User talk:PalestineRemembered/Archives/2008/October

BLP again

This is the second time I've had to delete your libel of a respected historian. Don't do it again. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, on a talk page PR said of Benny Morris that "he's a seriously right-wing Israeli, not afraid to speak in favour of ethnic cleansing." That Morris is right-wing and has openly endorsed what he himself calls "ethnic cleansing" is not at all in dispute, any more than Jay's description of Morris as a "respected historian" is in dispute. Morris is a highly respected, very right-wing historian who has both acknowledged and endorsed what he and other respected historians describe as ethnic cleansing; everyone familiar with the literature knows this. There was no BLP violation, none at all, and Jay's "libel" claim is not so much hyperbole as sheer ignorant balderdash. A bit of soapboxing certainly, from both Jay and PR, but very much par for the course with regards to I/P pages. Nothing to see here.--G-Dett (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, it was a rather obvious WP:BLP violation, and G-Dett's comments were only for the purpose of enabling PR's usual misbehavior and attacking me. Very much par for the course with regards to G-Dett's edits. Nothing to see here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have shown exactly why it wasn't a BLP violation, and why the "libel" accusation was spurious and trumped-up, par for the course in your ongoing campaign of incendiary harassment directed at PR. Your response is to say you were "obviously" right, but you remain as ignorant as ever of Morris' work, and you offer no evidence or counter-argument, just smarmy and witless barbs about me being "codependent."--G-Dett (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, another personal attack on me! There's a shocking turn of events! The day you start to discourage PR from making his disruptive soapboxing comments, rather than continually and irrationally defending them, is the day I'll re-examine my diagnosis. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The day PR stops soapboxing, you'll stop falsely accusing him of libel and assorted other things – got it. Now get this: the day you stop falsely accusing him of libel and assorted other things, is the day I'll stop pointing out the falsity of said accusations. As for soapboxing, it is endemic to I/P pages; you do it as much as the next person.--G-Dett (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No, the day you stop enabling PR's soapboxing and other misbehaviors, is the day I'll re-evaluate my view of your relationship with him. Regarding soapboxing, you may do it "as much as the next person", particularly if that person is PR, but I certainly don't; for one thing, I don't think I could parody PR as well as he parodies himself. For that matter, I also couldn't parody your ceaseless streams of disingenuous argumentation and almost comical personal attacks any better than you do yourself. Feel free to feign misunderstanding that comment, though, as you feigned misunderstanding the last. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor comment: not too long ago he was spoken of as seriously left-wing, not afraid to speak of Zionist violence. Maybe it's best to leave off the descriptive and stick to content? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC) c

In article space, absolutely. The sentence of PR's deleted by Jay was on a talk page.--G-Dett (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the descriptive in this case relating to the content. The descriptive was unnecessary and provocative. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies everywhere, in articles, on Talk: pages, in User space. Everywhere. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it does, but my exchange with Jaakobou had nothing to do with BLP. He was saying it's best not to describe the political leanings of sources, and I was saying that's true of article space, but it can certainly be relevant and appropriate on talk pages.--G-Dett (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Except that it was neither "relevant" nor "appropriate" for that Talk: page. As usual. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It is inadvisable to plunk accusations, esp. of libel, wholly ungrounded, on editors' pages. It 'cooks the books', stacks in unproven images, for unwary and hasty administrative eyes. If one has a complaint make it in the appropriate administrative forum. There is, as G-Dett notes, absolutely nothing to trouble or complicate PR's record, in the contested remark.Nishidani (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It is even more inadvisable to fill Talk: pages with insulting, inappropriate, and unnecessary commentary about living people. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite true, so what has this got to do with the price of fish? PR did nothing of the sort.Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I get it, you're from the Bizarro world! Jayjg ^(talk) 20:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussing the degree of reliability of various sources is a normal Wikipedian activity. Saying things about the sources (within reasonable BLP limits) is a normal and necessary part of such discussion. Posting a message on someone's talk page is a normal and important part of the dispute resolution process. However, re Jayjg's use of the word "libel": I would suggest choosing a different word; if it were to be used repeatedly, note that WP:NPLT says "For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended." ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you think anyone at all interpreted my statements as a threat by me to sue for defamation? I cannot, of course, speak to what Morris might want to do. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

just to say that I agree completely with this comment. --Fioravante Patrone en (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Me too. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Jayjg: Use of the word brings in an unwelcome intensity of emotional tone regardless of whether people think it actually means that or not. Other words and phrases are available. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As opposed to the original comment about Morris, which brought a welcome lack of intensity of emotional tone? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's from a rather famous interview of Morris by Ari Shavit published in the journal Logos in 2004. It and the contemporaneous newly revised edition of Morris' The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem elicited a great deal of discussion and controversy, but Jay appears to be wholly unfamiliar with both – hence his deletion of PR's post and his false accusations of libel, BLP violations, etc.:

Benny Morris: There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing.

Ari Shavit: And that was the situation in 1948?
Benny Morris: That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.

Ari Shavit: The term “to cleanse” is terrible.

Benny Morris: I know it doesn’t sound nice but that’s the term they used at the time. I adopted it from all the 1948 documents in which I am immersed.

This should settle the question of "BLP violations" and "libel," whatever other hyperventilations and distractions may follow.--G-Dett (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You still don't get it; even if the accusation is true, it still violated WP:BLP. It was an unsourced conclusion, based (presumably) on an interview with Morris (originally in Ha'aretz, I believe, not Logos), and was irrelevant to the topic of the article. It had no place on that Talk: page; it still doesn't. Period. As for "whatever other hyperventilations and distractions may follow", that all depends on how many more you intend to engage in. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You're spinning. There was no "accusation," no "libel," no "BLP violation." Morris famously took an extremely controversial position in several highly public venues, including a revision of his seminal book, and PR alluded accurately and non-controversially to Morris's statements. Knowing nothing about Morris' scholarship, you began hyperventilating and are now trying to spin your way out of a retraction. We've seen this movie before, and it sucks.--G-Dett (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, you're spinning, and ignoring policy, as usual. I was quite aware of Morris's interview in Ha'aretz - who wouldn't be - but that's pretty much irrelevant to my removal of PR's BLP violations. You don't seem to get it. Unlike your incessant attempts to insult people, or make points in some obscure game, WP:BLP matters. I'll repeat my previous comment, which you apparently failed to read or comprehend. You still don't get it; even if the accusation is true, it still violated WP:BLP. It was an unsourced conclusion, based (presumably) on an interview with Morris (originally in Ha'aretz, I believe, not Logos), and was irrelevant to the topic of the article. It had no place on that Talk: page; it still doesn't. Period. Now, given that your only purpose on Wikipedia is to enabling PR's soapboxing and other misbehaviors and insult me, I suggest you devote yourself to some more valuable activity. Almost anything would be of more value to you, and certainly of more value to Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Jay, you know nothing about Morris' scholarship, and very little about the WP:BLP policy – which is actually an important policy, notwithstanding your endlessly ignorant abuse of it. Stop harassing PR, and stop gumming up talk pages with balderdash.--G-Dett (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Husayni

There's nothing wrong in the info, Pr. The problem with the page is that it is quite over the limit of the wiki ideal, and will have to undergo substantial paring. I hope this can be done when the second part, relatively the blob it was a year ago, is revised, so that one can then address the flensing of the article, to keep to the gist. I'm familiar with quite a lot of those details, but kept them out. The first part esp. the three part re the 1928-9 incidents is very detailed because a great deal of work was required to clarify what a good many old sources use to say for ideological reasons. Eventually much of it can be hived off to the relevant articles, but only under conditions of stability. I don't own the article, so anyone can edit there, and no one should clear things with me first. I think the Bols info, like much else, has though to be pared down by paraphrase to the absolute minimum, eventually, and so, like many of my edits, can't stand as it is. Perhaps much of that material re Palin Report can be referred over rather to the Palin Report or the 1920 Palestinian Riots pages eventually. Let me know what you think. And I'm flattered you've run this past mem though there's no need to. Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Soapboxing

Please! take the soapboxing down a notch. At least try to keep some relevance between the soapbox and the issue being discussed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship

Have you taken up mentorship to replace Ryan Postlethwaite already? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Lucasbfr: I think it would be better if the two of you leave each other alone. I don't expect anything productive to come from this thread. Rather than raising questions about mentors from a 13-month-old discussion on a now-historic noticeboard, or posting soapboxing accusations without diffs, how about focussing on writing articles? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thoroughly commendable advice. I second Coppertwig here. These things are an enormous distraction from our concrete editorial duties, with texts.Nishidani (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A good advice it was and it would be nice if PalestineRemembered would make an effort to follow it. In case you are unaware, PalestineRemembered was recently nominated for a community ban by his 5th assigned mentor, Ryan Postlethwaith, who did not push forward with evidence to support this nomination. I'm fine with this but Ryan's lack of effort does not mean that PalestineRememebred should not look for a replacement. If this replacement is not found and issues persist, then I will approach the community to find one for him.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The Truk Islanders are famous in anthropology for running amok out of the blue. When colonial magistrates investigated an apparently unmotivated attack, they found out that it related to some incident recalled from decades ago, that for some reason or another, popped into the assailant's mind. In short, let's forget the past, and work in the present for the future good of this encyclopedia.Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

My response to Jaak, and PR, seconding Copper and Nishi is: just ignore it. So long as he is not attacking you personally, it shouldn't distract you so much from your work.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Not directly related to the above discussion, but I have just removed a long instance of soapboxing by PR, on the list of villages depopulated in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War talk page. PR: The reasoning is that I believe you violated the 3 first cases of soapboxing: 1) (Soapboxing is) propaganda of any kind, political or otherwise; 2) (Soapboxing is) Opinion pieces on politics; 3) (Soapboxing is) Scandal mongering. All in all, light cases of the above are sometimes fine as long as they are directly related to the article. However, your post was not only completely irrelevant to the article, but was also made after you were asked by two users to stop soapboxing. So again, I ask you to please stop. It might've been different if I asked you alone (as an involved editor), but it seems like others are asking you to stop doing this as well - so please evaluate your actions and don't take this as a personal insult, which it is not. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Soapboxing

Please cut out the soapboxing PR, like you did here. You popped up into an unrelated forum simply to push your political viewpoint and hatred towards Jayjg. It's not what AN/I is for so I've removed it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

We have policy, and Jayjg (who I'd not named) is just one of many administrators who help to enforce it by, for instance, threatening to block anyone naming a convicted holocaust denier, even on a TalkPage. There's nothing contentious about it - if there had been, I or you or someone else would have objected at the time.

Time there was consistency

Lets have some consistency and lets operate to the BLP bench-mark set by a top administrator (and ex ArbCom member) in the project. Naming a holocaust denier, even in TalkPages and even if he's been convicted for it is a clear breach of policy, a blocking offense. In that particular case, an American author called this top American academic and Emeritus professor a holocaust denier in a very influential book published in the US. Policy is that we still mustn't name him, and breach of it is sanctionable. (I'd better add 2 qualifications to this example, but neither are likely to affect the operation of policy. The reference is to the Armenian holocaust, not the Holocaust. The truth of the statement in the book has never been challenged at law or anywhere else). PR^talk 12:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

...if I'm not commenting on your wider points; I just wanted to address this one issue which I'd dealt with before. I do think for more detailed points it's probably better to try to keep the discussion as focused to the specific material and sources as you can, though, rather than becoming frustrated and making general complaints. For what it's worth. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mackan79. Every journey starts with a single step. I suggest stating on the talk pages of articles a few words or a sentence that you want to change, stating the precise new wording you suggest and a reliable source. Some of these will be accepted by other editors and some will not. Repeating this many times should eventually arrive at a reasonable destination. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've stated the information I want to insert - but I've had to remind people that editing it in, at least from the gentle and knowledgable people I got it from, is a blocking offense. Even when there is consensus to put in information, it can't happen (see here). On another occasion it took 19 months to edit out of an article a likely falsehood, by 8-1 consensus - but only because it was also a BLP! The project is about to make administrator an editor I feel certain has both serious CoI and serious attitude issues "My experience with Negev Bedouins who do serve in the army has mostly been negative as well (Negev Bedouins are much more aggressive and undisciplined than their Galilee counterparts)". What would you advise, should I protest, how can I do it without being blocked for personal attack? PR^talk 17:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

In the situation you link to, as Ashley Y pointed out, you have to make only descriptive statements, not interpretive statements about the book, to avoid OR (which Jayjg also mentioned). When you've re-written your entry (and posted it on the talk page) to conform to what Ashley Y explained, or if Ashley Y agrees that your original entry conforms to that, then you can ask me to look at it; I'll look over it at that time and how it fits into the context of the article and if I also agree that it's appropriate and seems to generally have support from other editors on the talk page I'll edit it in. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)