quote should definitely not be bolded. Feel free to revert me, or I can revert myself, as you see fit. I'm sorry I didn't look at it carefully enough. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the Hamas quote and the bolded sections from the other quotes, and left a note on the talk page. My apologies again for not paying closer attention. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blink (book)

I have reinstated the comment with the sources.

Anti-Arabism edit

You said Motivation of the assailaint is unclear, as per citation. Can't be called Anti-Arab, could just be a random attack

The victim was shot after he recieved a written death threat with anti-Arab slurs just the day before he was killed (I mentioned it in the article) it is not a random act of violence. --Inahet 04:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see where the confusion is. The cited article is of two shootings, one where the motivation was unclear and the other is believed to be a hate crime. The latter one is what I had mentioned in the anti-Arabism article. I'll find another article that is written on just the shooting of Ali Ahmed to avoid any further confusion. --Inahet 04:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to some sources, the shooting was being investigated as a hate crime [1] [2] [3]. But since the motivation has not yet been declared a hate crime by the "authorities" (even though it is apparent), I will leave the omission as is, I will just place in something else. --Inahet 21:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. That's all I was asking for. I'm not opposed to citing incidents, just that that one is a bit weak. I see no evidence to be certain that it was a hate crime. Bibigon 21:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Zinn

RE: Howard Zinn

Some could consider your edits as article blanking. There is no real need to edit down the length and details. --8bitJake 18:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty irrelevant whether some "could" consider my edits as article blanking. I justify them, and if some consider it blanking, let them revert. I wasn't paring down the article for the sake of making it shorter. I was paring it down for the sake of removing huge swaths of quotes, which belong over at Wikiquote rather than here, and add nothing to the respective sections in which they were placed. Bibigon 18:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right - regardless of anyone's political point of view, this article needs heavy editing to make it readable. Unfortunately, it's one of those topics where editing will be seen as a political act. Is there any way I can back up your point in the mediation thing? --Liquidindian 06:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Case: Irreducible complexity

You have indicated that you are willing to accept an assignment as a mediator. I have assigned this case to you. If you don't want to take the case on, just say so at the bottom of the request, delegate it to someone else and update the case list accordingly. Before you begin the mediation please read the suggestions for mediators. You can also review earlier mediation cases to get an understanding for possible procedures. --Fasten 13:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would have been well served to read the above comments, especially 4, 6, 11, 12 and 15. Taking a side in a dispute without actually reading the history of the dispute and without trying to involve (or even inform) the other involved parties (a note at Talk:Irreducible complexity would have been nice) does not create confidence in your ability or willingness to mediate. Please remember that the job of a mediator is to try to get people to agree on things, not to simply take the word of a trouble-maker at face value. Guettarda 07:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I did read comments 4,6, 11, 12 and 15 beforehand, and did try to take them into account, the complaints you mentioned here are valid nonetheless, insofar as I didn't approach things from the proper perspecitve as a mediator. I will be withdrawing from the mediation process, as I am too inexperienced with these matters to be particularly helpful, as my bungled attempts here demonstrate. Please accept my apologies. I did give things an honest effort, however, I misunderstood the process in spite of that, and it showed. Again, I'm quite sorry for how I approached this. Bibigon 07:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia

Wikipedia prohibits persistently reverting pages, and we have a three revert rule to ensure that edit wars do not escalate. Because you made four reverts within 24 hours on Islamophobia, you are blocked from editing Wikipedia for three hours. Please try to discuss changes rather than just reverting. Thanks. Stifle 21:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth revert, while perhaps unwarranted, was done in response to what seemed to me to be likely sock puppetry going on, and not a real user suggesting a change. It was the IP's first edit, and it was without an edit summary, or an entry in the talk page. Fair enough however, I'll refrain from this in the future. Bibigon 21:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what do you want?

bibigon, what you are doing on the zinn page is akin to bomb throwing. you whine, you carry on, you fight, and then when you fail to convince collegues, you take your gripes outside the page. And yet, you don't do the one concrete thing that could bring about change, and that is, to offer alternative viewpoints for the article. it is difficult to take you seriously, though of course we try. they have this thing in court where judges dismiss cases because the plaintiff does not ask for something that can be granted. that is what is happening here. instead of attacking people, and being aggressive, say what you want and say it specifically. don't order other people around. say what you are willing to do to bring about change and consensus, that is, if that is what you want. you pissed off a lot of people, without discussion on talk page, deleting vast swaths of material from the article. that showed an enormous amount of hostility. and then you said you know nothing about the subject. gee, why are you bothering? why do you have such a strong viewpoint given that you say you know nothing about the topic? where do your opinions derive? maybe i can help you come up with some alternative viewpoints to add to the article. skywriter 23:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I want? I want an article on Howard Zinn that introduces who he is, then moves into his biography, and in that biographical sketch, presents the facts of his life rather than using text to give his political views throughout. After the factual and NPOV biopgraphy, I'd like a section on his political views, where a few of the aforementioned biographical quotes could go. Then, after that a section on his critics, of which he has many. This in addition to describing "A People's History" seperately, as well as his playwriting. I would like this to be written in encyclopedic style rather than that of a book report, I would like for this to not be a piece where here you can ascribe motivations and use unsourced adjectives at will, but rather something resemebling a real entry of an encyclopeia.

I also want for you to back off of the personal attacks, which are both a violation of Wikipedia ettiquette, as well as being fundamentally baseless. You have repeatedly mischaracterized what I have done, and you have done so in a malicious manner. I have ignored it up to now, but now that you've brought these same tendancies to my talk page, I feel the need to address this. Your behaviour here is not particularly helpful, and you don't seem to be interested in actually improving this article. Rather, you seem to be here spoiling for a fight without any real basis for your arguments or claims. Other editors have given some substance behind their claims, yet you have refrained from doing as much. Rather you employ strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks. I plead with you, please stay on issue. It's the only way that Wikipedia can survive. What have enganged in here is exactly the kind of behaviour which is detrimental to Wikipedia, the kind of behaviour which doesn't help anyone. Focus on the facts and you'll be a significantly more productive member of the community. Bibigon 04:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia

Greetings thanks for writing on the Islamophobia talk page. I'm curious, did you get a chance to look at Talk:Islamophobia#Properly_defining_the_term_.22Islamophobia.22_.28Continued_from_previous_section_of_talk.29? Thanks! Netscott 21:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I'm curious, have you had a chance to actually familarize yourself with some of that details of the U.N. seminar I've cited? Netscott 23:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamaphobia, anti-Semetic views (the hate of Arabs) and anti-Iranianism are all linked

Read user:Diyako and several other users edits in relations to Arabs and Iranians or Iraq or Kurdistan. It looks like they, these Israeli editors are trting to create a clash between Iranians and Arabs. 69.196.139.250 04:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jenin Massacre

Human Rights Watch report - This quote is from the BBC report which is now largely believed to be unsubstantied. Instead of deleting sourced material, to rebuff them provide other sources saying it is unsubstantiated, it's hard to just take someone's word for an article being distrusted. Thanks Pluke 11:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually kind of the focus of the article... It's not taking my word, it's reading the article. Bibigon 14:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little Green Footballs

Thanks for helping fix some of the recent polemical edits to Little Green Footballs. Keep it up! ProhibitOnions 21:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little Green Footballs

The article as written mentioned that some LGF commenters are vocally un-fond of Arabs. Quoated citations were provided. You deleted the citations, then requested citations, then deleted them again when they were provided and requested new ones.

Is there some Wikipedia rule against providing citations I am not aware of?

I assume if an article about Ronald Reagan made reference to his eloquent speaking style it would be permissible to quote the speech he gave in the wake of the SS Challenger disaster, "slipping the surly bonds of earth," etc.

I am not a fan of unsupported assertions, if people make claims then they should be able to provide a citation or example or even a direct quote. An assertion is made in this article about the tenor of the LGF commenting community, to ask for citations and then continually delete them strikes me as somewhat counterproductive. Dragula 22:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a line like "Critics point to the hyperbolic language, references to violence against liberals, and dehumanizing slurs employed by some commenters" what you need is not evidence supporting the critics, but a citation to the critics themselves. Otherwise, it is original research. Find the critics who point to that, and cite them. We don't need evidence for the veracity of the criticisms or the defenses. We need citations to the criticisms themselves, and to the defenses themselves. Pointing to a couple select posts accomplishes nothing, as we have no reason to believe those posters are in any way representative of anything on the site. Bibigon 22:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recently added citations of this "hyperbolic language, references to violence against liberals, and dehumanizing slurs." The citation is the collected quotes from the LGF/Late German Fascists quiz. You erased this link, saying that the blog who sponsors it shouldn't get a mention. But instead of editing it to read without the name of the blog, you simply erased the entire paragraph.

Do you want the citations or not? And yes, I have read the discussion over the subject a thousand times. I just feel that maybe, looking over your track record here, that you're more interested in hiding factual information that doesn't put certain subjects in a positive light.

Mlhoganjr

You are mistaken in your assesment. I am primarily interested in making Wikipedia more encyclopedic in nature, and less amateurish. Please discuss this on the relevant talk page in the future unless you have a specific issue with me. There are others interested in this particular debate as well, so I see no need for it to be restricted to my talk page in the future. Bibigon 22:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

If you need help, there are some suggestions and resources at Wikipedia:dispute resolution. Basically, the point is to find consensus, so talk to each other, ask what the sticking points are, find a way to satisfy each other. If there is a dispute over a dispute tag, see why the tag is there and what needs to be done to fix the problems that the tag indicates. -Will Beback 00:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have previously pursued this route, and was successful in resolving the dispute with other editors on this issue. Only skywriter continues to deny the underlying issues with the article. I have tried talking to him, and he has shown little to no interest in the matter. Bibigon

Good edit conflicts result in more information, better sources, and greater neutrality. Bad edit conflicts result in blind reverts, contorted prose, and endless sniping. I suggest talking some more. Try to find out what he is expecting from the article, and share with him what your expectations are. Try to pin down the differences, and see if there is a compromise or a third way which will at least barely satisfy everybody. I'll go post the same adminition to the other editor to be fair. Please, let's have a good edit conflict. I don't want to get into the details of this dispute, but I know it's about a tag. Would it be possible to exchange the article-wide tag with a section tag? -Will Beback 09:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia

Greetings Bibigon, I was wondering if you might express your editorial view on this bottom section of talk on this article? Thanks. Netscott 14:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits and consensus

Hi, this is my step in reaching out to you before seeking arbitration. Basically, I would like to resolve why you have made massive edits without attempting any discussion on talk pages, for example, in the case of People's History.

There was no discussion on that talk page since April. You were asked to explain your reverts on the Zinn bio page and refused to reply. Instead you wiped out massive amounts of the People's History page with no discussion at all. Those activities appear to be in revenge for your being asked to explain your actions on the Zinn bio page.

I support the idea of seeking consensus and encourage you to do so as well. Willbeback offered good advice on dispute resolution recently, and I have been reading it. I hope you do too. Skywriter 07:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with revenge. Please stop thinking everything is personal.

My edits were and are completely within the bounds of what makes for a good Wikipedia article. Any experienced editor will tell you the same. Do you think that huge swaths of quotes from the book are really appropriate for an enclyclopedia's entry on the book? If so, why? And why don't other notable books have similar setups.

I'm being quite honest here, I couldn't care less about Zinn's politics, his religion, or anything else about the man either. I'm trying to make Wikipedia more professional in style and in content. The amateurishness of many pages is really holding it back, and that is why I performed those edits. Bibigon 07:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are elements of truth in what you say, bibigon, but it is your method that people question. You do not seem to want to persuade others. You seem angry and more interested in using a bludgeon than what powers of persuasion you may have. Perhaps you will think more along the lines of making suggestions, trying to get other people to agree. Your suggestions could be accepted and other people would participate if you reached out. Here's hoping there can be some change in your approach. Communication really is better than issuing orders. Best wishes, Skywriter 16:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes to Alan Dershowitz page

Dear bibigon, This is part of my continuing attempt to reach out to you to reach consensus on a number of pages. I believe you revert other users without attempting to discuss massive revisions, and that tends to hurt the morale of other users. Sometimes your actions seem just plain wrong. For example your changes to the Alan Dershowitz page fit into that category because you based your changes on anecdotal data that is not verifiable. Here's what I mean.

I am the King of England and in my days at Harvard, I edited The Crimson and was strict about fact-checking every single article, even the ads.

Okay, I see your raised eyebrow and itching fingers. You want to begin typing, "You are a liar. We can verify that you are not the King of England."

Yes. Anyone can verify that. What you can not verify is "in my days at Harvard" or "I edited The Crimson and was strict about fact-checking..." You would be correct in deducing that there is no credibility in my claim to having contributed to The Crimson because my claim is not subject to verifiability.

On the Internet, you can claim to have written for The 'New Yorker (or The Crimson, but an anonymous claim is not verifiable.

Whether your statements (or mine here) about having written for The Crimson are true or not is beside the point. On Wikipedia, the standard is not truth but verifiability That such a claim is anecdotal, and not subject to verifiability makes it worthless for the purpose of Wikipedia or in defense of summarily deleting another editor's contribution.

Similarly, if I were to claim to have written for The Crimson, that means [4] I am or have been a Harvard student. Only Harvard students or faculty write for and edit The Crimson.

You wrote that you have "personally written" for The Crimson suggesting that you are or have been a Harvard student (or faculty). You further stated: "I know the fact checking that goes into it. Writers are often a bit loose with their attention to detail when taking down quotes, and the paper doesn't have any process for checking those quotes which a reporter submits."

Bibigon, we will safely ignore your claim that you have "personally written" for The Crimson because it is not subject to verifiability. We can, however, examine your claim about fact-checking by looking at Fact checker which states, 'The resources and time necessary for fact-checking are considerable. As a consequence, this work cannot be applied to copy filed on a daily basis. For this reason, fact-checking is not commonly done at most newspapers, where reporters' ability to correct and verify their own information in a timely manner is chief among their qualifications.

Therefore, the standard you apply to The Crimson is a false standard. No daily newspaper engages in fact-checking unless the accuracy of an article is challenged or a writer's honesty or attention to detail is questioned. Economics preclude it. However, when an article or writer's veracity is questioned, newspapers often go all out to determine the veracity of not only the article in question but other stories by the same author. The Crimson has recently been in the news for fact-checking and exposing, in April 2006, the plagiarism of Kaavya Viswanathan, an event that resulted in widespread acknowledgement of worthy journalism by The Crimson and the cancellation of a $500,000 book publishing contract. The Crimson's story is/was the talk of the publishing world, and there would not have been a story--in any media-- without savvy fact checking by journalists at The Crimson. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

In the "see also" section of the Wiki article on Viswanathan, Wikipedia notes how The Crimson addressed problematic journalism when it was brought to their attention. Notice it is the same way daily newspapers deal with it.

Irina Serbanescu -- Harvard student ('03) who, in April 2001, was forced off the staffs of both The Harvard Crimson and the Harvard Independent after she plagiarized a 147-word passage from Forbes magazine in a piece for the Independent. The Crimson retracted four articles written by Serbanescu in 2000-01; Serbanescu also resigned from positions at the Harvard International Review and the Harvard Book Review''

You also stated, "Second, I do not believe that the Harvard Crimson citation even supports the text that I removed. "The exchange brought to at least seventy-six the number of fellow Harvard professors Dershowitz has publicly described as “bigots”" implies that he's done so over the course of many years, and this is some running total. The wording did not imply what you claim. The editor who added that link correctly linked to the article AND to the online petition listing the signers, which included 76 Harvard professors.

bibigon, your claims about the The Crimson are not verifiable. I believe I have carefully made the case to revert your changes.

It is wrong that you deleted this entry. If you had modified the language slightly, that would have been acceptable. To delete valid references smacks of POV-pushing. Will you revert your changes, or modify the text? Skywriter 16:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli apartheid

1) Please stop removing sourced material claiming its "original research". 2) On the land question, the sourced material discusses apartheid so it is relevent. Homey 05:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is original research, even if it is sourced. The argument being strung together is not sourced, merely the claims within the argument. Bibigon 05:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "argument" is made explicitly in the sources ie the sources use the term apartheid and make comparisons with South Africa.

The sources include statements such as

"Israelis have always been horrified at the idea of parallels between their country, a democracy risen from the ashes of genocide, and the racist system that ruled the old South Africa. Yet even within Israel itself, accusations persist that the web of controls affecting every aspect of Palestinian life bears a disturbing resemblance to apartheid"

"Israeli governments reserved 93% of the land - often expropriated from Arabs without compensation - for Jews through state ownership, the Jewish National Fund and the Israeli Lands Authority. In colonial and then apartheid South Africa, 87% of the land was reserved for whites. The Population Registration Act categorised South Africans according to an array of racial definitions, which, among other things, determined who would be permitted to live on the reserved land."

(re Katzir) "His long battle is a protest against what he calls "Israel's apartheid".

"The bill was narrowly defeated and the former Justice Minister Tommy Lapid said he opposed it because "it smelled of apartheid".

Homey 06:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your posts on various people's talk page: "The origin of the chain of reasoning is Chris McGreal's article which is the first source cited." Homey 18:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editor & Publisher article

Victor Navasky Now Playing Key Role at 'CJR'

By Graham Webster

Published: June 01, 2005 12:30 PM ET

NEW YORK Victor Navasky, publisher and former editor of The Nation, has been working behind the scenes in a key, if uncredited, role at the Columbia Journalism Review, CJR executive editor Michael Hoyt told E&P Wednesday.

"It's been gradual," Hoyt told E&P. Nicholas Lemann, dean of Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism (where Navasky has taught) "asked him to take a role because we have both a Web site we're trying to develop and a magazine we're trying to get over some financial hurdles."

Navasky, whose name does not currently showup on the CJR masthead, told E&P today that he will appear there next issue as "chairman."

He has been meeting with staff "on Fridays to talk business side for a few months," Hoyt said. Hoyt told E&P that he and CJR publisher Evan Cornog report to Navasky, who in turn reports to Lemann.

As for whether having the longtime editor of a magazine with a famously political (liberal) bent involved in the administration of CJR, Hoyt said appearances might not match with reality. "It could give somebody an opportunity to make a connection, but the connection is not there," Hoyt said. "He doesn't push anything editorially."

Navasky said: "I've made clear to the dean and everybody else that if there is any conflict with the Nation, I will recuse myself from any considerations or anything that has to do with it.

"I raised the public relations part of it with Nick when he asked me to do this," he said, noting that some people may forget his pre-Nation history at The New York Times and elsewhere. He would not have taken the job, he said, "if I didn't think I could do it fairly."

The fact that Navasky is now advising at CJR was first reported on a blog known only as "David M" yesterday.

Hoyt, who called Navasky's role "99% financial," said the Nation editor doesn't make editorial decisions at CJR. "He's learned how to get a small magazine of ideas into the black, and he's trying to come up with some strategies for us," Hoyt said.

Navasky's autobiography "A Matter of Opinion," was recently published and has drawn wide notice.

Graham Webster (letters@editorandpublisher.com) is a reporter for E&P. Homey 00:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poisioning the well?

Using a source's description of itself is hardly "poisioning the well" and it's certainly consistent with our NPOV policy. We do not ban opinions, we simply insist that the opinion be treated like a fact, that it not be the editor's OR, that it be someone else's sourced opinion. These are not even hostile opinions by opponents or cirtics; in the case of BICOM and Honest Reporting they come from their own websites and in the case of CAMERA from a sympathetic organization. Homey 19:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've thrown up OR and NPOV objections in a way that suggests you aren't actually familiar with the policies ie by objecting to things the policies actually permit and encourage. Please do not simply throw out the names of policies in an attempt to remove info you don't like or want. Homey 19:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have rejected OR and NPOV objections in a way that suggests you aren't actually familiar with the polcies. Specifically, you think that anything which is sourced is considered acceptable for Wikipedia. You are mistaken in this in this regard. Bibigon 21:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OR

Fine. Let's find a neutral experienced editor to look over the passages and say whether or not they are OR since otherwise it'll just become another political football with the usual suspects lining up on either side regardless of actual policy. Any suggestions as to whom we should approach?Homey 23:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have suggested that Nysin was a pretty neutral experienced editor who has a pretty good understanding of the OR policy. However, if you won't accept his reasoning(which I suggest you look at the talk page), then I don't have a whole lot of other ideas regarding "neutral" editors. Perhaps opening up the page to a request for comment would be appropriate? Or perhaps you have a specific editor in mind regarding this issue who you believe to be neutral?

I honestly don't care very much about this particular OR issue very much. It's not that I think the line of reasoning is invalid, it's just that I don't think it fits in with Wikipedia policy. In light of that, I'd be happy to dispose of this issue if a neutral editor could be found. Bibigon 23:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mel Etitis was suggested by SV to deal with a problem at New anti-Semitism. Given a lot of the nonsensical debate around this article I'm afraid I was assuming you were just raising OR as a pretext to get rid of something you don't like. If this isn't the case I apologise. Is there some specific change you can suggest to make the paragraphs acceptable to you?Homey 23:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like the paragraphs to cite the source of the line of reasoning. Everywhere else in the article, we cite the origin of the reasoning in essentially every sentence. For instance, in the much maligned Chris McGreal section, we have "In a controversial Guardian special report, Chris McGreal...", "Among other claims, McGreal alleged...", "McGreal alleges that the Israeli act...", "To support his contention that Israel practices apartheid, McGreal cites..", and "He claims the report says..."

That's a good Wikipedia paragraph. It identifies the source of the reasoning(McGreal), and keeps strictly to what he points out and things directly related to it. It's very close to the text.

The text in question is far more free flowing. As Nysin said "No single sentence is OR, because each sentence pretty fairly represents the source it's derived from. The OR appears in the synthesis in the article." That's what bothers me about this article. There are three paragraphs which are primarily collections of facts, and while those facts may build a case for Apartheid, I don't know who's making that case, other than Wikipedia. Everywhere else, I can point to a source for the argument. Every other connection between Israeli and apartheid is sourced, either to McGreal, to John Dugard, to Desmond Tutu, to Uri Davis, etc...

Every argument or analogy has a source, except those three paragraphs. The section starts out with the "Proponents also allege that 93% of the land inside the Green Line is owned by the Jewish National Fund (JNF) and the Israeli Lands Authority (ILA)", and that's all well and good (which is why I haven't been tagging that paragraph.) However, the next three paragraphs are just facts. The synthesis of those facts isn't being sourced to anyone. I think many of them should be sourced to McGreal, but I honestly don't know, given that I don't know where the argument is coming from.

So what I would like is for those three paragraphs to source the origin of the synthesis of facts, ideally in every sentence, as the Chris McGreal section does. Do you understand what I'm getting at? Please believe me that I'm not just raising this issue to be an irritant. I'm not wild about this article as a whole, but that has nothing to do with this OR concern.

To give an example of how to fix this, lets say "John Smith of Human Rights Watch"(made up person) was the origin of the argument. One way of fixing this would be to have the article read:

John Smith, a contributor to Human Rights Watch, notes that as part of its land development efforts, the Israeli government utilizes the ILA and the JNF to establish towns in Israel. According to Smith, JNF's bylaws prohibited the sale or leasing of land to non-Jews. It appoints half the directors of the Israeli Lands Authority. In support of his claim that this is similar to Apartheid, he cites that in March 2000, Israel's High Court ruled in Qaadan v. Katzir that the government's use of the JNF to develop public land was discriminatory due to the agency's prohibition against leasing to non-Jews.[28] According to Dr. Alexandre Kedar of the Haifa University Law School "Until the Supreme Court Qaadan v. Katzir decision, Arabs could not acquire land in any of the hundreds of settlements of this kind existing in Israel.[29].

Something like that is what I'm looking for, except of course, with the actual sources of each fact being cited instead the hypothetical John Smith. I'd like a source, and I'd like that source to be someone who cited that fact in connection to the apartheid comparison. That's what's needed to avoid OR concerns. McGreal's section works because he cites a variety of facts, and every one of them is used by him to build the apartheid analogy. Something akin to that is needed for this section. Let me know what you think. Bibigon 23:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess we can work that into the passages. Stylistically, I'd prefer to avoid a "this person says this" "this other person says that" type article but if you think it's needed I'll give way. I don't have time to do this for a few days though. Homey 06:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There's no rush on this, but I do think it needs to get done, in order to make clear where the argument is coming from. Right now it really does look like Wikipedia editors are making the argument. Thanks for understanding. Bibigon 06:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Apartheid arbitration

The move/revert war issue for Israeli Apartheid has been referred to arbitration. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Move and revert warring at Israeli Apartheid --John Nagle 00:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Apartheid (disambiguation)]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

OR

Please see [10]. Homey 22:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EC

Sorry, that was the result of an edit conflict. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 16:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. With the havoc going on there, I'm getting a bit testy. I didn't really think it was malacious. Bibigon 16:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Death Totals in 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis

Hello, I think the only answer I can give is that it depends. I would use whatever death total that the mainstream news organizations are giving, but if it says so in the original news article, then I would also add the qualifier that the totals come from the Lebanese government or something.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please send me an e-mail

socalsimeon at yahoo.com. Thanks. SoCalJustice 05:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to if you could tell me what this is regarding? Bibigon 05:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DebkaFile

1) Please if you have something to say about editing a page, do it in the talk page of the page in question, for all editors to see.

2) Your threat goes against "assume good faith".

--Cerejota 12:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) The talk page is for things which are negotiable. WP:NOR is a non-negotiable policy. Just as I wouldn't post in the talk page telling someone to stop vandalizing the page, I didn't feel it was needed to be mentioned there that Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Given that you were the one who added the OR, I wanted to make sure you saw it, and were familiar with the policy.

2) Not at all. I'm assuming good faith, and thus I am giving you a warning before reporting you. Not assuming good faith would be me reporting you immediately. Bibigon 12:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A threat is not an assumption of good faith.--Cerejota 13:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You and I appear to disagree in that regard then. Oh well, such is the way of the world. Bibigon 13:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to intimidate people into your line? That is the way of certain people in the world.--Cerejota 15:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bibigon, thanks for your message. I removed the section on == Previous prisoners exchange == because I believe it violates wikipedia's policy on Crystal Ball. There have been a couple of people who state the same in the discussion page. It comes across as idle speculation and random facts. It reduces the quality of the article. 22:23 18 July 2006

Please trim your statement on Requests for arbitration

Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on Requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented cases are much more likely to be understood and accepted.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 11:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crime of apartheid

I believe your request for a citation is misguided.

First of all, I don't accuse Israel of perpetrating apartheid, I just find arguments based on logical fallacies bothersome in general, and allowing them into the discussion fails to portray this controversy in an honest light.

By saying that Isreal cannot be practising apartheid, because it is not South Africa, relies mostly on the fallacy known as appeal to tradition. In some respects this is merely a strawman -- Isreal is obviously not South Africa -- and this rings hollow much like someone being accused of murder insisting that they cannot be a murderer because they are not Cain, or that the victim is not Abel. The appeal to tradition is subtler of course. Abel was murdered in a field. If you kill someone, but not in a field, is it still murder?

What you suggest, or at least how I'm inclined to interpret this request, is incredibly more subtle. Essentially you are suggesting I can not possibly know what people mean when the word "apartheid" comes out of their mouths. This fallacy is known as Loki's wager, which is obscure enough not to have a wikipedia page, a situation I'll have to correct soon.

Loki is a trickster god in Norse mythology, who once made a bet with some drawves. The price should Loki lose, it was agreed, would be his head. Loki lost the bet, and in due time the dwarves came to collect. He had no problem with giving up his head, but he instisted they had absolutely no right to take any part of his neck. Everyone concerned discussed the matter; and, one could suppose, they are discussing the matter still. Certain parts were obviously head, and certain parts were obviously neck, but neither side could agree exactly where the one ended and the other began. As a resuly, Loki keeps his head indefinitely.

As a fallacy, Loki's wager avoids an honest discussion by instisting the topic of discussion can not possibly be defined, and therefore is impossible to discuss.

I would argue, that since there is an international treaty which 160 nation states have signed which define the term, which the link explains, it can actually be seen clearly that many of the citations on the page (and the main page on the controversy) already accuse the wall of being apartheid in nature, by its legal definition. And there is plenty of opposing viewpoints which counter their arguments in a reasonable fashion, (e.g. saying, essentially, that the crime of apartheid is defined as crimes based on race, while the path of the wall is not). And there are counter arguments, and counter-counter arguments, etc.

But to portray the controversy over the appartheid nature of wall in an honest light, which is what we should be striving for as editors, we shouldn't allow fallacies to simply sweep the controversy under the rug.

To reinterate:

Insisting the only true form of apartheid must match the South African model is an apeal to tradition
Inisisting Israel is not South Africa is a strawman
Insisting the term apartheid is undefinable is a form of Loki's wager

Wow. Not sure where that came from, but Ok...

1. I don't insist on any matching of Apartheid to the South African model.

2. I don't insist that Israel is not South Africa. Claiming I do so is a strawman. My point was that it wasn't clear that most opponents of the term opposed it on that basis.

3. I don't insist that the term is undefinable. The term is well defined. I just don't believe that the article has proper citations for the claim that that "Apartheid Wall" is actively making the Crime of Apartheid claim rather than merely using the term as a pejorative. That's why I'd like to see it cited. Bibigon 13:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. OK, I admit I was using your talk page as a bit of a sounding board, and was as a result making many assumptions based upon one edit. Thus brainstorming (and very manic that day), I didn't mean not to assume good faith. But still, if you say people who dub the wall the "Apartheid Wall" are using the term as a pejorative, that's still assuming they are being devious or disingenguous, and that they don't mean what they are saying. I find it a little odd "apartheid" is listed as a political epithet, for example, while "genocide" isn't, as they are both crimes against humanity, and the words get thrown around in a similar fashion (i.e. any society accused of genocide tends to be really insulted). But it does present confusion. If I believe Larry killed Moe, and I call Larry a murderer, I don't mean it as a pejorative, I mean it as a statement of fact, even if it turns out Curly was the real killer. If you insist I'm using it as a perjorative while the "jury is still out" that would be distorting my position. To say in the Israeli_West_Bank_barrier article some variation on "None of these people actually believe what they are saying, but here's what they are saying" is really poisoning the well. -- Kendrick7 18:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid

This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

To summarize: Discussion of global issues which concern use of "apartheid" and all polls shall be at Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid with subsidiary dialog on the talk page of affected articles. Based on the difficult and controversial nature of this matter, with the exception of Zeq (talk · contribs), who remains banned from editing the article, the principal participants in this dispute shall be granted an amnesty for past actions, but are strongly encouraged to engage in negotiations. All involved administrators are admonished not use their administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus.

- Mgm|^(talk) 20:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Guy Montag is banned from articles which relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Guy Montag's Probation under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber#Guy Montag placed on probation is extended to include one year from the final date of this decision. KimvdLinde and other administrators are encouraged to effectively enforce Guy Montag's Probation in appropriate circumstances. Should Guy Montag violate any ban imposed by this decision he may be blocked for an appropriate period. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 00:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Durrah article, FYI

I have used your name and a diff here [11]. The use of the word "reported" in relation to the death of Mohammed al-Durrah is being discussed as unacceptably POV, conspiracy -theory and may be a bannable/blockable offense at this point or in the near future.Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bibigon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]