User talk:Marokwitz/Archives/2012/December

Israel Apartheid Analogy

I see that you have been edit warring with Nishidani, and you would appear not to have won any consensus in support of your opposition to the inclusion of the poll in question, which I have suggested creating a section related to Public Opinion in which to gauge the response of the public to the statements of proponents and opponents, and the actual state of public sentiment in Israel.

What part of that is WP:OR? You do understand that I have simply included material that was already on the article page with a brief preface that paraphrases what the purpose of a poll is.

I will revert your edit after 24 hours, and I will request you to be blocked from editing that page if you don't provide coherent and rational answers.--Ubikwit (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Edit warring with Nishidani? You must have confused me for somebody else - I've made only one revert, 6 days ago. Hardly "Edit warring with Nishidani". Good luck getting me blocked for that! Regarding what part is WP:OR, read my edit summary, I've made myself quite clear. What is your source for the analysis "Public opinion on the use of the analogy is somewhere in the middle, but more difficult to gauge" ? Or do you feel that unsourced commentary is fine? Marokwitz (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

That comment was intended as a paraphrase of information contained in the block related to the article. That article indicated one trend, as well as some problems associated with the evaluation of that trend. Since the poll is representative of public opinion, which it is intended to gauge with respect to issues of current import in society, I fail to see how that paraphrase amounts to WP:OR in any sense. Perhaps I was trying to word it in a manner that makes the trend of public opinion reflected by the poll seem less pro with respect to the analogy than otherwise, but I only did that out of concern for fairness to those contesting aspects of the poll and in an attempt to maintain a neutral POV. --Ubikwit (talk) 10:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

The comment "Public opinion on the use of the analogy is somewhere in the middle, but more difficult to gauge" is not attributable to a reliable, published source. I fail to see how this comment can be logically deduced or derived in any way from the following block of text and the citations. You cannot imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources: That would be "original research". Marokwitz (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that's a fair enough assessment, but one that you should perhaps have raised on the Talk page in advance. Now we're talking about it here. How would you preface the block of text in a manner such as to describe it as "public opinion", thereby distinguishing it from positions put forth by proponents and opponents?--Ubikwit (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

We can preface the section by saying that a Dialogue poll surveying Israeli attitudes toward their Palestinian neighbors was conducted in 2012, and that both the interpretation and methodology of the poll are disputed. That seems sufficient as an intro, and directly based on the sources. Marokwitz (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be redundant in the main body of the text as per your current edits, which basically look reasonable. Although the poll was controversial, it would seem that there is a fairly high amount of public discontent with the governments policies on various fronts at present. The current text adequately reflects the fact that the methodology and interpretation have been called into question.

Since there was controversy about including it in the lead, however, I was thinking that creating a new section for public opinion would be useful, as the current list of Support and Criticism are a little unwieldy and the content difficult to navigate, and mentioning it in the lead in conjunction with the creation of the corresponding new section. To create such a new category though, it would be necessary to go through those lists and separate notable public figures and scholars from people whose statements belong more to the sphere of the public discussion among layman, so to speak. That is a cumbersome task that I'm not capable of taking on, not at present, at any rate.

Again though, since that was the first such poll, apparently, and it contained a number of sort of loaded questions aiming for maximum impact, I would be surprised if others didn't follow, so the potential to reorganize the various entities on the two lists might be something to consider for the future.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

The article should not contain the personal opinions of non-notable individuals, and such opinions do not qualify as "public opinion". Public opinion is defined as "Views prevalent among the general public". Marokwitz (talk) 07:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

True, what other gauges of public opinion might there be to include other than polls?--Ubikwit (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Only polls can gauge public opinion, I think. I don't think that public opinion on the topic has been sufficiently measured, to date, possibly because of the inherent methodological problems in such polls. Most people have very minimal or no knowledge of what the word "apartheid" means, and most likely interpret it literally as "the status of being apart", rather than the "a system of racial segregation". Marokwitz (talk) 09:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Racial segregation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intermarriage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of Jewish monarchs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Yehoram, Elah, Zimri, Nadab, Yehoahaz, Zachariah and Baasha

List of Jewish leaders in the Land of Israel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Artaxerxes

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

for adding the Thompson citation on the C-RAM 'Dome entry. Happy holidays! Irondome (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays! Marokwitz (talk) 06:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for the barnstar!

הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 15:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Socking

Hi, please look at my comments here. If you can explain your thinking a bit more, that would be helpful. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)