User talk:Major Bonkers/Archive Nov 2007

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On November 1, 2007, a fact from the article Holmes's Bonfire, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. (And look at the energy of the author of this article - he wrote the whole thing in about three days!).--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles closed

The above named Arbitration case has closed. The Arbitration Committee decided that [a]ny user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The Committee also decided to uplift Vintagekits' indefinite block at the same time.

The full decision can be viewed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 08:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now I know for sure that vague findings aren't just limited to the one I was involved in. Anynobody 21:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think it has achieved effectively nothing and to that extent is an almost complete waste of time. The rubbish posted on the Workshop page doesn't reflect well on almost everybody who joined in that bear pit. My own view was that to post in such an environment was degrading and an insult to my own (obvious!) intelligence. One of the few to emerge with an enhanced reputation is this admin, whom you might not have come across - and he writes beautiful English, too!--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more, it seems like the process is flawed by people who either don't care/aren't paying attention or are in fact morons who don't understand things like NPOV. (My hopes and money are pinned on the former, if its the latter we're all doomed!) I found someone who appears to have been topic banned for following rules like NPOV, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Regarding Robert Prechter remedy. Anynobody 08:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I've been very busy this week - I had a brief look, but I really couldn't spare the time to disentangle it and get involved. I must say that I admire your getting involved in what looks a rather complicated case. I'll keep a weather eye on it and chip in if I can find the time. I'm a bit jaundiced at the moment with the whole thing: perhaps some editors psych themselves up exterminating zombies/ aliens/ Nazis and then come online to vanquish their enemies on Wikipedia! There are some people who devote too much time to this project and lose their sense of proportion as a result.--Major Bonkers (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate the desire to help out, and have a question about it, but actually I wasn't recruiting you so much as pointing out another example of arbcom effectiveness. I've always had a belief that there is a threshold between action and inaction when presented with unexpected situations in life. An extreme example would be witnessing an old lady being robbed on the street, do you come to her aid, call the police, or pull a Kitty Genovese's neighbor and just watch/ignore it? (Of course there are many variables, like does this robber have a gun?) factoring in unfavorable variables like a gun in the robbery example can a situation be so fundamentally wrong that a person just feels compelled to act when it is pointed out to them, whether asked for help or not. Anynobody 06:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other half

This user supports the independence of Palestine.

This is a touchy subject with people so I want to first assure you that I'm not out to push an agenda or anything. Where do you feel the borders should be drawn?

(Since this could be perceived as a "loaded" question I'll briefly explain how I feel to unload it.) I think like Israel, they should have their own country too, and wish it was possible to go back to a 1948 UN partition. I also think, in a way, intolerance on the part of Palestinians who resorted to terrorism have actually hurt Palestine. Besides the obvious casualties caused by Israeli reprisals for terrorist activities, if the original UN proposal had been accepted they'd have a country. Anynobody 21:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I could intrude here; I too am in favour of an independent State of Palestine. But given that during the Mandate they were the overwhelming population throughout the entire area we know today as Israel, and have been almost entirely dispossessed by the immigrant Jews, it is surely a bit rich to accuse the Palestinians of "intolerance"! It is, of course, a touchy subject. But given that some Palestinian families have lived in Jerusalem and other places also within Israel since biblical times, the granting of a Palestinian State should not be a trigger to Israel for further ethnic cleansing. Most of the postulating on this issue is done by one side or the other. Better to read up ourselves without the rhetoric. The background to the whole business is best addressed in a two volume Survey of Palestine (written by an Anglo-American Committee) first published in 1946/7 and reprinted in 1991, ISBN 0-88728-211-3 and ISBN 0-88728-214-8 Regards, David Lauder 10:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I came across the User box ages ago whilst I was prettifying my User page, and I agree with the sentiments in general terms.

Six or seven years ago, I read a book on the Łódź Ghetto, and there was a description of how a Pole (that's a loaded term - because of the heterogeneous nature of Poland at that time, we're probably actually talking about a Protestant person, with significant German ancestry, living in Poland), who felt himself cheated when he smuggled six chickens into the Ghetto. His job was also to guard the Ghetto. So, as revenge, he shot six Jews who strayed too close to the perimeter wire.

It seems to me, how is this any different to the cases of Tom Hurndall or James Miller? (Here's another example: [1].) In each case, you have a horrifically disproportionate, and casual, use of violence against an unarmed opponent.

I know it's six of one and half-a-dozen of the other, but this isn't how civilised nations behave. What does it say about the nature of such a society that it can condone this activity, fobbing concerned foreigners off with vague promises of 'an inquiry'? Frankly, we can look back on the terrorist campaign by the Palestinians in the '70s as a golden age of peace: all that 30 years of tit-for-tat retaliation have achieved is an increase in the level of violence and a widening of the gulf between the two sides.

I also suspect <deep breath> that much rests on the Jewish character. The God of the Old Testament is famously jealous and vengeful, and it doesn't help that various nutters treat the Bible as title-deeds. At least the Hubbard-istas don't claim - say - California as 'The Promised Land', put up 'separation barriers' and extirpate any non-believer!

David - an interesting book review here: [2] --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very interesting but I doubt there will be any real surprises there, eh? David Lauder 11:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to imply that all actions by Israel are right or just. Nor do I mean to imply all Palestinians are intolerant or expect any person to willingly give up their homes and move according to a UN charter. My point is that there are almost always alternatives to violence and the choice of those who resort to it have hurt their cause and killed many innocent people in the process.

Though incidents like those you've pointed out are inexcusable, they are at least somewhat understandable given the tactics being employed in Guerilla war make things unclear sometimes. (Note that the ambulanceat the end is clearly marked as a UN vehicle. Anynobody 00:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC) (PS I assume you assume I'm not including the Łódź Ghetto in being understandable in the same way as UN vehicles being used to hide combatants.) Anynobody 00:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realised that I hadn't answered the question that you posed.

The difference between the British and American approach to the problem of Israel is, I suspect, that we take with a large pinch of salt claims of 'terrorism'. During the Second World War, there was a Jewish terrorist campaign operating in (then) Palestine against the British mandate. (Oddly enough, many of those terrorists were Jewish deserters from General Anders Army - two thirds of his Jewish contingent deserted, including Corporal Menachem Begin). The Jewish terrorist campaign included the assassination of Lord Moyne, the bombing of the King David Hotel, and the murder of two British sergeants and the booby-trapping of their bodies. It's interesting, actually, reading the Irgun article, to see that blowing up bus queues goes back to 1948 and was originally a Jewish tactic aimed against Arabs. In conclusion, as the good book has it: As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

I can't really see any grounds for optimism. It seems a double tragedy that a people with such a history of persecution have apparently learned nothing from it and have been unable to reach out to their neighbours. Looking at the problem dispassionately, Israel exists as an island of defiance amid an sea of hatred directed towards it, not least from part of its own population. Under the circumstances, can one really see a long-term future for the country? The only question being whether they take us all with them when they go. :( --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed. I read a PhD study on the period from the end of Ottoman rule to the end of the Mandate. Pretty grim reading, I can tell you. The British were trying to please all the people all the time and failing miserably. Unfortunately the immigrants had a large measure of political and economic support from the USA. David Lauder 13:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! I knew I should have made the point I wanted to about differences between Irgun/Haganah and the current situation. I absolutely agree that Jewish terrorists have existed, pioneered tactics, and caused innocent deaths while trying to get their country. What happened prior to Israel is a whole different ball of wax though because it goes all the way back to Rome kickingthe Jews out of the area long ago (by the way I couldn't agree more with David Lauder about the UK trying to please everyone and accomplishing the opposite.) A bit of quick background that may seem out of sequence now but will make sense by the end of this post. Both sides had committed atrocities going back to biblical times, but in 1948 when they were supposed to each have a country I reset the "atrocity counter" to zero (or at least an equal number) for both (certainly something for historical discussions but not a valid reason to fight between two nations.)

With both having their own country, Irgun/Haganah became part of the IDF and stopped bombing buses and hotels. Since Israel was founded I see the conflict as going through at least two phases. The original trouble circa 1948 when the UN decided to create Israel, and the current situation. Whereas the first fighting was about sharing land (a bit of a simplification I know) the current hate comes mainly from what might be called "collateral damage" as a result of the ongoing fighting. People who might not have taken arms up otherwise have a tendency to when a close relative or friend is killed. (I don't know for sure, but I suspect there were some cases like this during the height of the Troubles.) Given how difficult, if not impossible, it is to persuade people motivated by revenge and hate not to continue fighting it seems like a problem only solved through a sort of cultural thunderdome with the winner being whoever is left while the rest of us watch it. Anynobody 20:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a bit like the great Auberon Waugh, whose great idea (or one of them) was that, instead of having general elections, we should simply to lock up the National Front and Socialist Workers Party in Wembley Stadium and allow whoever was the last man standing to form the government for the next five years. Actually, the process of editing on Wikipedia seems very similar. It was one of your countrymen, I think, who said that the trouble with the Jews and the Arabs was that they wouldn't behave like Christians!--Major Bonkers (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like something a person in the states might say, and mean, forgetting about some of Christianity's less "Christian" acts. Both old stuff like the Spanish Inquisition, or Crusades and more recent deeds by groups like the Army of God. Speaking of associating behavior with religion, have you noticed many in the Christian right have no qualms about calling groups like Al-Qaeda "Islamic Terrorists" but get offended at the idea of "Christian Terrorists"(like the AOG). Yet most of these same people can't understand why Muslims too get offended by the association of terrorism with their religion.

I hadn't thought about it, but you are most correct. Editing here does seem like arena combat at times. Anynobody 01:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We British tend to like the Arabs too - we're all brought up on Lawrence of Arabia. We don't tend to have a 'Christian Right' over here - our wonderful Church of England (what you call Episcopalians) is remarkably wet. The main topic of discussion is whether gays can be priests.--Major Bonkers (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, our (American) perception of Arabs is usually in the context of being type cast in a certain type of role. Not exactly Lawrence of Arabia.... Ah the Episcopalians, my mother is Episcopal, and the Church taught me that religion is what you (man) make it. (You have to admire the balls of a guy who more or less says "To hell with this no divorce crap, I'm forming my own damn Church!" even if he was a bad husband.) Anynobody 06:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link

Thanks for pointing me towards that link. How very germane. Rockpocket 19:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the irony of boring you to tears with my own moans earlier this week (see above) was not lost on me! I have also noticed that, as a general rule, those who post examples of other editors' rudeness on Admin's Talk pages are often equally culpable: they're the ones who can dish it out but can't take it. C'est la vie!--Major Bonkers (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably be aware that you are being "asked" to "step down" for not condemning my "racist" remarks (plural apparently). Quite why you are being "asked" there and not on your talkpage, I will leave for you to decide. See Wikipedia talk:Irish Wikipedians' notice board#Racist Remarks for the public flogging (rotten tomatoes optional). I'm hoping this will not lead to around round of divisiveness (and would consider stepping back if that could be avoided) but I'm not about to let a single editor bully other people around, especially in the face of such hypocrisy. Rockpocket 01:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link. <sigh>. There's obviously been a misunderstanding and I'll deal with it tomorrow - I've had a long day.--Major Bonkers (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

There is an answer on my talk Page to your query. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]