Jump to content

User talk:Sean.hoyland/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

List of Palestinian solidarity organizations

I don't understand how can you handle the pressure... I basically have given up hope:P--Cerejota (talk) 08:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You should come back to the topic area every now and again. My activity level is mostly dependent of the number of dumbfucks, pov warriors and sockpuppets active in the topic area nowadays. Everytime they do something they remind me why the topic area needs plenty of eyes on it. It's still a rich source of comedy. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Man, they should have a full timer at the Wikimedia Foundation whose sole job is tracking down socks from ARBPIA area :P. Sock/meatpuppetry is basically why I don't do it, I can handle POV warriors, but I cannot handle gamers as well - bad faith fucks me up. And dumbfucks are found even in the least expected places... --Cerejota (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

MEMRI

That is an excellent source you brought. Should probably do something with it. nableezy - 08:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If we're looking for a professor qualified to talk about MEMRI it's Baker. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Middle East Media Research Institute". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by December 2, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 11:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

eustace mullins

thanks for handling that revert. i wasn't sure exactly how to deal with it. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

He is going to have to do a lot better than saying "as noted fairly in the discussion section, "anti-Semite" is not a profession and is a personal opinion/slur." to get that removed. It's one of the most notable things about Mullins, it's consistent with WP:LEAD and it's well sourced with or without the ADL ref. I put all those sources together back in February in the hope that it would stop this kind of thing once and for all. Apparently it didn't... Sean.hoyland - talk 16:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Mediation request

I note that you have not yet indicated whether, or not, you agree to the mediation request. Would you be able to do so here? Thank you. Sunray (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ray Comfort

What did I say about comfort that was not correct?--Biebersbro (talk) 10:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You left a fullstop between "evangelist." and "hypocrite." when you should have used a comma... No, what I meant to say was that you need to read WP:BLP and follow those rules or else you will get yourself blocked. Getting yourself blocked because of Comfort would not be a useful way to spend your time here. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A reference for an image North Korea was removed by me which you had replaced using an archive website. Firstly, the new page doesn't have the image which is shown in the wiki article. I read in some part of that article a mention about this but cannot be considered more than an opinion after seeing the image. So I think, the reference is invalid. I have one more question. Does archived pages considered as valid links? What happens if it is not there tomorrow? Aravind V R (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'll answer the easier question first. Yes, archived links from web.archive.org are fine. See Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine. If you come across a dead link it's always worth checking whether it was archived by Wayback Machine. Once it's archived it will remain available. As for whether the source is useful, that's a matter of opinion I guess. I restored it because your stated reason for removal was that it was dead link and it was possible to fix that technical issue. I had a look at the source when I restored it and decided that it did supply some RS based verifiability for the caption statement " The disparity in illumination levels is an indication of the difference in population and energy between the North and South". I don't think that image itself is relevant because any visible light sat image taken at night over that area will show the same characteristics. The Time source states "Look at any of the satellite photographs taken from miles above the earth of the Korean peninsula at night. On one side, the southern side, there are lights—millions of them. They are the emblems of progress and prosperity. In the years since the Korean War, South Korea has become a rich, technologically advanced, democratic nation. On the other side lies North Korea. Look again at the nighttime images from on high, and you can see what a satellite photograph would have looked like in the 19th century—before Edison invented the light bulb. It is dark." While I agree that it is an editorial piece, it is by Bill Powell, TIME's "Senior Writer" in China, so it's certainly not invalid. On balance I think leaving it there does no harm and provides some extra WP:V compliance for the caption from a notable and reliable source. I don't have a strong view about it. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Political positions of...

Hello. I've respected your opinions on NPOV before. I'd like to see your opinion in a discussion thread I started (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Political_positions_of...), if possible. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Middle East Media Research Institute, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 10:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Peace Now

Many apologies – I reverted a couple of your changes a bit too quickly, without having looked fully at the history of the page, or found the appropriate part of the discussion. Sorry about that – I’ll try to be more careful! Marty jar (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I've reverted my own edits before. I've misread the history and edit warred with myself more than once. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
This explains a lot!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
It only explains a little. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Operation Cats Lead: always on!

Cerejota (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I considered adding a comment to your review to say that you underutilize the "These should either be simply removed..." option from the Wikipedia:Editor review instructions but I found it too difficult to figure out whether you would remove it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Wait. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. And, AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. --Cerejota (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Testing new dynamic sig--Cerejota If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon. 22:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Ariel University Center of Samaria. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please revert yourself Shrike (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is covered by ARBPIA rules. WP:1RR applies and "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty."
Please don't template other experienced editors like this when their actions are consistent with the rules in place. I don't mind but others may. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
3RR is still applies in any Wikipedia article.--Shrike (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Please read the "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES" ARBPIA template at the top of the Talk:Ariel University Center of Samaria. WP:1RR under the terms of ARBPIA applies to that article and many, many others in the Israel-Palestine conflict topic area. I'm sure your intentions are good but I'm not new to the topic area. I know the problems. I tried to reason with the IP but I failed. If you would like to comment in the discussion I started on that talk page or at Category talk:Ariel University Center of Samaria please do so. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI Sean, since Shrike did not do it for you, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Sean.hoyland_and_User:87.68.214.154_reported_by_User:Shrike nableezy - 18:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw it but thanks anyway. When I saw it I went to AN3 to check whether there was a requirement to inform editors so that I could inform Shrike not to forget in future reports. However, I couldn't see any requirement there. I'm not sure whether that's a mistake in the instructions or maybe I missed something. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey

I just wanted to take a second to let you know that your user page is totally awesome. It's too bad that we don't have any projects in common. Such is life, eh?Ferox Seneca (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it makes a change to get a nice message. I would like to spend much more time on China related articles so maybe we'll cross paths if I ever get around to it. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Merging

Please express your opinion over the relisted suggestion to merge the article Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both articles are substantially the same and shouldn't exist in separate. You can participate in the discussion here Talk:Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict#Merging with Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT

Hi Sean, please see Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Infobox_statements. This is related to an earlier discussion you attempted to start at WT:BLP, which remained without response. Best, --JN466 22:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Tibet was always a part of Undevided Bharatvarsha

Tibet was always a part of Undevided Bharatvarsha,But after Islamic intrusion in Indian Diaspora,Tibet splitted from Bharatvarsha due to less resources.According to 95% Tibetans ,Tibet is always a part of Republic of India ,which is captured by Chinese but sooner,it will be a new country Republic of Tibet,Countries like India,Japan,South Korea,USA,Russia,Afghanistan,European countries,Nepal,Bhutan,Bangladesh,Democartic Myanmar,Sri Lanka,democratic Pakistan etc supports directely or Indirectly Tibet as a Country headed by Buddhist Dalai Lama.

Why did you delete this? your anti-Undevided Bharatvarsha agenda has been clear for some time.

Countries like India, Afghanistan, Eurpean countries and Democartic Myanmar (???) will not forget this. Modinyr (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

How come you are leaving this up for such a long time, but our Thailand discussion was removed after just five days? Were you embarrassed by your words?Modinyr (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The bot is configured to archive after 5 days as you can see in the MiszaBot/config section at the top of this page. Mostly it does it on time but sometimes it doesn't, so be aware of that if you decide to use it. I just leave it alone. If the bot is broken, someone fixes it. So, to answer your question, no, the cause is simply technology malfunctioning. Thanks for your concern for my well being though. It's sweet that you would think I'm capable of being embarrassed by my own words. You should focus on content instead rather than concern yourself with the state of mind of other editors, being careful of course not to make edits that have got people topic banned in the past like, for example, repeatedly removing featured pictures from the Palestinian people article or a source that won the Best Book Award in Israel Studies, that kind of thing. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with my editting? I'd love help, not generalizations and veiled threats.

I know you fashion yourself quite the racconteur. I don't know why you stopped the entertaining Thailand discussion. I assumed it was because I had quoted your hypocricy so well. I was looking forward to the part where you explain how anything I said was wrong, but you didn't. Oh well, I'm sure you were busy racconteuring elsewhere. Modinyr (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Deafening silence.

I win again. Modinyr (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You are entitled to your views. They don't matter or make sense to me so there is no reason for me to respond. If you would like help with your editing you can look at Wikipedia:Editor review. If there is a problem with your edits, I or someone else will let you know. Your editing style has commonalities with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92#Lutrinae. So, minimizing those commonalities and just following policy is the way to go. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to scare me with stories of your past successful antagonizisms.

Tattle-tales don't impress me. Either respond or dont. But dont respond with non responses about how I'm wrong but you wont respond.Modinyr (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Eighty Five East Ridge

Materialscientist (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Threats and skim-reading

Mr. Sean, I know you like to help, but on the Mamoud Darwish page, it isn't appropriate for you to make threats and try to sound like you have a bunch of moderators in your pocket.

Additionally, I wasn't trying to stop Hgilbert from mentioning the destruction of the village. I just didn't want him making OR, polemic, or synthesis statements. You'd know that if you reviewed the relevant parts of the discussion, instead of trying to prove a point that isn't being argued with your obsessive use of bold. Modinyr (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed every revert, every source that was tried and every part of the discussion by edit summary and on his page and your page before I decided to do something. Your approach was counterproductive. We have arbitration enforcement for a reason and it's appropriate to remind you of that. In future you should just look for sources yourself. I'm not going to have much web access for the rest of the week. In the meantime can't you just work with the editor constructively based on policy, on what sources actually say and move on ? Sean.hoyland - talk 02:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Kettle... pot

Modinyr (talk) 05:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you spending the weekend in Pattaya? Modinyr (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Tatooine

Few parodies of the Occupy Wall Street movement have caught fire like those which want to expand the movement to Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. Appears as a reliable source to me. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Marvelous. Eddie Izzard's Death Star Canteen routine set a high standard for Star Wars related comedy for me though (...available in Lego version). I haven't seen you around much. I noticed you added the Roar, China! print to Li Hua. I keep meaning to get back to that article...amongst many others. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks again for your help.

Perplexed566 (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sean.hoyland. You have new messages at Talk:Ravi_Shankar_(spiritual_leader)#Requested_move.
Message added 11:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Redtigerxyz Talk 11:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

hr in china

i have a question for you on that talk page. Bstephens393 (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Bias

I believe this should address your concerns regarding my editing in the I/P area. I will eagerly await your honest response. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

sdl

At least 4 people agree with a redirect. including me, you,

4 people agree with a redirect, Me, you, verbal and slaversten. What should i do? Pass a Method talk 18:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably just wait. There's no rush. I guess anything he adds can be reused in the main article or elsewhere (if it hasn't been already) so I don't really see it as a problem if he keeps adding content in the meantime. I think it's just a misunderstamnding of the requirements. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"2fortheshow"

I'd say this qualifies as a personal attack.--Severino (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Certainly is but I don't care. It doesn't change anything and I'll just carry on. They don't understand why honesty is necessary or else they wouldn't keep socking. They don't understand that the way I sampled the sentences (and in fact, my approach to the topic area in general) is deliberately mechanical, in this case to truncate after the first attribute assigned by the source. The links were provided so anyone can verify the rest of the information for themself. Of course they don't get it. It's difficult to deal with this kind of highly motivated sociopathy. Everything they say is irrelevant noise because they can't be here. The multiple sock accounts will be blocked eventually. Edits will be undone eventually if they don't comply with policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

How's the hubris coming on?

Thanks for your question Prunesqualer. I have some concerns that my fieldwork amongst the indigenous peoples of the Wikipedias isn't quite producing the results I had hoped for. I may have to start using capital letters. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

What results had you hoped for? Prunesqualor billets_doux 00:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, if you want a serious answer, very little. There appears to have been an escalation in the POV pushing in the topic area recently as far as I can tell. It looks set to continue. I'm quite interested in what triggers these episodes but it would nice if editors at least acknowledged that there are some steps they could take to make things better such as helping to eradicate sockpuppetry, not trying to challenge the validity of set theory, knowing when to stop POV pushing etc. The alternatives aren't great - status quo, which isn't sustainable vs crackdown/AE report festival probably leading to the topic banning of multiple editors. Whatever happens it will be interesting to watch. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Sean but could you please explain your assertion that "not trying to challenge the validity of set theory" will "make things better" Prunesqualor billets_doux 00:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Colony vs Civilian Community

This is the message JEWISH CIVILIAN COMMUNITY conveys:

The strike on Twin Towers on 11 September, 2001 was a violent act committed by a few students getting pilot training in the United States. This led to the death of more than 3,000 people including the students after they knowingly smashed their planes into the buildings. The international community considers it an act of terrorism but this view is not universal and has its critics who claim the students acted out of frustration.

I hope you get my point. It presents the act of colonisation by the Israeli government as a mere "dispute" in the Israeli "neighbourhoods" and "civilians communities".

Sin un nomine (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand. But, and it's an important "but", all articles in the Israel-Palestine topic area here are covered by restrictions. Everyone has to comply with them at all times. There is no choice. Don't fight it because you will simply get yourself blocked. If you think the article and its lead do not give due weight to the view that these are colonies and the occupation is an act of colonization, you need to compile high quality (preferably academic) secondary sources that examine and describe this perspective, then make your case on the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks ! I appreciate your concern and I will make sure I have academic sources as references before I do something stupid again. (^_^)
Sin un nomine (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Appeal to ArbCom

What I know about first-hand was the search the yielded about 30 pages with the added comment. And it was initially an issue on Alon Shvut where I edited and added content not related to these issues. I don't know if it happens with you but after working on an article for a while, the sensitivity to its quality rises, probably because of the familiarity. That's when it struck me how slapped in for effect the legal statement was. My mistake with the wording on the appeal. I've qualified the statement to say "The result was that on all articles I've seen that had sufficient content". Thanks for letting me know. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It would make sense to survey all the pages but that'll take an effort. Though I don't think your good random-ish poll affects the point made about disruptive placement of the section in the articles it does appear in. Seeing how it's in the lead, or can be, the body section doesn't have to be so prominent. I know the argument already made that it's the most important feature of settlements, but I think it somewhat pushes a POV. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a view on the nature of the expanded legality sections in the body of articles other than it would perhaps be better for sections like that to deal with detailed issues specific to the particular settlement and any infrastructure built to support it that may be pertinent rather than generic issues that apply to all of the settlements. I'm thinking of details like specific legal cases brought by NGOs, settlers or others, details of land purchases etc. I have just gone through, I don't know, maybe all of the settlement articles (I hope) to make sure the statement is in the lead. I didn't keep a record of which ones had a section expanding on the generic international law aspects this time but I still think it's a very small percentage. Several of them did have some details specific to the settlement though. I agree that placing it in the lead pushes a POV in a sense but it is the POV of the international community and the Israeli government that is reflected in countless reliable sources and that is what was agreed. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you about legal issues specific to each settlement instead of the generic statement in the body. But until that happens the way the generic section is placed now is being guarded way too fiercely and without consideration for the reasoning to move it. Nab's recent revert in Almon isn't sensible. His reasoning is that it is specific to the settlement because there's a land dispute. Now really. But even if we could accept such a distortion, it should come after the land dispute section and not before. But Nab seems to be looking at this as a principle he won't back down from and not considering how to make an article better. That's the problem here Sean. There's too much passion to fight a battle and not enough cooperation to make the encyclopedia better. RS proportions are not the end all factor for making such blatant POV pushes and you know that WP asks for many more factors to be considered. These pages are not primarily about the ideological battle over Israel in the ME. They are primarily about these places and should not become a mouthpiece for wider issues so blatantly. That is BAD encyclopedia content that most sensible people reading it shudder at why it's given such prominence and outstanding weight. You guys have to become a little more detached from the ideology that's being pushed because of a legal fiction or RS sources relative to the legal status, and start considering a more balanced presentation relative to these specific pages. I think it's up to reasonable people, yourself included, to make this clear to others who are reverting edits and not budging. If players continue to distort issues like Nab did in moving the statement back up on the page, then we will have to find other ways to open up the issue and it'll be on record that we've tried every possible way to work it out and found no collaboration or cooperation from editors turning WP into their personal battleground.--MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

A serious bit

A neutral editor like you is wasting his time on the arena of POV pushers and finds the whole process amusing. Marvelous. Some editors retire believing that Wikipedia is a waste of time. Stay well. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a waste of time and I very rarely find it amusing unfortunately. I do find lots of things in Wikipedia amusing but this topic area is quite depressing although I don't necessarily see conflict here as bad in all cases. Sometimes it's necessary to make people focus of finding solutions that make things better. I do largely agree with the details of what DeCausa said in that diff though. I think it is possible to make the topic area better but it takes time, patience and finding the best way to change people's behavior. Obviously there are the rare instances of crazy editors who need to be excluded but most editors seem to get better with time and moderate their behavior, but it takes blocks to do it. I would rather see much more blocking but of much shorter fixed lengths with people receiving advice about where they might be going wrong. That might encourage people to stick around but get better. It's a pity people can't behave more like robots and just follow the rules without caring about the outcome. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll elaborate. The JJG case is an interesting one. I don't know what to make of the different claims regarding the treatment of sources talking about a mountain. But, I don't think that's important. What seems important to me is that JJG is actually a good editor but he has some specific areas where he gets into trouble. The Golan Heights article is one of them. I wouldn't let him work on that article because it would be better for the project, and him, if he focused on things that interest him rather than things that annoy him. People get stuck on things and then they get themselves topic banned. Topic banning someone like JJG isn't in the project's interest in my view. He should be encouraged to work on things that interest him like Operation Olive Leaves. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
And more...some background on what motivated me to make that comment at ARBPIA 3. There are 2 editors in the topic area that I've been watching for a long time, one for well over a year and the other for several months. They are both very biased. You probably haven't encountered them. In both cases I've tried to do something about it by talking to them. It didn't work. It's a problem I don't know how to solve using the tools currently available. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Some people have strong opinions. Some of the opinions are about important things. Some important things are not to be betrayed, never matter what. Stupid rules of some stupid, yet popular, website will not change the one's will to speak truth. In other words, cultivating a good editor is not possible when the bad editing habits are resulted from the concept very central to editor's perception. The said above has nothing to do with any specific person. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I find it quite difficult to understand people like that because I don't think anything is very important (I'm exaggerating somewhat but not much). The planet is indifferent to our presence and we're only primates so I can't understand why people can't just be happy that it's another day that they haven't drowned in a flood, been buried by volcanic ash, poisoned by a lethal plant/animal or accidentally poked their own eye out with a stick. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
It's difficult to understand some people, more difficult to make them good editors. Even the most hard trying ones will fail victims to their own temper and prejudices. But on their way down they will harass too many people and waist too many other's time and nerve cells. If you ask me, the sooner the better, ban and forget. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Rechelim

Hi, please see the last item in Talk:Rechelim. I quote the 1995 source there. I don't know how to resolve the disagreement with the recent classification, but I'm guessing that the intentional ambiguity used by the government with respect to settlements has something to do with it. Maybe we need to cite both versions and leave it at that? Btw, for searching "Rachelim" is common, and I wonder if it shouldn't be the article title. The word is the masculine plural of the female name Rachael. Zerotalk 22:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that and I looked at recent sources from Peace Now's reports, Al Jazeera and Haaretz etc about the settlement/outpost. It seems that the government were certainly planning to authorize it as of this year as several sources reported it as a significant change in the governments approach. They may have already done so by now but I didn't search throughly enough at the time. Yes, it's unclear how to handle it. All the sources I looked at suggest that the 1995 source is wrong...or perhaps they aren't talking about exactly the same things on the ground. I should probably have said that in my edit summary rather than "it can't be in that 1995 source because in July2011 it was still classified as an illegal outpost". Either way, it needs more investigation and like you say we'll probably need to cite the various versions. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What's the problem with this edit?

What's the problem with this edit? It shows where Jerusalem is in both Israel and the Palestinian territories, Syria doesn't claim to own Jerusalem therefore the Golan Height shouldn't be there so it's the perfect map with NPOV since it shows both israel and the west bank-- Someone35  17:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the map can be viewed as claiming the entire area "from the river to the sea" as being one state. It isnt, and Jerusalem is not in Mandate Palestine. nableezy - 17:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
What Nableezy said. However, I do agree that the street map needs replacing...but with a contemporary map. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The map used currently is up to date and properly licensed. However, using a contemporary map of some country would open a can of worms: "we want map of Palestine" from other side "No, we want map of Israel" . In no time we have demonstrations of protestors and Occupy Movement, there are tents all around and the police is using a Pepper Spray... The map claims stuff, like oh my God, people get excited ;) from other hand I am stuffed with Turkey and gravy and got myself a huge TV screen on Black Friday. Still not sure why Thanksgiving article talks about scare quotes "Pilgrims" and not a proper and NPOV compliant "Foreign Invaders". Still, I can not open a Casino, unless I move to Nevada, so probably I am not a "native"... So?... Whatever... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I was trying to be unnaturally wrong...damn it. Surely it's possible, in principal, to find a map that shows Israel with a nice green line around it and the Palestinian territories and for us to put a big red dot on it vaguely where Jerusalem is ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
An interesting idea, have not we tried it? My solution is to call this map "Israel + Occupied territories" instead of just "Israel", so people would not get that excited. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I hope this one calms things down. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Not even that, I see. Sheesh. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I guess you were referring to the map that I just reverted. You changed it to "Israel" ... how do you think that would calm things down? -asad (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Because the previous map didn't have the West Bank, Gaza and Golan marked. This one did and placed Jerusalem on the border where it is. But I see that's not enough because the map name is Israel. Alright. Maybe I'll take Agada's lead and make a version called Israel and Occuppied Palestine. Would that solve the problem? We need a map to show where it's located, not a street map. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sean, I think from your comment you'd agree with the map I used that has all the territories marked, and can revert it again. It's become a little ridiculous and doesn't need so much tension. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that map is that it is showing East Jerusalem as a separate entity than the West Bank. It also is marking administrative districts of Israel and not the West Bank (which I guess that is why the map is called "Israel" to begin with). I know it is not a subject of discussion now, but it also does not show the international border between Syria and Israel in the Golan. It also gives the same color to the Golan Heights as it does to the West Bank and Gaza. -asad (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

All this (or the intelligible parts) belongs on the article talk page. Sean's user talk is not where content in an article is decided. nableezy - 19:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I love your sense of humor, Nab, but you didn't have a problem commenting on it before. As the situation stands today, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The map isn't meant to be a referendum on international agreement to it. It's a map of Israel and that's what it looks like. Everyone recognizes that this is Israel's map regardless of whether they agree with it. We're not here to fight that war, you know. It's current information, that's all. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I answered a single question about why a single edit was wrong. I have some thoughts on what you think of the situation as it stands today (for example, as it stands today East Jerusalem is internationally recognized as being Palestinian territory held under Israeli occupation and illegally annexed (effectively) by Israel, and likewise the declared capital of Palestine), but again this belongs on an article talk page. Not Sean's user talk page. nableezy - 19:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Everything you say is true and it says so in the body of the article without any reserve whatsoever. The article also explains Israel's position on it, that you agree is Israel's position, which you also don't agree with. That's all fine. So if the article explains everything and explains why a map of Israel looks this way, why does the map have to do hoolahoops around everybody? It's only a map, for heaven's sake. Please try to be a little more... you know, Nab... a team player. --MichaelNetzer (talk)
Are you not interested in continuing this on the article's talk page? You keep bringing up points that could be addressed, but this is not the right place to do it. -asad (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reason why an encyclopedia article should present the minority view that Jerusalem is "in Israel" as opposed to having much of it in the Palestinian territories? Is there a reason why a map of Israel should be used instead of, oh, this one? And finally, is there a reason why you are so insistent on not discussing article content at, you know, the article's talk page? nableezy - 19:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes there is a very good reason. Because the map isn't about minority or majority views. It's about the present state of Jerusalem, which is in Israel and under Israeli jurisdiction until further notice. So a map of a country's capital goes by the country currently presiding over the city. When that changes and we reach an agreement about Jerusalem, we'll change the map. A map is a location, not a political statement. I'm also not insistent on discussing this here but I think that we'd need to also move most of the previous discussion there if we don't want to repeat ourselves. If we're all willing to agree about what parts of this discussion to move, a little better than we're able to agree about other things, that would be nice. But I don't see Sean complaining. Yet. I wouldn't. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I moved the entire section to Talk:Jerusalem#What.27s_the_problem_with_this_edit.3F in case there's any more to say, or if Asad or Nab have a change of heart and would settle for last map and revert back. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What nonsense, of course maps are political statements. The boundaries they create are political, and the names they use are political, and the location of both is political. That is why a majority of Israeli teenagers are unable to identify the Green Line, because the makers of their text books have made the conscious political decision to remove it from the map. Sorry to burst your bubble, but some states recognize no Israeli sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem, and nearly the entire world recognizes no such sovereignty over East Jerusalem. These blanket statements like is in Israel or is Israel's capital in which you present a POV, a minority one at that, as though it were a fact is part of the problem here. You think that Jerusalem is in Israel, the end. And so you think that the map in the Jerusalem article should be one of Israel. However, the view that Jerusalem is in Israel is not a fact, it isnt even a majority POV. Hell, unless you define what is "Jerusalem" it doesn't even mean anything. What "Jerusalem" is in Israel? The area west of the Green Line? Because the United Kingdom still considers that to be part of the corpus seperatum. The Temple Mount? The rest of East Jerusalem? Why is it that you do not see that you are in fact making a political statement by placing a map of Israel in an article on a place where much of what it discusses is not in Israel? East Jerusalem is not in Israel, that is what the overwhelming majority of sources say. Western Jerusalem may be, or it may not be, depending on the source. But claiming that "Jerusalem is in Israel", through text or through the use of a map, is a political statement, and I cannot believe that anybody can honestly claim otherwise. nableezy - 20:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict with the last message. Ill leave the last one alone, but will respond to the talk page from now. nableezy - 20:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

GLAMM project

Sean, you might be interested in joining the Israeli GLAMM project on Israeli art. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's looks interesting, thanks. I quite often stumble across Israeli artists who don't have articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Stumble across or stumble over in the morning? I dont think Mrs Hoyland would approve. nableezy - 07:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, she certainly implements a safety first, no trip hazard policy...oh wait, I see what you mean, yes, I phrased that poorly. While you are here, I meant to say, congratulations on the truly impressive number of attacks on your talk page in recent weeks. I very much enjoyed the "Your kind aren't wanted here" one, especially given that at first they put "Your kind aren't wanted", and then corrected it to add the "here" to clear up any possible misunderstanding. I assume they mean people from Illinois, it's still a bit unclear despite the correction. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I-P conflict

Hello, Sean.hoyland. You have new messages at Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict#So... another excuse for multiple reverts?.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of interest

Sorry you didn’t feel inclined to pursue our last conversation. As a matter of interest how do you feel about this piece of work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=445fIesASh4? Prunesqualor billets_doux 02:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been a bit scattered. Will have a look and get back to you. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
It's funny, I was expecting a deep and difficult documentary piece about the I-P conflict but it's something far more important than that. Somehow I've managed to never hear that version despite hearing plenty of Gabriel and Massive Attack and I'm a fan of both, Gabriel more for his WOMAD work and Massive Attack mostly for appreciating the unique genius that is Elizabeth Fraser. How do I feel about it ? It's okay, I think they were a bit too respectful to the piece although the song is a classic. Why do you ask ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your patient and respectful response to my post. Why do I ask? At least part of the answer, I think, is because I find everybody in the Wiki community bewildering and want to provoke responses which might help me understand others better. There is much else to say of course, but I have already invaded your time to a greater extent than most would tolerate. All the best. Prunesqualor billets_doux 00:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Seyed Mohammad Marandi

The problem was not with your changes, which were made to make the text more ballanced. The problem was with the tone of the whole piece. It was written by a former classmate of mine Mr. Parchizadeh. He constantly harrasses other people and also pretends to be a professor. He was simply a regular student at the University of Tehran and he had an unstable personality. Girls steered clear from him and Professor Ghaderi was scared of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Storeylas (talk • contribs) 18:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Please have read through WP:OUTING "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia."
Back to the article, yes, the tone certainly isn't neutral at the moment and it doesn't comply with WP:BLPSTYLE but no one is allowed to edit war. Can you at least make your edits relatively small individual changes one at a time with an edit summary briefly explaining what was changed and why so that other edits can make sense of your changes ? The article needs to be cleaned up. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This edit

You have recently reverted one of my edits.

Even if it says Palestine, "Palestinian National Authority" is a more accurate term. Also, it is not yet a country and the ruling body is called Palestinian National Authority and the elections are for the head of this body and not for Palestine therefore it is a more accurate term-- Someone35  16:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No, just follow the source. The article is about the Economist Intelligence Unit's index. Just stick to their terminology and move on. You shouldn't try to argue from first principals because you think you know better about any issue here. Follow the reliable sources. Economist Intelligence Unit use the term Palestine in their index. They also refer to the Palestinian territories in the body of their report. We use their term Palestine which has a redirect to Palestinian territories. We follow the source. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, you are part of the future of Arab-Israeli relations. Try not to screw it up. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
k, just thought it'll be more accurate since the governing body is called like that. Also, the real screw-ers of peace don't speak English (except Netanyahu), from both sides. The uneducated people vote for parties that will only harm them and the peace process, that's why the current Israeli and Palestinian governments don't invest in education, education harms their popularity-- Someone35  18:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Aramco

hello sean

the fact that aramco is state owned is incorrect it is a privately "held" company meaning that the state has control over the funds and oil fields due to the fact that the oil fields in saudi arabia are nationalized, however Saudi aramco is not owned by the saudi state. i would very much appreciate it if you could comprehend this fact.

regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.151.32.161 (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for leaving the message but what you say is contradicted by reliable sources. For example "The fully state-owned oil company, Saudi Aramco, is now the largest oil company in the world in terms of reserves and production and carries out the vast majority of its work in the Saudi oil and gas industries." from The Report: Saudi Arabia 2009. This is why these edits keep being reverted. They are inconsistent with reliable sources. Do you have some better sources that say that it isn't state owned ? It was purchased by the Saudi government in 1980. If it is not owned by the state who owns it ?
Also, you need to read WP:V. Information in Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sources. It's a mandatory policy. You need to provide reliable sources to support your statement that it isn't state owned because there are many sources that say it is. You can't remove state owned because you think it's wrong. That is not how Wikipedia works.
There are literally hundreds of high quality reliable sources that refer to Aramco as state owned. Here are 2 examples.
I should say that I'm somewhat familiar with some of Aramco's upstream operations so, like you, I know a bit about them as a company. It doesn't matter what we know though because we have to go by what reliable sources say. If there is a contradiction between sources, differences in descriptions etc, we need to include them, with the reliable sources, and explain the diversity of descriptions to readers. Are you sure this isn't just a misunderstanding of the terminology ? Obviously state-owned doesn't mean the state operates it. The state doesn't decide where to shoot 3D seismic, whether to do a pre-stack depth migration on it, where to drill etc (although the state has to formally approve operations whether they are by state owned companies, multinationals or consortiums just like everywhere else). Sean.hoyland - talk 18:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

?

[1] You generally act in good faith. I expected better of you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not about good faith. It's about copyright violation. Tiamut's reason for removal was absolutely valid. Your reason for restoration wasn't. It's as simple as that. Try to look beyond the conflict. It happens all the time in articles about art and artists. Paintings get removed because someone adds an image to an article without a FUR. You just need to create a fair use rationale and put the image back tomorrow (to avoid 1RR). It's easy. Don't worry about it. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
There already appears to be a Fair Use rationale on the page and the photo is adjacent to the relavent incident. So what is the issue and if there is one, how do you suggest I go about rectifying it considering that a Fair Use rationale already exists and the photo is consistent with the discussed subject matter?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Fair use rationales are specific to one article. You have to provide a FUR for each article you want to use a copyrighted image in. See File:Hans Hofmann's painting 'The Gate', 1959–60.jpg for example. As a significant painting it has 7 FURs for 7 articles. People actually patrol and remove images if they don't have FURs for the art articles. If you look carefully at File:Ramallah-lynch01.jpg you'll see it says "Non-free media information and use rationale for 2000 Ramallah lynching". It's uses the Template:Non-free use rationale whereas the Hofmann painting doesn't. All you need to do is copy/paste the Non-free use rationale template details in the Ramallah lynching image and then just change 2 attribute entries, the Article to Second Intifada and the Purpose to justify and explain its use in that article. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
That isnt quite "all he needs to do", and I would challenge any FUR for this article. It would fail No 5 of unacceptable use and #8 of the NFCC policy. nableezy - 16:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
True but "the Purpose to justify and explain its use in that article" entails passing all FUR requirements. I'm assuming that JJG would read WP:FUR because I linked to it in the edit summary when I removed the image. If he wants the image there he will need to do the work and I don't expect the FUR to be right or fully agreed first time. I don't think it would necessarily fail No 5 of unacceptable use because the section discusses the video and it was significant within the Second Intifada context. Not sure about #8 of the NFCC policy, "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". That's always fuzzy for me. Does its presence significantly increase a readers' understanding of the Second Intifada ? Part of the reality of it surely ? If anything, the articles in this topic area don't contain enough raw imagery of the reality of the conflict like this one as far as I'm concerned. Would its omission be detrimental. Probably not. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

al-Bedaiwi

Anon keeps adding incorrect claims about al-Bedaiwi [2] -- what's this all about? Actually, he appears to be the GM of Aramco's Tokyo marketing group "Waleed H. Albedaiwi, general manager of Saudi Petroleum, Ltd. – Tokyo." [3] --Macrakis (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I really have no idea, it's bizarre. I assume it's related to this top secret information in someone's mind. I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would repeatedly try to portray Aramco as a privately owned rather than state owned company. I can't think of anything other than they either sincerely believe it to be the case or they want to make Aramco look like it is within scope of the large scale localization plans for the private sector in Saudi Arabia. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

communication, courtesy and consideration

G'day Sean.hoyland,

you threw out my edit of Deir_Yassin_massacre with, as far as I can see, the single ground of WP:V = "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth - whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

I'm assuming that if I adequately document and resubmit my edit - making it much longer - you will leave it alone. Even then, I have a query: IF the Deir_Yassin article contains untruths (IMHO yes, therefore my edit) THEN what good is having 'documented' lies (= worthless wiki), instead of truth?

regards, wiφ 15:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiPhi (talk • contribs)

You have decided to edit one of the most controversial articles out of the entire 3.8 million English language articles in Wikipedia. Not only is that article, like all articles, covered by the mandatory WP:V and WP:NPOV policies that deal with verifiability and neutrality, but it's also covered by discretionary sanctions and WP:1RR restrictions. So, whatever you do you need to do it very carefully. If you want to make major changes or changes that could be considered controversial (and pretty much anything is when it comes to the Deir Yassin massacre) it's better to describe them on the article's discussion page first and include the reliable sources that you are basing the proposed changes on where appropriate. If your edits cite reliable sources they are much more likely to survive. If they don't cite sources they will probably be removed on sight by any of the large number of people who watch that article. I'm not sure I follow your point about documented untruths. The article will certainly contain documented untruths because there are multiple conflicting narratives. They can't all be the truth. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, but to labour my point, IF some putative "reliable, published source" contains lies, THEN it is *not* reliable, ergo lies do not belong in wiki, since no reliable source may contain lies. We can stop this shortly, since I presume an impasse has been reached. BTW, when I edit I see "remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes" which I did (it turns my ID=WiPhi into what you see) - so how should I sign? Regards, wiφ 17:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiPhi (talk • contribs)
An impasse hasn't been reached yet. The WP:NPOV policy describes how to deal with conflicting information. If what you regard as a lie is widely reported by sources that qualify as reliable in Wikipedia and other sources describe it as a lie or something similar we include both and describe the conflict to readers. If there is evidence that a source genuinely isn't reliable then the information shouldn't be included. There's a noticeboard to deal with these kind of issues at WP:RSN. Your example is a bit abstract. Were you thinking of something specific in that article ? Signing with 4 ~ should work but a bot thinks you didn't sign. Maybe you used 5 ~ (see Wikipedia:Signatures). There's a blue pen icon 4th from the left at the top of the edit box when you reply here. Try that. Or is the issue that you want your signature to automatically look like wiφ ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
No impasse = good news. To make my argument a bit less abstract, if you refer to my Deir_Yassin edit, you may see that I prefer 'alien invasion' to 'civil war' as a more accurate description, on the inarguable grounds that the Zionists were 'imports' = recent immigrants, many illegal (by UK 'rules.') I see it as self-evident, but wiki sees it differently = *the problem*. I will see what I can find to help my 'case,' specifically here that the description 'civil war' is a lie. Then yes, I changed my signature to wiφ since the greek letter φ = phi. Thanks again for your time & effort, wiφ 18:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC) - WiPhi (talk)
But I'm sure you appreciate that Wikipedia as an encyclopedia has a narrative voice and that voice has to be neutral. The term alien invasion isn't neutral so it's not something that could be said using Wikipedia's neutral unattributed voice. I'm sure there are reliable sources that have described it using functionally equivalent terminology and the authors views could possibly be included and attributed to them. Perhaps civil war isn't neutral either but if it's the preferred term of the vast majority of sources it's treated as neutral in Wikipedia. From the NPOV policy perspective your grounds aren't inarguable because clearly Zionists did and still do see themselves as having a historical claim to some or all of Palestine/the Land of Israel, so from their perspective they weren't/aren't alien. Wikipedia isn't meant to take sides or rather it reflects what reliable sources say which is often viewed as taking sides in this topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
As to Zionists and "from their perspective," that's nothing other than POV in different words (see Shrike @ EdJohnston). Some "historical claim" may be arguable (or just more POV, perhaps) - but not on the basis of myths and/or legends, by definition undocumented - unless "the Bible" is to be regarded by wiki as a 'reliable source.' Dictionary definitions are helpful; roughly aliens means 'not from there' (Zionist immigrants) and invasion means 'crossing a border inbound with evil intent' (result Plan Dalet etc..) QED, but I realise it's not your prime purpose to argue with me. Sooo, it's off to locate truly 'reliable sources' for me. wiφ 19:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC) - WiPhi (talk)
(Butting in, if I may...) Would it be fair to suggest that 'conflict' is a more neutral term than either 'civil war' or 'alien invasion'? Longwayround (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
@Longwayround, the term civil war is derived from the article 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. If WiPhi wants to change the terminology he needs to get consensus for that article's title to be changed so that the change can be cascaded to all relevant articles. Arguing about it in another article like Deir Yassin massacre won't get him anywhere.
@WiPhi, you are missing the point. POVs are fine if they are reported by reliable sources and attributed to their sources. Dictionary definitions are not helpful because Wikipedia doesn't allow synthesis. It may seem self-evident to you that, let's say, the war involved a lot of foreign fighters, but the only thing that matters is what the sources say. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, if the history of Zionist colonization of Palestine is something you are interested in, perhaps you would be interested in working on the article about Ze'ev Jabotinsky's 1923 Iron Wall (essay). It's a much neglected but potentially very interesting article. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I think what user:FisherQueen have wrote here relevant to WiPhi only change Palestinians to Zionists.--Shrike (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
You may be right. We will see. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
FYI Not to clutter your talk with my verboseness, you may kindly continue any business pertinent to me (= sending me a message, say) at my talk here or here.
rgds, wiφ 10:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC) WiPhi
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sean.hoyland/Archive_6&oldid=1143294685"