User talk:Smitty Mcgee

For your motivation in keeping Wikipedia POV free and educational. Keep up the good work!! Oiboy77 07:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were caught

You removed a referenced sentence and replaced it with your own. Please get familiar with our policies and guidelines, specifically WP:RS and WP:OR. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watch for WP:3RR. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how he violated WP:3RR Humus this is an encyclopedia NOT a Zionist boot camp!! I hope you have your admin privileges revoked.--Oiboy77 03:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating commentary from a twice-blocked vandal (see his handiwork here). Schrodingers Mongoose 20:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel

I assume you will respect WP:3RR and make your case on the talk page. If you feel the article is biased, make your case there rather than beginning an edit war. Kari Hazzard (talk | contrib) 01:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned about 3RR and still you chose to continue revert warring. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 24h Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I thought I was editing, not reverting.Smitty Mcgee 04:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the propaganda

As for humus sapiens, the fact that a biased statement has a source does not make it neutral. This is an encyclopedia, not a stage for Israeli propaganda. And Kari Hazzard, the three revert rule concerns only those who constantly revert the edits of others. So, I ask that both of you contribute to an encyclopedia, not a government mouthpiece. -- The preceding unsigned comment was made at 02:51, 8 July 2006 by Smitty Mcgee

I'm sorry, but I comply with WP:AGF. I make the assumption that the user, by default, wants to contribute meaningful, worthwhile and accurate information to Wikipedia. The issue here is that you have made vague claims that the article (Israel) is biased but have said on the talk page why you feel that way. You are correct in that Israel is not to be a government mouthpiece for Israel or for any other nation. I certainly don't want (Israel) to be a "sympathetic to the Zionist cause" any more than it should be "sympathetic to the Palestinian cause". We're not out to vilify you because you have a different POV. NPOV means NPOV and in accordance with that policy, if you have a POV contrary to the systemic bias in the article, your POV can and should be expressed. Specifically, what parts of the article do you have a problem with? Kari Hazzard (talk | contrib) 14:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bias is clear

The following also appears on the talk page of "Israel". Introduction- To call Israel a democracy overlooks its apartheid policies. The Negev desert is filled with bedouin villages which are not even recognized by the Israeli government and therefore not provided with basic needs such as water supply. No country can claim to be a democracy if they do not support the basic human rights of all its people.

Historical roots- The article speaks of mass expulsions of Jewish presence in the region, as it should. However, if we are addressing the historical roots of Israel, would it not be biased to leave out the manner by which the Jewish people originally came to the land? The article makes no mention of the pagan tribes which were the original inhabitants of the land.

Zionism and Aliyah- "Arab riots in Palestine of 1929 killed 133 Jews, including 67 in Hebron". This is the only mention of violence in this section. To leave out the massacres of Palestinian civilians that stood in the way of the developing Jewish state is simply not neutral.

"...legitimately bought and owned by Zionist organizations plus additional private land owned by Jews" We must at least admit that the legitimacy of land-acquisition methods employed by the Jewish immigrants is debatable. There is absolutely no mention of differing points of view,

Jewish Underground Groups- "The Irgun adhered to a much more active approach, which included retaliation to attacks and initiation of armed actions against the British". Certainly the massacre of 254 civilians in Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948 by the Irgun does not count as "retaliation".

Establishment of the State- I was already forced to edit this section, and apparently everyone was okay with that. My edit: Attacks on civilians by both sides soon turned into widespread fighting..."

War of Independence and Migration- To label the Arab armies as "invaders" while claiming that Israel was acting is self defense is at the least biased, in my opinion offensive. "Large numbers of the Arab population fled or were driven out of the newly-created Jewish State." Even with this claim, the authors of this passage still seem to believe that Israel was defending itself.

1950's and 1960's- This section seems to leave out something that the Israeli Human Rights League revealed, i.e. 20,000 Arab houses were destroyed in Israel and on the West Bank. Not one passing mention of this fact, yet an insistence on focusing on war with Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. Interesting how an entire indigenous population can be written out of history.

1970's- "...in the early-1970s, Palestinian terror groups embarked on an unprecedented wave of attacks against Israel and Jewish targets in other countries." "Those two groups (Irgun and Lehi) were even classified as terror organizations after the murder of a Swedish diplomat." Please compare and contrast those two statements.

1980's- Trying to write about the invasion of Lebanon without mentioning Sabra and Shatila, or even making a passing comment about other civilian targets? Not neutral.

Government- Absolutely no mention of the second class status of Palestinians or the censorship of Arab news outlets, obviously integral to an unbiased discussion of Israeli government. Palestinians are not recognized by Israel as a national minority, in direct violation of UN Resolution 181. The 1991 Article 19 World Report on Information, Freedom and Censorship discusses documents the "harassment, physical abuse, arrest, detention, imprisonment and deportation of journalists, writers and academics in the West Bank and Gaza for engaging in their legitimate occupations."

For these reasons, among others, the "Israel" article must be tagged as not representing all points of view. Smitty Mcgee 17:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tribute to Oiboy77

I cannot leave you a medal since your page has been blocked, so I commend you here for your efforts to keep Wikipedia neutral.Smitty Mcgee 21:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smitty, I think you missed Oiboy77's edits before he starting tagging the Israel page. This ia a user who changed the word "country" to "rogue state" and then renamed the state of Israel "Palestine". He is a vandal and has been banned for it. You seem like a person who is capable of debating reasonably, so your support of this individual surprises me. Schrodingers Mongoose 05:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sign Your Comments

Sign your comments on talk pages. Yes, they're called Noam Chomsky. - MSTCrow 05:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from Wikipedia itself, regarding Posse Comitatus: "Ironically, William Potter Gale, who is considered the intellectual founder of the movement and was one of its most virulent anti-Semites (telling Kansas farmers in 1982 "If a Jew comes near you, run a sword through him") was, himself, descended on his father's side from a long line of devout Jews. Charles Gale (born Grabfiker), was a Jew who immigrated to the United States in 1896 from Eastern Europe at the age of 14. He changed his name and lied about his birthplace to join the US Army in 1900, eventually converted to Christianity, married a non-Jew, and raised his children as Christians. Several of William Potter Gale's siblings, however, have returned to their Jewish heritage." Apologies are in order, I think. - MSTCrow 11:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an apology is in order- to every Jew that opposses Zionism, refusing to put their religion on the same level as a ideology based on racial superiority.Smitty Mcgee 15:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea what Zionism is, or you simply desire to lie about it to bash Jews. - MSTCrow 18:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desire to bash Jews, but many of them do not wish to be associated with Zionism.Smitty Mcgee 15:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your comments on talk pages. Thank you. ::mikm t 04:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets

There is circumstantial evidence you have been using sockpuppets. If this is the case, please desist from using sockpuppets. - MSTCrow 19:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.Smitty Mcgee 15:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

You presence is requested at the Arbitration Re: Removal of humus sapiens admin privilages due to administrative abuse. Please click Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration Israel Article

Accusation of Sock Puppeteering

I suspect he may be using sock puppets because they came in with him, they support his POV and have similar writing styles. Of course, that will have to be run through checks from admins. - MSTCrow 23:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. And Oiboy, I appreciate your attempt to rid my page of this tag, but go ahead and let it stay. I will be found innocent.Smitty Mcgee 15:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the accussation box, since no follow-up has been made.Smitty Mcgee 14:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Can't Disagree

I can disagree with you whether I want to. Your ignorance of the jewish cause is deplorable. I am Karrie B. Buzzard, don't mess with my 153 IQ. I am glad that they didn't put the tag on Israel.IConform 17:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Talk:Israel

Will you please stop removing the wikiproject banners (and other templates)? It's kind of annoying fixing the mess you make. Also, will you please please please use the edit summery? You know, that line where editors explain their edits? It really helps. Rami R 09:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Large Hadron Collider has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. LeaveSleaves (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]