User talk:Wmb1957

Welcome!

Hello, Wmb1957, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! gidonb 16:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These links may give some starters for editing the Jonathan Pollard article for which you had some comments. Welcome and good luck! gidonb 16:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

helpme

i just thought you should know, i spent the entire day correcting and adding facts to the jonathan pollard page, and some guy in Israel deleted everything and threatened me with a block. my facts are directly from Pollard's dad who obviously knows what happened with details. it is obvious whoever writes these articles needs to suppress information, even when it originates in Israel. I will not waste my time for free again. They can find someone else to bully.

Furtive admirer (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have questions on how to edit a page Wmb1957 15:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well if How to edit a page doesn't answer you questions you can ask here. When you do ask here, place the {{helpme}} template at the end so we know to check back.--Commander Keane 15:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted some comments in the discussion page for Jonathan Pollard.

Since I am not familar with wikipedia practices I would like an opinion on whether I should edit the page.

Specifically - only one link to www.jonathan.org - Is this considered a verifiable source. The government as well as (DOJ/DSS) as well as Federation of American Scientists and other organziations, publications have a variety of information on this subject. http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp http://www.dss.mil/training/espionage/1985.htm (Jonathan Pollard is about the middle of the page)

Fixing the false statements as documented in the discussion.

You arguments seem valid. I advise that you just jump in and edit the article. Don't worry about any mistakes you might make with formatting, I'll keep an eye on the article and fix them up. You could also experiment with editing in your sandbox: User:Wmb1957/Sandbox.--Commander Keane 17:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Line (Israel) is a POV article. I do not know how to report it to get it fixed and I am not sure if I should. Please read my comment on the discussion page. I am not familiar enough with wiki's in general or this one even.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Line_%28Israel%29

Wmb1957 15:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how may I help you? Bjelleklang - talk 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and correct the things you feel is POV, if someone complains, raise the issue with them on the talkpage :) Bjelleklang - talk 17:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have any problems with this, but I'm not familiar with the article or the subject. I'd just go ahead and make the changes, and if anyone removes it, just ask them why in a friendly way :) Bjelleklang - talk 19:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding half the article seems questionable in relation to the questions. Why not update or add {{fact}} where applicable? Thx. El_C 23:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on the page the sections were removed pending verification. Whoever added them did not add any verification for them.

One statement was indeed contradicted by urls to a verifible site I had listed.

I am going to delete them again

I am new to wikipedia and hid some of the article at Green Line (Israel) that I could not find verfication for.

I put a discussion on the talk page and noted what I had done in the edit box when I hid the pages.

My changes were subsequently undone without adding any verification, with the only explaination that they did not feel I had explained myself.

I would like someone to help me with the changes since my intention is not to cause a dispute but to fix the page so it is meaningful for research purposes.

Wmb1957 00:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WMB. My advice would be to note your concern on the talk page for the article. Yes, it is the responsibility of contributing editors to reference and verify the work, however, this often is not always done - remember that editors have also to be bold and ignore all rules.

I would recommend returning to the talk page, point to the guidelines and ask other editors for help in referencing the section. Be polite, if it is the case that you think the section is untrue then you may be into contentious area. Approach other editors with an open mind, aim for consensus, neutral point of view and assume good faith in others. --sony-youth 01:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already added quite a bit on the discussion page. Basically it was ignored until I made a change then the changes I made were undone. This seems again one of those pages more about a POV then about the actual subject. So if it is ignored till I make a change what then? Should one just give up on wikipedia? Is it not meant to be a good source for an unbiased, factual information?

Wmb1957 01:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I've just looked at the page and that was quite a lot you hid. Actually, I'm surprised at the calm response you received from El C. First, let me just say I have no idea about the facts or otherwise of section in question. However, to the casual eye, there looks like there is a lot in it that should be easily verifiable. By advice (but without wanting to draw myself into any conflict) is to edit the elements you feel most need attention slowly and with as much consensus-building as possible reference the sections, and cite sources. Maybe add this template to the section (all of it, not just the Jewish population or Arab population subsections, so as to keep neutral). Removing whole sections, without discussing it first, is considered bad form. Remember, building an encyclopedia is a long, slow and drawn out process. It could take weeks or months before an agreed content is arrived at. You may need to be patient. Other interested parties may not be online as often as you are, or need longer to decide on a matter, or verify their sources. You are not in a race. --sony-youth 12:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the recommendations. I did look on the web before hiding the sections for references to the facts. I am not attempting to deny the situation. Her is the crux of the issue: Specifics are stated and I could not find references to specifics on the web. This is not saying they don't exist, but I could not find them. I did discuss first, on top of that as a new user I felt obligated to look up the policy, and further I asked on my help page.

I did find some references to the killing of palestinian civilians but I am not sure it would be correct to add them with references included without having the Jewish side also complete with references. Another reason why references are important. Can you give me some advice on this?

I suggest that the article is POV as it stands. Why?

Notice the "great harm" to settlements on the periphary of the green line?

Notice that specifics "during the war" are mentioned for Jewish?

Notice that the Arab population section does not have any specifics - they either fled or were expelled during the war. Kind of strange how the fact that palestinian civilians and villiages were killed during the war isn't mentioned, much less specifically. That isn't the way war works, both sides die and commit bad acts. There are exceptions to that rule, I tend to believe that Jewish as well as other victims of World War II were not perpetrators of "bad".

Anyhow I could go on and on, I could add to the sections on both sides of the issue until it just became another section on the 1948 war. I really don't think that is what is needed.

I would like to see a clear definition, consensus on what the green line is.

Every place on the web considers it a demarcation of the Israel/West Bank. Does that include the Israel/gaza border? I am not sure. Golan Heights? Not that I have found. Other areas? In fact the 1949 Armistice Line in wikipedia article even mentions the west bank. So this article is in conflict with wikipedia itself.

Suggestions to just make the article more meaningful Sections that cover the war should be in sections on the War, not in the green line section. Sections that cover peace negotiations, unilateral withdrawals, belong in those articles.

This is to extensive of a subject (Israel/Arab) to cram it all in an article on the green line. Beyond that if some one is actually searching for the green line, they probably just want to know what the green line is and its borders, along with other pertinent facts. Not the history of Israel/Arab fighting, settlements, etc.

You can certainly find biased info on this subject all over the web.  It would be nice to just be able to read some facts on the issue and get a good background for further reading.  That is what wikipedia needs to be.

Wmb1957 16:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

changes to Green Line (Israel)

I hid those parts of the article as suggested on the wikipedia verifibility page.

If you believe the parts you added back in should stay please point me to the material that cites this information.

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

You can also make unsourced sentences invisible in the article by adding after it, until reliable sources have been provided. Leave a note on the talk page or edit summary explaining what you have done. [1]

Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

Wmb1957 00:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme response

Hello, Wmb1957! It was very unclear from the {{helpme}} above what you were asking for help with. Can you state your question here so that someone can answer it? —P^urple ^RA^IN 18:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to Green Line (Israel)

I did find some specific references casualties among palestinian civilians but I am not sure it would be correct to add them with references included without having the Jewish side also complete with references. Another reason why references are important. Can you give me some advice on this?

I would say that, yes, in general posting the number of casualties on one side of the conflict only would be considered POV. Can you come up with some references for Israeli casualties as well? —P^urple ^RA^IN 19:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like clear consensus on what the Green Line (Israel) refers to. See above as well as on the talk for the article re conflicts in the usage of the term.

You can check out Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and Wikipedia:Consensus for some of ideas about how to approach the problem. You can submit a request for comment if you want further input on the subject. If the dispute cannot be resolved, then you might consider submitting a request for mediation. —P^urple ^RA^IN 19:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if there was a consensus what the article should cover given that there are a variety of articles on this issue. What exactly should this article be covering?

I don't know much about the subject myself. That's something you'll have to hash out with other editors of the page. Post the question on the talk page and see what others have to say. Some of the above links might prove helpful in figuring this one out as well. —P^urple ^RA^IN 19:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right now on the page I have brought up for discussion what the green line is. The people that are involved on the page do not seem real open to discussion. Perhaps that is just the way wikipedia is on somethings.

Does "not open to discussion" mean no one is saying much at all, or that there are differing views among editors that aren't coming to consensus? If it's the former, then go ahead and edit how you think best. If someone disagrees, they'll change it or comment, and you can discuss. If it's the latter, then maybe some dispute resolution is necessary. —P^urple ^RA^IN 19:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wmb1957 19:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technical tip

Hi Wmb. First of all, I hope that you are finding the responses you are getting to your points on the talk page more satisfactory now. Secondly, I just wanted to point out that if you leave a blank space or tab space as the first item on a line, it disrupts the formatting and can cause the page to stretch very far. If you want to make an indent, you can place a colon

before the text you wish to indent

like I have done here! All the best, Palmiro | Talk 23:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 16:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPLC

I read your comments on the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) and agree. I've noticed that some editors of Wikipedia use the SPLC as a source for identifying a group as a hate group and then focus half the article on that. Further, as you've said, they never cite anything. I believe Wikipedia needs to explicitly identify the SPLC as an unreliable source. Do you think this is possible?-75.179.157.247 (talk) 01:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]