User talk:HG1

• I will try to check Wikipedia periodically. Please assume that I do not use Wikipedia on Friday evenings and Saturday. Thanks.

Welcome to HG's talk page. You are invited to comment here or simply say hello.
Please don't delete old comments, though you can strikeout your own text and add to it.
It's best to keep comments in order, leaving me to re-arrange or archive.
Please sign & date your entry by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic here. Thanks!

Bookmarks

• ‎Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-03 Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture
• ‎Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-03 Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture
• Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture

Welcome!

Hello, HG1, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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:Where to ask a question, 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! IZAK 07:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Bruchim Habaim

Hello HG, welcome to Wikipedia. You may want to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism. Feel free to call on me. IZAK 07:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey

Sorry for not responding before on IRC. You're more than welcome to contact me regarding anything at all (even a question you might think is stupid). The watchlist is probably the best way to do this. Yonatan ^talk 12:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Consistent Life Ethic

I have responded on my Talk page (to keep the conversation cohesive). Thanks! Joie de Vivre 13:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks 4 Help on [List of Iraq War Resisters]]

You put me on to sources and compelled me to do more research, based on the links you provided. I must thank you! rewinn 18:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

stub for Michael Fishbane

Thanks for looking at this. I added a few but sufficient sources. Also, put it in a specific category. I then removed the uncateg and unreferenced templates. Is that ok and proper procedure? thanks, HG 19:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Rsvp

That works for me. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am rashby on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/rashby. Thanks. 23:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am rashby on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/rashby. Thanks. --HG | Talk 11:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Mediation

Sure, I would love some help by someone with background knowledge. Also, I am very busy right now in real life, and do not have as much time to spend on things like WP right now, so more help would be appreciated. Just ask on the article talk page to make sure the other editors will accept this (I see no reason why they might not). Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably the best way to do most of it is on the article talk page, as that is where people wiil watch. Unless of course the message is specifically for one editor and is not important to the flow of the discussion, in which case leave it on their talk page. If you could leave Dking a note on his talk page, that would be nice (I meant to do it a few days ago but never got around to it. I should be able to edit more this weekend and should be much less busy by Wednesday. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Z-man. I did leave Dking a note, he didn't respond yet. I left jossi some q's, not yet answered -- here. Good luck with everything. HG 17:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

AFD

See WP:MERGE—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry to bother you, I'll try to get an involved party to implement this merge (Ryan Johnson, Kyle Snyder).HG

Your message (mediation)

I have added all the relevant talk pages to my watchlist. I'll be glad to help any way that I can. Answering your question, I think it would be best to address most of it on the article talk in this case. If you need to address a specific individual only, use their talk page. The case page isn't necessary but could be useful as a central reference, such as with Smee's request that certain information be posted on the case page. I've interacted with both Smee and Jossi in informal mediations. They are both reasonable and will clearly explain themselves if you ask.

It seems a lot of the dispute is over NRM vs. cults. My suggestion would be to split the article: New religious movements in fiction and popular culture and Cults in fiction and popular culture. NRM could focus on just those sorts of groups. Cults could focus on the archetypes and stereotypes of cults. I think it would separate some disputed issues and minimize them. My second suggestion would be to get the participants to establish some ground rules for list inclusion. If a split is rejected, or you think it would not be advisable, I would still recommend that inclusion standards be split between a NRM standard and a cult standard, since that seems directly related to the core dispute.

I hope that helps. I will keep an eye on things. If you have any further questions or concerns, feel free to leave me a message. Be well. Vassyana 23:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! And your tips on process. And ground rules. My first reaction is that a split would be (what I think is called) a POV fork. I don't think it would solve the problem, but I'll talk it through with folks. I suspect there won't be agreement on which group is an NRM and which a cult.HG 00:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I welcome your participation in trying to resolve these issues. I agree that Vassyana's suggestion probably wouldn't work. I have very limited time to deal with this matter in the coming two weeks, just as Joshi had to drop things for awhile last month, but I'll put together a reply as soon as I can. I urge you to read over the history of this discussion going back to when user name BabyDweezil (now banned) raised these issues in February. The replies to BabyDweezil and Joshi by user names Andries and Smee are especially pertinent.--Dking 18:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) How are things going? I notice that discussion of NRM is almost absent, instead focusing on "cults". You might want to make sure, however obvious it might seem, that the editors are in agreement about NRMs and just disputing "cults". Very good post by the by, it should spur some good discussion. Vassyana 04:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on reading the history, I think any non-cult-like NRM (e.g., Jewish havurah movement) is not a point of dispute, but you are right, I should get agreement on this. Plus, any little agreement is confidence-building. Thanks for feedback on my post. (Assuming you mean my post on the articles Talk page?) HG | Talk 05:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that post, and quite right that some basic agreement can go a long way. Springboards are quite useful. You seem like you have a pretty good grasp of what's going on and what you should be doing, so I only have minor advice to offer. (Good job :P) If I think of anything else, I'll leave a comment for you, but you seem to be right on track. Vassyana 05:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

japan & euthanasia

i've put the source info on the euthanasia talk page. Bueller 007 03:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for congratulating me on my RFA. By the way, what does mazal tov mean? · AndonicO ^Talk 07:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks! :) · AndonicO ^Talk 14:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

inclusion in category

you referred to a talk page where including Broyde in the marital law category was discussed. Can you point out where that page is? thanks Yehoishophot Oliver 04:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Conservative Judaism

Good point. The Who is a Jew article documents the controversy -- I'll transfer some sources later this evening. I agree that the degree to which Orthodox rabbis, in practice, question people's claims to halachic Jewish status is a separate question from the issue of what they profess. Besides the issue of the Israeli rabbinate, my (unsourced) understanding is that many synagogues ask for parental status or conversion certificates when people apply for synagogue membership etc., but I don't know the degree to which Conservative conversions are questioned on a day-to-day basis. --Shirahadasha 19:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I have looked this over, and it appears that you are a kind and polite editor as far as the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-03 Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture mediation case is concerned. I have taken the article Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture off of my watchlist, as well as the Mediation Page. My edits to that article of late have been more on the minor and non-controversial side, adding material sourced to citations that were generally not contested. I trust that you will handle this appropriately with Dking and Jossi. However, I would appreciate an update at the end to hear how it all turns out. Thank you again for your time, your kindness, and your polite demeanor with me. Yours, Smee 06:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

• Responded on my talk. Thank you again for your polite and patient attitude in all this. Yours, Smee 08:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Re : Ryan Johnson

Please check your email. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

:) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Creed

Thanks for your comments. I always intended to move it to the project namespace if people liked it, perhaps it's almost time to do that.

I can't think of any particular source that inspired me... it was more people who inspired me, the ones whose behaviour I admired on one hand and the ones whose behaviour (shall we say) challenged me on the other. So I started thinking, what do I value in other people's behaviour? What do I want to try to reflect in my own behaviour? And that's the result. Andrewa 18:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

AGF

Hi. Let me know if I can help reduce tensions. Good move to protect the page. Perhaps we need a way to clear the air, mention our grievances and annoyances, without taking it out on the article edits. HG | Talk 05:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully things will settle down. Best, --Shirahadasha 14:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

206.130.208.126

Hey. It seems that the IP is a frequent source of vandalism, and nothing but vandalism, so I have blocked it for two weeks now. If the vandalism continues after that, a longer schoolblock might be necessary. Thanks for notifying me, Prolog 14:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Halakha

Hi! I'm encouraging discussion of the issue of what the appropriate tamplate should be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Orthodox Judaism

Template:Orthodox Judaism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. IZAK 08:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Conservative Judaism

Do you in fact assert that Conservative Judaism's stance is not that it is an offshoot or response to something else, but that it is a thorough continuation of tradition, while other sects, including Orthodoxy, are offshoots of what eventually became to be termed Conservative Judaism? If so, how do you reconcile the extremely lenient attitudes possessed by Conservatism that one may operate motor vehicles on shabbos, when the responsa from great sages including to but not limited to the Chazon Ish, Rabbi S. Z. Auerbach and Rabbi Moshe Feinstein expressly prohobited such performance on shabbos. Were they operating under a delusion of strictness? Additionally, while the official stance of the Conservative movement allows only driving to and from synagogue, it is my understanding that most Conservative Jews drive wherever they desire on shabbos. (A close friend of mine who grew up Conservative and who's father is a Conservative Rabbi informed me of this official stance.) How does this widespread non-compliance conincide with Conservative Judaism being the official bearer of truth, in the opinion you have stated earlier. Are these not the representatives of Conservative Judaism? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)}

David, thanks for your note. For the purposes of wikipedia, I look at the situation in terms of historical and cultural processes. From that standpoint, I see the pre-modern Ashkenazi world as decentralized and somewhat diverse in its traditions and halakhah, though unified via codificatory efforts and rabbinic collaboration (etc). Then, perhaps due mainly to events in Germany and later in Hungary (see Jacob Katz), there is polarization(s) and coalescing into a few rival camps. Each camp claims to be doing what is best with and from the tradition. Each camp emerges through, forms its identity and ideologies through, a fair degree of dialectical tension with the other(s). As in the paragraph above and elsewhere, rather than look at the social processes, you are still trying to adjudicate the situation based on its normative content. You're trying to argue about which camp is Right or True, which may be useful for one's beliefs, but it's not a fruitful way to write an encyclopedia. This isn't the forum for that debate. You clearly have a great deal of knowledge that you can contribute here, but you'll frustrate yourself and other folks until you find a way to accept the kind of forum we have here, the kind of questions we're asking. Do you see what I mean? HG | Talk 02:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Michael Broyde

Hi there. I wrote a reply to your comments on the Michael Broyde talk page. Thanks. Felisse 20:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Still waiting for reply on my additional comments on the Michael Broyde talk page. Felisse 22:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on my talk page. I think I understand your approach. It was not just a lack of biographical information that I was regretting, though, but also a lack of articles synthesizing a viewpoint or discussion of Broyde's work such as you suggested. You are right, I do have scope to expand the article to contain information about his positions, provided I can summarize them in a purely descriptive way.

NOR says "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged" which definitely agrees with your suggestion that Broyde's publications serve as a source for an article on him. However, "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." So I'd have to be careful to be descriptive only in the above sense.

What do you think of this approach - I can determine which of his articles is most cited, that would be an indication of its notability, read it and attempt to describe the opinion it states, determine which of the citing articles are most cited themselves, and add some information about how they support, extend, or refute Broyde's position. Felisse 00:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi :)

Just noticed your user name, which is somewhat similar with mine, so I just wanted to say Hi :) --HappyInGeneral 09:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Igros Moshe

BS"D

On the page you had written that the Igros Moshe had been published in 1883, eight years before he was even born. Therefore, I put 1983, though it had I think been published earlier. --Shuliavrumi 17:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Euthanasia

Hi, I noticed you've made some edits to the euthanasia page. I'm really unhappy with the state of the first sentence, maybe you could check it out and throw in your 2 cents on the talk page? fyi, it currently reads:

euthanasia... is the practice of terminating the life of a person or animal with an incurable disease, intolerable suffering, or a possibly undignified death in a painless or minimally painful way, for the purpose of limiting suffering.

I've tried reasoning with the editor, jorfer, but he seems determined to make his mark. Most frustrating is that he seems to be concerned about the ethics of the issue, whil I'm just concerned about good grammar and comprehensibility. This newest sentence of his is really awkward, confusing, and ungrammatical.

the way I want it is the way it was before he edited it in the first place:

euthanasia... is the practice of terminating the life of a terminally ill person or animal in a painless or minimally painful way, for the purpose of limiting suffering.

Part of the problem is that jorfer is convinced "terminally ill" shows POV, and I'm convinced it's totally neutral. Thanks, --Kangaru99 22:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate to mention that in countries where its legal there is often a substantial body of regulations(living wills forinstance in canada are often not respected until various regulatory hudrles have been crossed). I agree we should use language that clearly shows it is not all significantly regulated in all countries that have legalized it, and that we should not use words like 'strictly' or 'enforced' as this is often not true. but I think the fact and level of regulation in many countries deserves some mention in the overview. I also respect your desire not to begin an edit war. Please Write back with what you specifically find inappropriate about my scentence. Thanks for keeping this so civil

• Jethro 82 05:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right ofcourse the overview should mention all those things. feel free to delete my comment at least until the entire intro can be redone Jethro 82 12:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Temple Anshe Hesed

Thanks for the typo fixes on Temple Anshe Hesed. I named the article, yet I couldn't spell the name correctly in the article. Go figure! I even sent the link to a friend who is a member there and she said nothing. Oh, well. I heard there is an Orthodox community in Erie, too. Do you know if they have a deep history in Erie worthy of writing a separate article about them in Wiki? I'm part of Wikiproject Erie and am always watching for notable entities to include. Thanks again for the edits.--Pat 22:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Spertus Institute

A tag has been placed on Spertus Institute, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Giggy _U^CP 06:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Spertus Institute

An admin agreed with you and removed the CSD tag. Giggy _U^CP 22:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

thank you...

thank you for your edit on tobacco smoking...wish he user:amatulic will not undo it and call u a vandal...regardsMULAZIMOGLU 11:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I also thank you for your constructive edits. User:Omulazimoglu can wish all he wants, but doggedly re-adding unsourced and poorly-written opinion — without a single word of explanation for his edits — is vandalism, and gets reported as such.

Your edits are a vast improvement. However, I am now concerned with undue weight given in the article to Islamic views on tobacco smoking, given its length compared to all other sections in the article. -Amatulic 16:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Stargate Horizon

What do you mean? please give me more advice, do you think it looks like an ad for the programme? if so how do i make it less seem like that?

no im not associated with the programme, i just like Stargae related stuff (for lack of a better word)

It isn't a TV programme. It appears to be a fanfiction website - perhaps with a greater degree of immersion (or added 'meta') than normal, in that the writer(s) are writing "TV scripts" rather than straight fanfic. I've nominated the article for deletion under A7, but there may be greater problems in that the article page is written so as to suggest it really is a TV show with real actors' names listed as appearing. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Tobacco smoking

Hey HG! Your edits to Tobacco smoking are excellent! Nice catch! Sometimes when reverting what is perceived to be vandalism, we may not go back far enough, or in some cases even some good information may be inadvertatntly reverted. I am usually very cautious about what is being removed, but sometimes I'll come across an article with a subject that I'm not entirely familiar with...and then I'm glad thoughtful editors like yourself are there to make sure the article is in perfect post-vandalisim shape!

Nice work! And thanks for letting me know! – Dreadstar † 15:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments about my adding on Islam to Tobacco smoking. If you have a chance, perhaps you can explain to me about how reverts work. Is it possible to revert sections of an article, not the whole article, using the prior history? Can undo be delimited to a section? Well, you don't have to bother with this... . HG | Talk 17:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

And thank you for your kind response and questions! I'm always happy to help, it's never a bother! Yes it is possible to undo or revert specific edits, or a series of edits in an article. The new 'undo' button next to each edit in the 'history' tab of an article, can be used to try and undo that specific edit, it's success is dependent on there not being any conflicting intermediate edits between that particular edit and the current version of the article. One can also go back to a previous version, by going to the article's history, and editing an old revision of the page. If you do this, any changes made since that revision will be removed.

Here are some links with more detail on this subject: Help:Reverting, WP:VANDAL, WP:Vandalproof. Hope this helps! – Dreadstar † 18:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! :)

Thank you for your beautiful words and warm wishes on my birthday, dear HG! I took a well-deserved one-day wikibreak and spent it with my family and my friends... and actually had a beer after months of forced abstinence! :) Of course, there's no way I'd forget about you, so I saved a great, tasty piece of chocolate cake just for you - but sorry, no beer left! Again, thank you so much for taking the time to wish me well, and have a wonderful day, my friend! Love, Phaedriel - 19:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC) While I don't recall us ever interacting, the fact that you've taken the time to dedicate me your kind words is very special in my eyes, dear HG. From this day on, let me tell you you'll always be welcome to visit me, and I'll make sure to visit you often... that's what friends do! :) xxx, Sharon

Hello there!

Thank you for the kind compliment and of course I don't mind the correction. (Sometimes I infer the presence of particles and prepositions that are not there and miss them - especially when I am up writing into the wee hours of the morning). Your comments at Talk:Palestinian people page on how the content of the material could be improved were also very welcome. I am holding back a bit right now on changes to let other views come in but hope to work more to improve it. There hasn't been enough stability there to allow for building. But I am hoping that will change in the days and weeks to come. Tiamat 23:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. It's an insightful comment and I appreciate how you prefaced it as well. But I must admit that I am immensely frustrated and I guess it was my way of pointing of double standards. While one editor can insert sentences in his own prose that misrepresent sources (twice) without anyone lifting a finger, I can't even place a quote from a geneticist as a footnote without getting everything reverted. I don't feel that I am being fairly treated. And I do think that by and large, people's POVs are influencing their approaches to the material here, some much more than others. I also think many other things, but per your advice, I will leave it there. Thank you for everything. :) Tiamat 15:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey. I appreciate your suggestion and will definitely keep looking over the DNA section. While I don't have a strong science background, I've been looking into the subject rather intensively for about three months (on and off wiki). I think my latest draft is pretty straightfoward is terms of reporting the sources. I tried to make it as easy as possible for a layperson to understand. I'm sure it could still use improvement, but that's why I posted it. I'd like to incorporate it or something close into the article in the place of what's there, because as I pointed out in earlier discussions of the page it's inaccurate as it is now. And as other editors have commented, it's in terrible shape and needs copyediting. I've done that. It's taken months to feel confident enough to do that, but I have. I think it should be posted into the article and we can work from there - unless you think I need a science degree to be bold in that section. :) I don't think there's a lot of distance between the outline you raised and the version I offered, with the exception of the historical record issue which I responded to you about there. I'm sure we'll be able to close the gaps with a little give and take and the contextualization of things you think need as much. See you again soon. Tiamat 17:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

HG, again, you've made yet another excellent point about how I can engage more constructively with my talk comments. I want to be able to do that, but I am having trouble assuming good faith.

This is not my first run-in with Jayjg. Indeed, the very first time was some time before I even had an account and was trying to add some edits to an article on a political activist, which he just deleted, citing poor sourcing. I provided refs. He said the sources weren't good enough and the stuff would have been deleted were it not for another editor with an account who stepped in and restored the edit. I've had an account now for a year and a half, I use scholarly sources, I engage in discussion, I read policy and try to abide by it. But nothing much has changed in my experience with Jayjg.

I'm sure some of our problems stem from the subject matter. I'm sure you know that scholarship is often biased towards Western subjects and viewpoints. There is a paucity of material on Palestinians produced by Palestinians themselves because they don't have the stability or infrastructure of a nation-state required to support the development of different schools and disciplines.

I'm also sure that some of this also has to do with Jayjg's views. It is definitely not a "Palestinian-Jew" thang. That he is Jewish (I didn't know if he was or not, I don't really care) has nothing to do with it. RolandR (talk · contribs), MalikShabazz (talk · contribs), you, Steve and many other Jewish editors and I get on just fine. That he is a man doesn't really bother me either. Sure he displays typical male arrogance sometimes, but in the Arab world, we're used to that. :)

The problem is more that he has a very strong POV about Palestinians that sometimes interferes with his ability to give space to our viewpoints. I say this after more than a year of intensive experience co-editing with him at many many articles. There are certain red lines for him, in terms of opinions and information, and he will do everything he can to prevent them from being included in articles. I've seen stonewalling, evasion, rhetorical tricks, false accusations, uncivil comments, lots and lots of discussion with no real effort to see the other side and a tendency to delete, rather than improve upon. That's my honest opinion. You invited me to vent. I hope I didn't overstep the bounds of acceptable discourse. And once again thanks. Tiamat 20:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi HG. You asked me to answer two questions at the Talk:Palestinian people#Canaanite civilizations material page. Then you left a message on my talk page telling me to hold off placing comments there so Jayjg can answer. Should I not answer your questions there then? Tiamat 20:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's called sumoud. Tiamat 20:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

So the answer to your question is I would title the subsection Ancestry of Palestinians. I would break it into three maybe four sections: archaeological perspectives, historical, genetics, and possibly anthropological perspectives. My problem with the debate taking place on the talk page is that it focuses in on the Canaanite material without putting it into the broader debate about Palestinian identity being a modern national identity, but that it is rather commonly accepted that most Palestinians descend from people who were in Palestine before them. There is no way to prove this definitively. It is not in the purview of historians to make such conclusions really. They can only offer hypotheses. Different disciplines hold different views on the matter. The genetics evidence is fast-changing ancestry scholarship, functioning as a kind of archaeology of the human body. In any case, the consensus among geneticists is rather more clear than that of archaeologists and historians and anthropologists and it is in favor of genetic continuity. So I don't like the idea of a separate article. (We Palestinians don't really like Hafrada:) But I am open to considering the view of others. Tiamat 21:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, I fully appreciate your breakdown of that section. Almost all of your comments have been helpful to building a new and improved section there. Part of the problem in my opinion is that the ancestry section and the origins of Palestinian identity section need to be merged in order to give proper coverage to this topic. Indeed, per my comments above, I feel like ancestry, origins of identity and DNA should be in the same section, with sub-headings. In any case, I have stepped back from the article. I have some real life editing work to do for a professor with a looming deadline that I've been ignoring for some time now to write things here. (?!?) So, I will look over all the material article, your comments, the talk pages, do some additional research, write some prose and come back with some new ideas in the days and weeks to come. Thanks for everything. I'm hoping that when I return to work in earnest on the article that I won't be faced with the same patterns that prompted me to file the WP:ANI. Happy editing HG. Tiamat 10:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Kibbutz Gal On

I have responded to your concerns on the discussion page for Kibbutz Gal On here: Talk:Gal On. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to ameliorate the trouble. Peace. Notecardforfree 04:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of religious leaders with Jewish background

Unfortunately, this list may get deleted. So here's what I wrote, for the record:

Keep because the list concerns a notable set of people, sharing a common characteristic that is noteworthy -- admittedly controversial, even offensive -- in both scholarship, religious circles and popular culture. Jon513 raises notability but I hope he will modify his vote based on discussion above. Others have mainly focused on the criteria as vague or POV. However, terms like "religious" "leader" and "Jewish" are not vague. Yes, "Jewish" is always a controversial identity, but we deal with that all over wikipedia. We've got some good ways to clarify Jewish. More importantly, each leader is notable, so their Jewish background can be dealt with (if nec, on a case by case basis) in their main article. I think there is an underlying concern here that the list will help publicize people who many of us find objectionable, e.g. heretics, anti-Semites, "traitors to Judaism" and proselytizers. I concede that the list will include unsavory characters, but I am convinced that this list can work with feasible criteria and exceed notability requirements. HG | Talk 11:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be glad to continue the conversation here, if not at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of religious leaders with Jewish background. HG | Talk 11:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi HG

Thanks for your note. You ask a very good question. And it's certainly true that editors sometimes interpret WP:NOR as setting an "incredibly high standard," precisely in order to rule out what they don't want. I don't think that's what I'm doing in the case of this classification – "allegations of apartheid" – but I can see why it might seem that way from the outside. Consider, however, all that's being filed away under this heading. Desmond Tutu travels to the occupied West Bank, and says "It reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about. Many South Africans are beginning to recognize the parallels to what we went through," and Wikipedians call it an "allegation of apartheid." OK, fair enough I suppose. I can easily imagine Tutu saying, "I was just saying it reminded me of apartheid – I didn't say it was apartheid," but close enough let's say. But then we have Tutu meeting with the Dalai Lama and saying: "We used to say to the apartheid government: you may have the guns, you may have all this power, but you have already lost. Come: join the winning side. His Holiness and the Tibetan people are on the winning side." Is that an "allegation of apartheid"? (That quote has been used in one "allegations of apartheid" article or another for six months now, despite my repeated objections; I note however that it was swiftly removed from the China article after I posted the AfD). For the purposes of these articles, any statement of solidarity from a South African figure is being classed as an "allegation of apartheid." And since the articles (with the exception of the Israel article) have literally no secondary sources discussing this species of verbal act, we have only the Wikipedians' subject to go by. Take a look at that line in the China article that says, "Jimmy Wales compared China's restrictions on internet usage and free speech to South African apartheid." As one editor in the AfD dryly pointed out, that's an allegation of censorship, not an allegation of apartheid. But if you look at the actual source, things get curiouser and curiouser:

The Wikipedia co-founder compared the situations in China to apartheid in South Africa in the past. During the apartheid era, foreign companies were required to choose whether to boycott the country's market or be engaged in it, he said.

"Google's argument in this area is that by being involved in China, it's better for the Chinese people than not being involved," Wales said, calling the logic "fairly plausible."

Do you see what's happened? Despite the careless phrasing of the AP report, it's obvious that Wales isn't alleging that Chinese censorship is apartheid. He's comparing the ethical decision whether or not to do business with China with the decision companies faced during the apartheid/boycott era of whether or not to do business with South Africa. He is, in short, pondering the efficacy of boycotts as a form of moral protest, and considering the China example side-by-side with the South Africa example. It's a serious abuse of common sense as well as the English language to call this an "allegation of apartheid."

At the far other end of the spectrum is something like the Adam and Moodley book, Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking Between Israelis and Palestinians, which pursues the comparison between Israel/Palestine and apartheid South Africa from ethical, historical, and pragmatic perspectives, with an emphasis on the dynamics of peacemaking. They say the two situations have similarities and differences, but their goal "above all" is to "apply lessons learned from the South African experience" to Israel-Palestine. Is this an "allegation of apartheid"? To my mind, the answer is obvious. Both to call this an "allegation of apartheid," and to classify it as a specimen of a family of verbal acts that includes Jimmy Wales' musings on boycotts and Tutu's vague statements of solidarity with Tibetans, is original research in its most elementary and unequivocal sense.--G-Dett 19:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again HG. You're quite right that the Wales and Tutu quotes ought simply to be eliminated, and therefore aren't a good example of OR – or rather, they're an example of local, incidental OR, but don't demonstrate that the very term "allegations" is OR. But maybe I wasn't clear on the following point: I do not think the Adam and Moodley stuff constitutes "allegations" either. Incidentally, I also think the word "allegations" is simply the wrong word, WP policies and guidelines aside. An "allegation" is an assertion of facts; it implies falsifiability, and it conceivably can be proved or disproved. Properly used, it shouldn't apply to interpretations, comparisons, subjective evaluations, and so on. "There were allegations that so-and-so fathered three illegitimate children," but not "there were allegations that so-and-so was a bit of a lady's man." To be sure, "alleged" and "allegedly" are used a little more loosely....but "allegations" is the word we're using in these titles.

Anyway, all that is by-the-by. I'd prefer "analogy" or "comparison" to "allegations," but the point is, you need sources establishing the notability of the comparison. If it's become a subject in itself, it can be the subject of an article. If not, as Gertrude Stein would say, not.--G-Dett 20:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi HG, I'm not following the reasoning that leads you to determine that non-notability "is a non-starter." To me, it is obvious that if allegations of Chinese apartheid were notable and important, someone would have talked about them. But nobody has. They've sure talked about allegations of Israeli apartheid: *Ian Buruma, "Do not treat Israel like apartheid South Africa", The Guardian, July 23, 2002; "Oxford holds 'Apartheid Israel' week," Jerusalem Post by Jonny Paul; Heribert Adam, Kogila Moodley, Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking Between Israelis and Palestinians; Alex Safian, "Guardian Defames Israel with False Apartheid Charges," Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, February 20, 2006; Joel Pollack, "The trouble with the apartheid analogy," Business Day, 2 March 2007; "Israel Is Not An Apartheid State," Jewish Virtual Library; Benjamin Pogrund, "Apartheid? Israel is a democracy in which Arabs vote"; "Carter explains 'apartheid' reference in letter to U.S. Jews," International Herald Tribune; "Archbishop Tutu, please be fair," Jerusalem Post Dec. 5, 2006; Norman Finkelstein, "The Ludicrous Attacks on Jimmy Carter's Book," CounterPunch December 28, 2006; Gerald M. Steinberg, "Abusing 'Apartheid' for the Palestinian Cause," Jerusalem Post, August 24, 2004. And so on and so on. There are literally hundreds more where those came from.

But no one has yet come forward with a single source where someone talks about allegations of Chinese apartheid. Not one, nada. I would go further than saying notability has not been established; I'd say there's pretty conclusive evidence of non-notability.

You write, "if you do a Google Scholar search (which was what I did), I'm confident you'll find that there are highly notable and substantive statements that clearly refer to (aka allege or analogize) Chinese programs."

It's an understandable fallacy, but a basic fallacy nonetheless, to conclude that because a number of notable people have used a word in a certain way that their use of that word is notable. The likelihood of falling prey to this fallacy increases markedly the less one knows about a subject and the more one is depending on search engines to provide an overview. Search engines are like gigantic prismatic mirrors. In a Pynchonian sort of clustering illusion, search engines give the world back to us with whatever's on our mind as the key repeated motif. Jay and Urthogie's article is a compilation of search-engine results, with modest little bits of original-research connective tissue threaded through and holding the little Frankenstein together (e.g., "these tensions have spilled over into the tourist industry"). Most of their results, and yours from the Google Scholar search, are from books where the term is used incidentally and in passing; except for the David Whitehouse source (which is not a reliable source), none is using the comparison as a key analytical concept.

There is, in short, simply no evidence of notability. There is another fallacy at work here, where if you talk about something enough it becomes very difficult to believe it isn't notable. But "apartheid," besides having its historically specific meaning, has become a generic term of art in human-rights discourse. It's very common indeed. Its use with regards to various issues in China is common enough, but that versatile use hasn't raised any notice in its own right.--G-Dett 22:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to me to have impeccable manners, so no worries about the document dump.  :) And let me also say I appreciate what you're doing and if anyone has the intelligence, the persistence, and the saintliness to pull it off it might be you.

Now, to the document dump, which I'll confess to being a little puzzled by. Jay's four sources I've already discussed in my long "statement" on the AfD page; in short, three use the comparison in passing and the fourth is a non-reliable source. Three of the four you've given me are just instances where someone uses the word "apartheid" or "apartheid-like," usually once and in passing, to describe this or that Chinese policy. Again, you can't have an article about patterns of rhetorical figuration (or prevalence of a given metaphor) as detected by Wikipedians.

One of your four sources, however, the Chan & Alexander piece in the Journal of Migration Studies, has promise. Its thesis, like the Whitehouse thesis, is that a given Chinese policy is comparable to apartheid, and it explores the comparison in detail. Unlike the Whitehouse piece, it is an article by specialists and is published in a peer-review academic journal (as opposed to being an unpublished conference paper by a non-specialist journalist for the Socialist Worker). If other sources could be found responding to the Chan/Alexander thesis, perhaps its notability could be established, and a small article on the Chan/Alexander thesis would be warranted.

But to repeat, a bunch of quotes where various writers use the word "apartheid" in different contexts with relation to China does not amount to a topic, much less a notable one. Unless – at the risk of repeating myself – some reliable sources have noted the rhetorical trend and remarked upon it. The notable violations are of WP:N and WP:NOR.

Lastly, I think you may be mistaken – or shall we say overly sanguine – in your belief that Ideogram has conceded the great possibilities of Analysis of Hokou as apartheid. He described the suggestion as "increasingly hypothetical" and his answer was that nevertheless it was "conceivable." Well, I'll second that. Even Allegations of Chinese apartheid is conceivable. But you'd need notability. And notability, as always – per WP:N and WP:NOR – means secondary sources. Take care – in light of your note at the top of your user talk page, I hope you're not gone for long!--G-Dett 23:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello HG, In response to your question in my Talk, I have stated in several fora that using the term "allegations of XXX" de facto forfeits the possibility of NPOV, and that efforts should be made to merge the material on these articles into other articles in which context and competing viewpoints can be explored. As for the specifics of the material at Allegations of Chinese apartheid, I somewhat disagree with the honorable editor that profess his viewpoint above. Please take a moment to read the article and the sources and you will will see that after just less than 48 hrs of research (and I am not done yet) there are new and abundant sources on the subject. The material is encyclopedic and interesting and I am sure that regardless of the result of the AfD fracas, it will find a good home, eventually. If only editors could dismount their battle horses... Be well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Casualties

Hi, I apologise for not being clear - WP can sometimes have that effect :-) What I meant to say was that B'Tselem may be uncontroversial for its body count (x Palestinians, y Israelis killed), but the rest of its data is criticised and disputed, so that I would have no problem with using the former (status quo ante Timeshifter's "new edit"), but see no reason for us to include such problematic data, especially when it is still just a click away from someone interested. What I meant about 'selecting some' was that by cherry-picking some details at the expense of others, even B'Tselem's controversial conclusions are further skewed. Keep in mind that the B'Tselem estimates about combatants were not touched by me, and should remain alongside the other combatant estimates. I hope this clarified the issues, but if it didn't, feel free to drop another message. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 21:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello HG,

I'm glad that we are progressing, but I don't feel that it is conducive to the discussion for myself or Armon to have to tolerate Timeshifter's allegations of bad-faith and incivil tone, etc., and I think it would be helpful if you could remind everyone to comment on content, and not contributors. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 17:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Chinese apartheid

Hi HG,

Thanks for the friendly heads up. I posted my thoughts on the issue in the AfD page.

Thanks again,

--xDanielx^Talk 02:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I added my (rather confused) comments to your proposal. :) I did as you suggested and changed "Keep" to "Keep and rename." --xDanielx^Talk 04:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I think you deserve one of these for your very amicable behavior. :-) xDanielxTalk 08:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I like this kind of appreciation. HG | Talk

Hi HG,

I think your efforts to find compromise were very good. On the Chinese apartheid AfD, I guess there were just too many users involved in the heated debate to notice a small voice suggesting compromise, but it seems to be working out on the Israeli apartheid article. I still think it's best to settle naming disputes on the talk page, since they tend to make AfDs messy and ambiguous (e.g., I voted "keep and rename" - if my naming proposal doesn't get consensus but "keep" might, should my vote count towards "keep"? "Delete"? Neither?). But I guess the advantage is that it draws in lots of attention so that a more accurate consensus can be taken.

Best,

xDanielx^Talk 16:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem

I respect you greatly. --Ideogram 03:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey

I thought you were going to bed? For God's sake, don't lose sleep over this. --Ideogram 04:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks

For your efforts in this mess. I am sorry not to have responded to your queries yesterday; frankly, I wasn't keen to enter into negotiations on an AfD because I thought it would send the wrong message to the closing admin. I believed (and still believe) that straight-out deletion on policy grounds would have been the most salutary thing for that article.

Whatever the next phase (forced mediation?), I think you could play a decisive and hugely beneficial role – if you're willing, that is, to drive a school bus full of fighting children and resist the temptation to drive it off a cliff. All best, --G-Dett 14:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I am so sorry

... but I cannot participate any further. --Ideogram 15:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Your questions

I posted some comments in reply at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid#Some policy observations. Hope this helps. -- ChrisO 00:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Never

You never have to apologize to me. Never. --Ideogram 02:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Q's on AoIA proposal

Hi HG. I'll try to answer your questions, but it will be very brief and summative for now. There is general agreement that the Adam/Moodley book is of a different order than most of the other, highly polemical material in the article. Editors on both sides seem to find it valuable. If you're not already familiar with it, here's the deal: it was written after the fall of apartheid and after the breakdown of Oslo. It looks to the South African model of peacemaking both for pragmatic "lessons learned" with regards to peacemaking, and for a roadmap of what it calls "moral literacy." It is very critical of those who dismiss the analogy, and equally critical of those who use it for simplistic sloganeering. Of course human-rights abuses make their way into the discussion, but they are decidedly not the emphasis. Its angle is that of comparative politics. There are many books of this sort; as I said on the talk page, I think we've gotten fixated on A/M simply because a chapter or two of their book was easily available online. I have given some other titles on the talk page, and am just beginning to read into them now. Some of them focus on Israel and South Africa only; others bring in Northern Ireland as well.

The analogy has become a commonplace for discussions of what is politely called Israel's "demographic problem." The very mainstream and moderately pro-Israel writer Thomas Friedman has invoked the specter of Israeli "apartheid" very routinely in this respect – he calls it "the reality principle." He's not talking about long waits at checkpoints; he's not talking about human rights per se.

So, briefly, here are some dimensions of the analogy that wouldn't find a natural home in a "human rights" article:

1. The demographic and strategic problem;
2. Shifting and controversial categories of "native" and "settler";
3. The pragmatics of peacemaking (peace and reconciliation commissions, one- vs. two-state solutions);
4. appropriateness of boycotts, sanctions, etc. "Pariah" status worked wonders in bringing an end to apartheid, but has antisemitic connotations for many when contemplated against Israel.

I'll source these for you when I have a moment. The quality of the sources and the issues presented in the Israel article could be brought way, way up. There is a serious, multifaceted, nuanced, and yes controversial discussion about alleged parallels between Israel and South going on in the main hall, and then there's this crazy food fight in the foyer. Both because of heightened tensions/POV disputes among editors, and because of the vagaries of what's easily available on the internet, this article has tended to cover the food fight.

Thanks again for what you're doing; I can't imagine a better approach, or a better temperament for it than yours.--G-Dett 22:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope

Wasn't me that put it up there, the template was already there before my edit. >Radiant< 09:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again

Just touching base. I realized the last set of questions you put to me on my talk page went unanswered. The discussion has moved on a little since then, to the point where I am not even sure what I was being asked...but if there's something you need me to clarify let me know. Many of the title suggestions that have been made are acceptable to me. You have my permission to revise any talkpage subheadings anywhere you like. I was also thinking of doing a dummy draft of what I think the article could look like if it were to dig deeper into the secondary sources who explore the analogy (as Cerejota and I have been suggesting), and move away from the he-said-she-said format; but I won't be able to get to this til next week.--G-Dett 18:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy

... your break. Come back soon! --Ideogram 18:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian people

I made some changes there, adding a lot of new material while keeping in mind many of the points you raised. I have not tackled the DNA section again, but will try to do that in the coming weeks. Check it all out if you are still interested. Tiamat 15:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments on how to make the text more comprehensible to the average reader. I will try to incorporate some of those suggestions in the coming days. Tiamat 11:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid

Hi. I don't think we've corresponded before but I'd like to give you some feedback on your recent comment at Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Certainly, I agree that the discussion has consumed lots of time and effort. I happen to think that this (time-consuming effort) reflects a sense that there is still an underlying discomfort and an absence of stable consensus (in the sense of broad mutual acceptance) over the article title. You disagree and say that the current title has a rough consensus. However, you then say "attempts to change it [title] start to look like disruption" and you specifically express concern about the back-and-forth over votes. Here you've made a sweeping and negative characterization of efforts by many people, including my own efforts, in which I've invested a fair amount of time. (See next section, also Talk Archive 24.) I feel discouraged by your implication that I and various conversation partners are disruptive. Instead, I think that I and many others are making good faith efforts to resolve a difficult question. If you don't mind my saying so, you could play a more constructive role by stating your Oppose vote with policy-based reasons alone. This would enable those who choose to spend time on reconsidering the title to take into account your reasoning. In any case, I do wish you'd strikeout or remove the phrases in your statement that express negativity about our efforts. Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 14:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think we have corresponded before. I'm startled that you think that more effort needs to go into the existence/name of this article, since it appears to have been all round the houses (and has survived 6 attempts to have it deleted). To my mind, some of these discussions (and the change of name discussion in particular) are attempts to overwhelm and silence other good-sense participants. It's also been the source of what some people consider quite serious disruption.

I did not mean to impugn people generally (certainly not yourself, of whose contributions I was barely aware) as to their contributions. However, there is a hard-edge of persistent questioning of the votes of others from certain quarters. It's tiresome and intimidating (actually, it reminds me of the tactics of Socialists in meetings). I'm not sure how to bring it to the attention of the community, but "disruptive" is the word I'd use. It'd be perfectly acceptable in small doses, but when it goes on constantly (as in that one section I was looking at), it becomes a campaign to drive out good sense (very much like the tactics of the Socialists in tenants meetings I'm thinking of!).

Later - looking at your contributions on that page (but rejecting your kind invitation to go to Archive 24) I have a better idea what you're talking about. But I do *not* understand your wish to re-hash everything again. The same people/person I'm thinking of who questions every "vote" will make the same mess of anything you do. If you really, really, really want to get something done in this case (rather than helping with deletions, vandalism etc) then I suggest you create "a personal page" with each of the significant options listed, and then invite people to go there simply and solely to vote. With none of the dross and back-chat allowed in, you might provide a framework to get to something better. But make sure you provide an option "I am sick of this, the name change/deletion debate has found a rough consensus in 'leave as is', that's good enough" - because that's the only one I'll vote for! PalestineRemembered 15:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I like your idea of trying to cut out the "dross and back-chat" especially if the questioning gets to be "tiresome and intimidating." Your idea for a separate page on renaming has merit too, though I see little point in continued straw polls and voting at this stage. On the other hand, I see two strong reasons to revisit the article name. First, voting on various proposals shows that people are pretty split. The "allegations" compromise still left many dissatisfied. Second, more importantly, the current title has weaknesses in terms of WP Policy, which various proponents of the article concede. I worked on a policy-related discussion here. As I tried to tease out people's responses, perhaps you would have found me tiresome but hopefully not intimidating! If and when you have a chance to look at that discussion, I'd be curious to get your opinion. Meanwhile, take care. HG | Talk 16:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I can quite accept you have good "semantic" (?) reasons for not being entirely happy with the name of this article. However, things have panned out the way they have, most likely because it's the least worst of all the options.

The advantage of doing a "personal page" on it is that that is a permanent resource for people to see what they last voted, and change their minds if something has changed. I promise you, I *am* prepared to change my mind - but not at the cost of wading through pages of material that look increasingly like a Forum. Show me a chart of the possibilities (along with all the votes and brief comments of those going before), and I'll be very reasonable and thoughtful. But if you carry on as some people wish to do, the project is locked into vote-warring constantly. That kind of thing poisons the whole collegiate way that the project is supposed to run.

I am disappointed to see your next correspondee, Steve, canvassing you as he's attempting to do. It's very much frowned upon. Furthermore, that article is now starting on it's way up the chain of mediation, quite possibly getting to ArbCom eventually. The actions of everyone involved will likely go under a fine tooth-comb. PalestineRemembered 18:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Help needed

HG, your help is desperately needed atTalk:Battle_of_Jenin#Western_media_accept_.22massacre.22. Palestine remembered posted some quotes which obviously and glaringly dispute the claims of what he himself is saying. We are actually having a dispute over the basic meaning of his text, whcih e seems to have problems with. any help would be appreciated. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 17:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Really PR? Is this frowned upon? I didn't know that requesting the help of someone who has repeatedly and consistently served neutrally as a mediator only, was frowned upon at Wikipedia. --Steve, Sm8900 18:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who User:HG is or what his interests are, though I must say my impression of his good sense have spiralled upwards since I first started speaking to him directly.

In the meantime, you appeared to solicit a partisan intrusion from HG - if this matter escalates (and I'd not be surprised, given some of the bizarre behaviour we've seen), then this canvassing might be considered to reflect on your attitude to cooperative and NPOV editing of articles. PalestineRemembered 21:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Canaanite claims

Hi HG. The more reading I have done, the more it has become clear to me that there is some evidence for a Canaanite descent for modern-day Palestinians and that this is not a fringe opinion in anthropological, historical, genetic, and even archaeological circles. For example, [this article http://nidal.com/anaccash/THE_EMPIRE_OF_THE_AMORITES_REVISITED.html] presented an the International Symposium on Syria and the Near East explains that:

The "Formative Period", ca. 1,000 BC to 1,000 AD, is the period during which the characteristic social morphology of the area was formed. The specificity, or cultural and civilizational "flavor" of the North-Western Mashriq [Syria and Palestine] was established during the "Foundation Period", but it is during the "Formative Period" that, through various processes and under many different influences, the peoples of the area organized themselves in the "multiconfessional societies" typical of the "Modern Period." At the start of the "Formative Period" it is as if we could see three "ethnic" super-groups emerging from the "Amoritic" nebulae that characterized the previous period. We could provisionally designate these super-groups as the "Arameans", the "Cananeans" and the "Arabs" (including all their various kingdoms and/or emirates). These groups then mix and mingle in various ways, and also variously interact with the successive dominant military powers until they are nearly linguistically and socially homogenized by the end of the period, but organized in the characteristic mosaic of religious communities.

I think the article needs to be more clear on the fact that the issue is largely one of semantics caused by the shifting use of self-identifying terms by people in the region. In any case, I do appreciate you feedback and will be using some of it in future edits. Tiamat 22:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Kermit the frog singing, "It's not easy being green" popped into my head for some reason after your comments which didn't dampen my enthusiasm, though I think I heard what you're saying. Summarizing dense scholarly materials in an easy-to-read format is a little challenging though, particularly on a subject that people are quite emotionally sensitive about and are apt at finding ways to disqualify as invalid paraphrasing - thus, the tendency toward quotation. Nevermind though, I'm up for the challenge as always. Tiamat 23:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi HG. You are entitled to your skepticism. My opinion on the subject is not informed by only this source (which as you correctly point out is not explicit in the claims it makes). My point is that the idea that there was continuity in the population resident in Palestine over the years is not a fringe opinion. Logically, it followed that explicit claims of descendency from earlier populations like the Canaanites, while often shied away from by scholars, are not so far out of left field within this context. It is important I think to highlight the semantic differences in the population's conception of self, as raised in the article I provided you above, but there is a general consensus that continuity of residency, mixing and intermingling was the norm, rather than the exception among the various groups who passed through Palestine. Tiamat 10:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement HG. I have searched for literature reviews, but the pickings are slim. I think part of the problem is the hesitancy of scholars to take up this debate due to its political implications. For example, this study on Palestinian DNA and its relationship to Canaanite and other earlier populations in Palestine was pulled from publication (an unprecendented occurrence) after complaints surrounding the political terminology employed by its authors. There are some secondary sources on this issue, which may also prove valuable to the article and the reader's understanding of how these issues relate to Palestinian identity and the conflict with Zionism over Palestine's patrimony. Tiamat 10:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

workshop

What a work ! Good job !
I will see what I can do. If I understand English good but my writing is not very good.
Regards,Alithien 09:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my contribution is near from zero...

Would you mind adding a pov-tag in the article Allegations of apartheid

I added one twice justifying me in the talk page but it was reverted without discussion and I would not want to start an edit war about that.

Thank you, Alithien 14:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin issue simple indeed.

I'm restating the point I made at Battle of Jenin, making it as simple as possible.

The sources collected by "windsofchange.com" (#1) state that their version of events (#2) is a "Minor View" (#3) (eg "reports that a massacre did not occur have received scant attention in the Western news media.") Our "Battle of Jenin" article is written around this "Minor View" (#4), in total opposition to Wikipedia policy (#5).

Which of those 5 elements are you disputing?

Alternatively, are you suggesting the debate is about something different? I'm afraid that "P1" (underlying bias in English speaking media) bore no relation to what I'd said and "P2" (basic reliability of English-speaking media) is not in dispute. PalestineRemembered 09:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi PR. I'm trying to stay clear of Jenin, so to speak, but I will reply to your note on my Talk. You characterize the wingsofchg sources as sources demonstrating the Minor View and Major View. But I think that they claim to demonstrate something slightly yet significantly different: the Minority Knowledgeable View and the Majority Less-knowledgeable View. See? As a result: Since Wikipedia depends on knowledge, not just a majority, the article needs to focus on Knowledgeable Views per reliable sources. Even if you don't agree with me, do you understand how I am distinguishing our viewpoints? (Well, that sounds a bit silly but I think mutual understanding is an important step....) Best, HG | Talk 14:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If we concentrate on "Truth" rather than "Verifiability", then the deniers are in an even worse situation. They don't appear to have anything to back their assertion "100s did not die" other than an unlikely verbal statement by one Palestinian, contradicted by the statement of the PA to the UN. The circumstantial evidence points to 100s of dead, some in collapsed houses, some buried in gardens. (No badly wounded found suggests 3 times more deaths than were found in the hospital).

And it gets still worse for them - under "Truth not Verifiability" we'd have to include mention of three refrigerated trailers (it's admitted they were in the camp while observers were excluded), and the trench with 30+ bodies (mentiond by some, including the only forensic expert to go in). Under "Truth not Verifiability" we'd have to give those claims precedence over the denials of those who blocked entry to the camp.

Defenders of Israel have sources to back parts of their claims eg there is no evidence for a "Machine-gunned against the wall" Nazi-style massacre - but absence of proof is not proof of absence. (In fact we have a report of one such massacre, small, confirmed by Major-General Giora Eiland, Head of the IDF Plans and Policy Directorate).

Without lots of study on your part, you'd obviously be unable to comment on the above factoids - but I'd still appreciate your telling me which of my 5 points are problematic. You've already discovered people in this article who won't answer questions ... I'm sure you don't want to join their number! You've had careful answers to your questions from me! PalestineRemembered 16:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: your reply on my Talk. You again ask which of your 5 points I find problematic. My answer is given above (pertaining to #3 and #4 if I grok your numbering). I don't understand what's not clear in your mind here. However, I wonder if your reply regarding the mortality figures (whether True or Verified) rather misses my concerns. Why? Because it still sounds like you are using these sources only to deal with the discourse using 'massacre' language, not with the mortality count. In reply to my original comment at Talk:Battle of Jenin, you said you didn't know quite what editing changes you'd make based on your cited wingsofchange sources and your inferences. (I added a reply there too, which you might look at.) Good luck. HG | Talk 18:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem - my argument breaks down into 5 very simple points/assertions. The sources collected by "windsofchange.com" (#1) state that their version of events (#2) is a "Minor View" (#3) (eg "reports that a massacre did not occur have received scant attention in the Western news media.") Our "Battle of Jenin" article is written around this "Minor View" (#4), in total opposition to Wikipedia policy (#5). Which one of these 5 points do you think is faulty? PalestineRemembered 19:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As stated above: #3 and #4, because (as stated above) the sources would be more accurately characterized or inferred (using what I perceive to be your method) as discussing the Minority Knowledgeable View and the Majority Less-knowledgeable View. (FYI better style to put ## before the text.) Also, if you don't mind my saying so, when you write that your argument is "very simple" then your words imply that I am too dense to get it. Of course, I know you're being perfectly gentlemanly here. So I don't think you're insulting, but you are not sufficiently putting yourself in the shoes of those (Steve, me, Kyaa, others?) who question your approach. For what it's worth -- my recommendation is (i) you and I take a 24 hr break from this thread, (ii) maybe folks shouldn't fuel the heat of discussion at Talk:BoJ, and (iii) you might work on a few sentences and footnotes that rely on the wingsofchange sources. These could be new or edited sentences. It's my sense that the BoJ Talk is started to be more exhausting than editorially constructive. Thanks for staying in touch. HG | Talk 19:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies - I didn't recognise "#3 and #4" as relating to my own numbering (perhaps because I was irritated by the two halves of the discussion being in two different places until I re-united them). I still don't understand what you're saying - windsofchange.com believe that there was no massacre. But they make little attempt to demonstrate it (having, I think, only a single, likely distorted quote from one Palestinian) - concentrating on abusing the media that disagrees with them. These other media sources (they concentrate on the British papers, but I suspect they had very similar problems with US media) were becoming even more loud in their condemnation of the IDF once they've been allowed into the camp and see for themselves what has happened. Their attempt top be the "Minority but Knowledgeable View" falls flat on it's face (even if it wasn't nonsense as regards WP:NPOV).

Coming to this affair in order to write an article for the encyclopedia and with no preconceptions, we have a problem initially deciding which view is the "Major" and which is the "Minor". However, it must be rapidly obvious that the "No Massacre" people are angry, likely badly informed - and admit that they're in a minority. The article needs to be written from the "Atrocity & possible Massacre" angle, because that's clearly the "Major View". Even the "Minority View" people tell us this is the case!

The Battle of Jenin TalkPages are sad memorials to sensible, "academic" people being driven up the wall by people who refuse to engage in any form of sensible discussion. That's not what is happening here - but the Minority Knowledgeable View and the Majority Less-knowledgeable View are unrecognisable in WP policy. You'd not even make that claim if you'd looked at the sources, since the windsofchange.com are angry and badly informed, whereas their targets are reporting what they'd actually been to see. PalestineRemembered 20:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You needn't apologize. Just to clarify on your last sentence -- I'm not claiming that the sources are Knowledgeable vs. Less-Knowledgeable, it's what you call the Minor View that distinguishes itself as more Knowledgeable. Get it? When you try to use Their View to prove a point, you are ignoring that their view subsumes a Knowledge evaluation. Anyway, let's give it a rest. HG | Talk 20:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still baffled. Commentaries/Op-Eds/Blogs are always written as if they were "Knowledgable". Most of them are written as if they were "Majority Knowledgable", it's (highly?) unusual to see them claiming to be "Minority Knowledgable" - but also very significant! We'd not accept their arguments and write our articles around their view anyway - and we'd certainly not write articles around those arguments if they admit they're "Minority"!

If you think I'm wearing you down by simple dogged bone-headedness, then you'd be tasting the medicine handed out to a considerable group who've previously been forced from Battle of Jenin by tactics much more tiresome than mine. Those people were "thoughtful and academic" contributors (much like you, in fact) and they've been driven off by the "No Massacre" crowd. The biggest difference between them and you may be that they assiduously tried to answer all questions before they gave up in frustration. PalestineRemembered 21:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I fear all your good work, attempting to make better use of references at Battle of Jenin has come to less than nought. See the nonsense that's going on there now. This on top of what was going on before - it's almost as if your wise words have made the problem worse. PalestineRemembered 16:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for addressing me in a complimentary manner. You thereby expose yourself to more unsolicited advice ;--) Having glanced at this talk page, I'm no mentor, but I suggest you find yourself a diversion, a way to chill out, or a haven for uncontroversial editing, until this settles down. You won't do yourself (or what you care about) much good while this is so heated up. Calmly and respectfully yours, HG | Talk 17:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How can I make sure that this article doesn't lose the "Totally disputed" tag while it's in this shocking state? PalestineRemembered 17:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

PR, for all I know, maybe you can't make sure of that. I don't know the exact state of the Talk over the tag. But I don't need to know. The tag is not so vital you can't revisit it in a few days, a week, etc. If the tag is under current discussion, you can just leave a deliberately courteous note, about how you beg to differ and will check back later on when the discussion is less heated. I admit I might have trouble following this advice myself, but there you have it. (Hey, partly thanks to you, I've been putting my energy into drafting material on special user pages, before placing them on the Talk pages. I want to let things cool off and I don't want to exacerbate Nagle's concern that I'm feeding trollism. So maybe I'm taking the advice. Maybe you could work on a careful exposition on a user page.) 2 cents, plus or minus a half cent. HG | Talk 18:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled - the Holocaust Deniers were eventually pushed into the darkest corners of society (and/or put in prison) and I'd (perhaps naively) supposed it was honorable and determined opposition to their arguments that did it. (Not that anyone seems to have learned much - a local organiser of the ADL was sacked recently for daring to suggest there was a genocide of the Armenians). Is it only possible to stop denial with the weapon of $millions? PalestineRemembered 18:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course

An explanatory note would definitely solve the problem. I was just playing devil's advocate. I read your argument for why discussion of the title remains important and think it was considerate of you to go the trouble to do it. I agree that policy-based discussion can continue as well. Tiamut 11:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Should we delete this list

Some people are selective they would like to see only lists of their own domination, what do u think does this list warrant deletion or should we let it stay?[1]--יודל 13:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Inserted from User's Talk page

WP:CANVASS ...

... is an important guidelines for you to read. "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to influence a community discussion.[1] Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive." etc etc. Anyway, I'm busy and already have access to this info. HG | Talk 16:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention i only left u that note because i see that u have some history in this issue, with the same person user IZAK about his other attempt to delete a similer page, [3] please do express your opinion regarding the issue i alerted u its our shared interest, or i may be mistaken, then be so kind and disregard the message. Have a good day--יודל 17:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Your prompt reply is responsive, provided you stop canvassing. Did you stop? HG | Talk 17:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

yes. i found that i was guilty of the paragraph votesocking i did not know it sorry i will op it thanks for alerting me on this.--יודל 17:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Cherry-picking statements.

Please have a look at this - what do you think of quotations from Benny Morris in a section entitled "The "Arab leaders' endorsement of flight" Theory" and a subsection called "Claims by scholars that support the theory that the flight was instigated by Arab leaders"? Elsewhere we know that Morris puts the "Endorsement of Flight" (or EoF) theory as accounting for around 5% of the exodus, with the 'Transfer principle' theory basically accounting for the rest. (This problem seems to have been written into the article with the deceptive titles of sections, something I've noticed before).

I'm very concerned by statements such as "all evidence for EoF or any other cause given by any reliable historian is acceptable without qualification", suggesting that this kind of cherry-picking is perfectly acceptable, when such a policy is bound to distort the words of reputable historians (while of course having no such effect on polemicists). And the statement suggests there are editors who have veto power over what appears in articles. It may be true, but I don't see it in WP:Policy anywhere - is there a list of these infallible editors somewhere? PalestineRemembered 06:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

PR, I don't have time now to deal with that article. If you don't mind, I will nevertheless express what you may collegially assume is "tough love" or "kind but tough" talk:

• You might consider the following plausible perspectives, (1) Morris has multiple writings and they may not be perfectly consistent, (2) it looks like the quotes use Morris for evidence (e.g., Arab leaders' orders), not merely for a conclusion about EoF percentage-wise, (3) does the 1st quote itself qualifies the EoF view ("reinforces the accusation against the Zionist side").
• Even if you're right, your language is heated and a bit uncharitable, i.e. not assuming good faith. For instance, in the user's words "all evidence for EoF or any other cause given by any reliable historian is acceptable without qualification" you interpret "without qualification" (italics added) to mean that the user is giving the "evidence" without qualification (which Morris does himself, #3 above). However, it is more charitable and more grammatical to assume that "without qualification" refers to the preceding noun phrase "reliable historian", i.e. Morris is acceptable as a reliable source of evidence in every article section. But you jump quickly to a cherry-picking charge, rather than ask your interlocutor questions. It's better to clarify, or at least reflect back how you read the person, before attacking them.
• You also appear not AGF when you tell me "the statement suggests there are editors who have veto power over what appears in articles." This seems like a personalizing and escalating attack. As I recently told Itzse about reductionist characterizations of Tiamut, even if you jump to these kind of conclusions about another editor (and even if it's "True"!), the etiquette here is to keep those thoughts to yourself. You should assume, and appeal to, the best qualities and motivations of fellow editors.
• Finally, why are you sending me an unsolicited request to intervene on a substantive question for an article I've never edited? I noticed that you recently accused Steve of a WP:CANVASS violation. Maybe valid, beats me. But don't look like you're calling a kettle. Of course, I don't mind your message -- indeed, I welcome it, knowing that you'll chew any straight dope I toss back at you -- but are you sure my welcome would nullify a Canvass accusation? (If so, did you check whether the other users welcomed Steve's msgs?)
• Anyway, it was smart of you to test your reactions with me, rather than on that Talk page w/GHCool. This is an appropriate use of our relationship and I hope you'll continue to enrich it. (Maybe more self-reflective if, rather than asking me questions about content, you preface by asking for advice about your own reactions.)

Unpredictably yet nevertheless, your truly, HG | Talk 07:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you're not well up on this particular topic and I was not (I'm pretty sure) inviting you to put on your hob-nail boots and come over to Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. I was looking to you to express your views on WP:Policy. I was particularily interested in your views on 1) the practice of "cherry-picking" quotations, something that would render worthless the writings of any and every serious historian on any topic. 2) the practice of hi-jacking discussions with mis-leading section titles (Battle of Jenin suffers badly from this effect, "massacre" is the only discussion allowed on the table, even before we get "No Massacre" rammed down our throats).

Incidentally, AGF is permanently violated in this case, since this editor quotes me in ways intended to disparage my contributions 4 times on his own UserPage. I do not believe this was due to any personalising behaviour on my part.

Over and above your comments on the two Policy matters above, perhaps you'd comment on whether it would be right for me to use my UserPage to highlight this other editor's claim - eg "all evidence for EoF or any other cause given by any reliable historian is acceptable without qualification." PalestineRemembered 08:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, my boots are in storage and I wear ballet slippers in WP. You'd save me clicks if you added a Talk-link to your signature, btw. Your #1 q about cherry-picking is answered w/my 1st bullet. That is, it doesn't look like necessarily like an inappropriate quote selection (cherry-picking) from Morris. So don't lead the witness (me). But instead of trying to figure out a Policy violation to pin on your battle-partner co-editor, I really do think, PR, you could just propose in Talk an edit that would reframe the quote with a sufficient yet neutral (not over-the-top, let's make a point) qualifier, as you feel is justified by the Morris' writings. Your #2 q. To what misleading section title do you refer? Also, (another kettle critique by me, when you it's "the only discussion allowed on the table," doesn't it sound like you're trying Own or have veto pwr over the page? ;->

I'm not trying to lead you as a witness, since I'm not asking you to get involved in that article. It would be unethical to do so, it'd be unfair on you (complex new? topic) and I'd shoot myself in the foot, because it's by no means obvious you agree with every word of mine and would follow me round like a lamb.

1) I believe the clip from Morris has been abused to make it seem (to the reasonable reader) that Morris supports the EoF theory. This rather obviously degrades the integrity of articles. The article is laid out in a "Pro/Con" format (adversarial system - no problem with that part), but to confuse the identity of contributors makes a careful reading and understanding of it impossible. It's like presenting a prosecution witness to the jury as a defence witness.

2) Not only is it confusing in this one article to cherry-pick references, but it damages writing of other articles. It'll tend to drive out good references to be replaced with bad. Morris is valuable and well respected precisely because his treatment of the topic is nuanced and he has no qualms about producing both sides of the case.

3) I have big problems with the way some/many of these articles have been laid out, and the aggressive way that any changes are reverted. Battle of Jenin and Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus suffer from the same effect, they could never deal with the subjects properly, even if it were not for all the other problems. PalestineRemembered 13:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Now you've made me curious about User:GHcool's accusations and rebuttals. In what we do you feel disparaged? He doesn't directly characterize you, as a User, in a way that strikes me as his assuming your bad faith. If you stand by your quotes, then what is your concern? Perhaps you are concerned that your quotes reflect poorly on you. (Indeed, I admit I think so.) If you regret your quotes in part, then maybe you'd like the situation remedied or ameliorated. If so, I would offer to serve as an intermediary in approaching GHcool. HG | Talk 11:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello HG - you've asked people to strike out all personal attacks, incivility and so forth on the Talk:Battle of Jenin page - an excellent idea. I'm not sure I'm guilty of any. The nearest to a dodgy one is this, which I suppose I could strike through to show good will. Another one is here - but I see no reason to strike any of this out (particularily when shortly afterwards we discovered this editor was running abusive socks). I do get involved in angry exchanges - see this, but I'm calmly squashing angry and highly POV attacks on me and my contributions (watch the subsequent exchange with Isarig, the final contribution is this from me). Here's another edit that likely upset people - but it's totally non-personal and proper. Also this one, [2], [3], [4] .... I needn't go on, you can search the TalkPage yourself.

Why am I moaning to you like this? Well, it would be a shame if you came to this mediation suspecting me of personal attacks and so forth, and that I'm one of the problems with this article. I don't believe I am. PalestineRemembered 09:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Very glad to hear from you about user conduct in Talk. I'd still ask you to strikeout as appropriate, esp from recent sections. You can revise to kinder wording when a point really needs to be there. (maybe mark revisions with // x y z // ) You or I can note on the Talk page that you've started/done this. Even if others decline to do so, I can't think of any real disadvantages for you. HG | Talk 13:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If you aren't sure what people find troubling, you can say that you've started and that you're open to further changes of unkind wording that others have felt. Exceedingly politely yours, HG | Talk 13:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I trust some of the people who claimed to be so very, very interested in this article are not now going to tell you/me/us "Gee, I'll pass on the invitation to present any evidence to the mediator because I'm no good at writing coherently - but I demand you still treat me as a genuine participant in the project" If this arises, may I break my tight self-imposed restraint and blow them a raspberry?

(Please inform me when you've read this response, because I'll have to come back and strike it through in case anyone snooping on your TalkPage is offended by it). PalestineRemembered 13:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi PR. LOL, can't you blow a raspberry off-line?! Anyway, consider it struck, ta da! (FYI If you referred to me as "the mediator" let me note that I'm only serving as a temporary facilitator now.) Next question: Now that I've had a positive, coincidental interaction w/GHcool, it may be easier for me to deal with those disparaging use of your quotes. Why wouldn't you want to take me up on this? See your around, HG | Talk 11:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

La positive attitude

Do you know there has been a famous joke about that in France 5-6 years ago. A famous singer wrote a song named "positive attitude" and at a meeting the French Prime Minister asked to population to adopt this "positive attitude" so that the country move forward.
In political matters, there is no positive attitude ;-)
I cannot deal with the content of Israeli apartheid. I don't know enough about that. I just say it will not be a neutral work with the current choices.
But if you want to involve your own "positive attitude" as mediators in Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus or the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, you are welcome. That is I think what lacks to them so that contributors can move forward with these subjects.
Kind Regards, Alithien 14:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus

Note: HG recently made suggestions and follow-up comment(s) at Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, owing to references to said page by both Alithien and PalestineRemembered

There is a problem at the article Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus because we're not allowed to point out that at least 90% (and probably 95% or even 98.5%) of the exodus was directly or indirectly caused by the Yishuv's soldiers with guns. We're not even allowed to put this cause at the top of a list of possibilities! PalestineRemembered 14:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

PR, According to Pappé (you remember him, he is the scholar who claims the whole mess was pure ethnic cleaning and Plan Daleth the proof), 70,000 refugees of the first wave left voluntary in December 1947 and January 1948. It is already roughly 10% of the total of refugees. :wind, wind, wind... Alithien 08:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Gentlefolks, how about this idea? You are welcome to continue discussing content disputes here, provided you remain kind and let me strikeout perceived user conduct missteps (which the author can then revise). Assuming you've got some confidence in me already, I've done an example above. If thread gets too long, I may ask you to move it to a user subpage or even at the appropriate Talk. Good luck and thanks. HG | Talk 10:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Moed Acharonim Va'ad Harabonim of Lakewood List of Hasidic dynasties Chief Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky Chofetz Chaim Heritage Foundation Slabodka yeshiva Yaakov Chaim Sofer Ellen Spertus Isaac Klein Hebrew Union College Brit shalom Middle East Quarterly Land ethic Holocaust theology Moshe Hirsch William E. Kaufman Rabbis for Human Rights

Cleanup Iatrogenesis Situational ethics Elazar Shach Merge Jewish population Etiquette Essenes Add Sources Responsa Tallit Moral example Wikify Teleological ethics Great Assembly Sargon II Expand Chavurah Atheist Jew Venture capital

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Your input?

Hi HG. As you can see I have been unblocked. Unfortunately, my first edit to Palestinian people was reverted by Itzse (talk · contribs) who is once again claiming that Palestinians are not a nation. I would appreciate your input there. Tiamut 19:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No Tiamut; your first edit was to revert my edits of the previous two days; and to avoid explaining yourself, you gave an umbrella explanation of "reorganization". I then painstakingly redid my edits in no less then six edits with clear explanations in the edit summaries, so that you can/should respond to each one individually; and you call me the reverter? It's not nice to lie. Itzse 16:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut and Itzse, ... (N.B. copied to their Talk pages. Drafted before Itzse's comment above.)

My input here is prompted by your various comments on my Talk page and then on Talk:Palestinian people. I'm rather honored and pleased that you're both interested in my opinion. I think both of you are motivated and working to make positive contributions. You're also both trying to stay calm and work collaboratively, and you're certainly welcome to rely on my Talk (and occasionally me) if that's helpful. That said, you've both gotten under each other's skin and lost your temper at times. So it's hard for somebody (like me) to sort out what's going on. Without further investigation, which I'm not inclined to do, here are a few comments:

1. It seems like Tiamut realized that she thought it reasonable to add "nation" to the opening paragraph. Tiamut added "nation" around Sept 5/6. (Or is it much earlier?) Here's a relevant diff. Edit summary was helpful: "new material for introduction - after seeing the Armenian page, I realized the intro here needed some work - comments are welcome"
2. Itzse objected to addition of "nation." I think you reverted w/edit summary "Nation" is POV". (Summaries are helpful, thank to both of you!) Sept 6th
3. From then on, it looks like edit warring. Tiamut restores ("restoring "nation" and "endonymic" use") and Itzse again, etc. Sept 7th. Afterwards, note that you both try to communicate through the edit summaries.
4. Also Sept 7th, Itzse posts "POV pushing" section on Tiamut's talk. Personally, I think User Talk pages can be helpful for ironing out inter-personal conduct issues.

Tiamut: You asked for my input, for better or worse. Well, you've done many things well in handling this situation. You try to stay on substance and you appeal to third parties (e.g., me and the RfC). Your initial comments on talk ("Reverting") were \ measured and substantive. You also tried to compromise, from what I can see in the edit summaries. I can empathize with your more heated reaction to Itzse, e.g. you say he's baiting you, though I believe that was unnecessary. More importantly, Tiamut, I'm surprised you didn't go to the Talk page earlier. You know introductions are touchy. Indeed, you had already struggled with the "people" language in the opening just recently. I myself tried to be helpful there. So, I wonder if part of this conflict could have been avoided, or w/less personally enmity, if you had proposed your idea on Talk first. In addition, why not stick to Talk once you saw that Itzse disagreed with the "nation" edit?

Itzse: You've been trying to maintain what you believe to be the right NPOV balance for the article. If you don't mind my saying so, though, you start the conversation with Tiamut on a very negative note, Itzse, with the "POV pushing" heading. Personally, I think Tiamut is fairly self-aware (maybe not perfectly, but who is?) of her POV and Tiamut makes a sincere effort to not impose her POV when editing the article(s). In any case, it's not helpful -- and a bad reflection on you -- to escalate with the POV pusher accusation. It's disruptive -- for instance, it has prompted me to spend more time on this than should be necessary. Plus, it throws your interlocutors off-balance, which isn't proper. Anyway, while I'm trying not to judge the substantive merits, you seem unnecessarily combative about "nation" given the content of the rest of the article. As written now, doesn't the article show both "pro-Palestinian" and "pro-Israel" sources accepting Palestinian nationalist identity? Even if you're correct, "nation" seems a plausible term for somebody to add to the intro. So why not just contest it in Talk? (Also, you were challenged by Nadav to cite sources to back up your disapproval of "people" in a Talk section last week. So you can assume that your concerns with "nation" also need to be reliably sourced. Right?)

Well, it's my hope that you both appreciate the effort I've made here. Please don't bite the messenger! If you feel I'm off base, just let me down gently. (I reserve the option of correcting my errors above.) Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 17:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a very diplomatic summary HG. You are correct in noting I could have gone to the talk page earlier. That does not change the fact however that nation to the refer to Palestinians is controversial only to those who reject what the sources in the article say, and what Wikipedia policy itself says on the matter; i.e. collectives are generally self-defined - a point you raised in the discussion page on the naming of the Israeli apartheid article. Nonetheless, your efforts and the criticisms you raised are duly noted and appreciated. Enjoy your part-time wikibreak. Tiamut 17:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

HG - innovative attitude to mediation

I know you're becoming unsure about the mediation attempt at Battle of Jenin. I think if you'd seen this you'd have been convinced it was impossible! (Start reading from the 5th contribution, first outdent).

This flat refusal to discuss the operation of WP:Policy with an administrator, or accept any contribution from the non-involved is just 3 days before you offered to mediate on the other article. It's little wonder that both articles are so diabolical with WP:Policy being operated in such innovative ways. PalestineRemembered 09:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

HG - think about your reputation!

I'm concerned that exchanges like the following: commentary general seen at Battle of Jenin could cause lasting damage to your reputation!

Excuse me? This is wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not just the chosen few who have decided to take part in a witchhunty kangaroo court. Sorry, PR.... Kyaa the Catlord 21:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Another well regarded Wikipedian has made it his business not to take part in said "mediation" since the mediator is a sympathetic ear to [PR]. I'll take part in one if you can find a neutral mediator, not someone who has been conspiring with you on your talk page. Kyaa the Catlord 22:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi HG. It is with reluctance I treat you as a mediator since our previous dealings have been dominated by disagreement. It's a bit unlikely we'd start agreeing now over this article!

However, I've complied with your suggestions (and requests) as if you were the mediator and I will not be abusing you over your arguments, views, comments or anything personal I might have picked about you.

You may have forgotten this, but you were actually called to this article in the apparent hope and expectation you'd be partisan against me (based on the argument we were having on your TalkPage). It is bizarre indeed that I'm the one prepared to work (and actually working) with you, while the parties that wanted your assistance are now accusing you of being "far to buddy-buddy"(sic) with me and your "mediation" page a "witchhunty kangaroo court".

It's taken 11 months, but I've suddenly started to wonder why people like you treating me in a collegiate fashion seems to enrage so many other editors. What can it be that brings down the red mist about Yours Sincerely PalestineRemembered 07:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)?

• This is a fantastic example of appeal to fear. Kyaa the Catlord 09:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears that you've accused User:HG of bias towards me purely and simply because he was collegiate in his dealings with me. It *cannot* have been because you knew anything about his edits or opinions, since they're (all?) diametrically opposed to mine (as he was already aware). The question is - why do you have a problem with him treating me as a regular editor?

And, of course, you've immediately set about breaking up the threading of this section - a practice that I've reported another editor to ArbCom for doing, as you know. Why are you attempting to make this section impossible to read? PalestineRemembered 14:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Folks, I posted a reply on the article Talk page. You are welcome to continue your personal dispute here, if you'd like. Content issues are best discussed in an orderly, rational and depersonalized/non-accusatory manner on article Talk. I still don't know Kyaa very well, so not sure what to say to you. For PR, I appreciate your concern but I don't feel that my reputation is at stake, nor do I assume that Kyaa is making any serious accusation(s) against me. Also, PR, I really like how you've accepted/assumed that I'll try to be open-minded and fair-minded. I don't find it bizarre, since it happens often in my life, and I'm glad to treat you as a regular editor. Nonetheless, you've been getting bent out of shape, in my opinion, more than is wise for your own good. I think I've said as much before and hope you take it in a friendly way. Perhaps you find it hard to assume good faith due to Kyaa's style, so you're welcome to bounce your impressions off me (e.g., before responding to Kyaa). In any case, hope things can settle down. Be well. HG | Talk 16:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'll respond to your notes on my Talk, etc, later today. Thanks. HG | Talk 12:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

PR, greetings. As you may know, I commented here about Jenin, which you mention above. For what it's worth, I wouldn't necessary "run a mile" away from the idea of mentoring you. I enjoy our repartee and your good humor in dealing with me. Plus, it's a fine challenge to develop a relationship with somebody with whom I likely have many substantive disagreements. We seem to be able to assume good faith with each other and we seem to be fairly straightforward with each other. That said, if you would like to explore the idea of me as a possible mentor, I probably would ask for some conditions or procedures that you might not like, though I believe that they'd benefit us in the long run. For instance, if only to make the process feasible in terms of my time, it would help if we agreed on ways to limit the scope or frequency of your edits. (I thought I had advised that you back off in some ways, but perhaps I spoke too obliquely.) Since you might find this frustrating, perhaps we'd set up a user page for me to review your various proposed edits (and you can always keep your proposed changes in an off-line document). As you say kindly above, you've been quite receptive to some of my suggestions, so maybe mentoring would work. But I tend to err as a micromanaging supervisor, so there is a risk you'd feel unduly constrained. Philosophically, too, as you probably know by now, I am very conservative about deploying official grievance procedures to raise concerns ("accusations") about user conduct. Given your current situation, though, perhaps you could live with my quirks. Let me know what you think. In any case, no hard feelings. Good luck. HG | Talk 18:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I would have no difficulty living with your quirks. I particularly like the idea of having a "share-page", because there are dozens of good, well referenced and relevant edits I'd like to make. I don't do them because there's no point in doing so unless I'm prepared to battle for weeks over it, making good new "contacts", only to see those people personally attacked and often driven off too. I should warn you though, I've been round this exact route very recently - not only will you suffer the kind of absurd personal attacks that you've already seen, the other tactic is to tell people lies about me. That's what happened here, where another potential mentor is trapped into accusing me of edit-warring, something I've never done. I'm afraid I let fly a bit on that occasion ..... PalestineRemembered 19:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. The warning is fair and I'll talk to Avi (or others) about handling any side-effects, but generally these should not be your worry. So, it sounds like you'd like me to propose some conditions/procedures for mentoring, is that right? If so, let's start by you posting me the diff that contains the decision requiring your mentorship. I'd like to read that. Meanwhile, I'll throw some ideas your way now. As soon as you find some condition of mine that you don't think you can stomach, and that I don't seem to adequately adjust or compromise, then we can call off this exploration, ok? Thanks. HG | Talk 19:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is my worry - I owed the person trapped on that occasion some quite serious favours over a long period ...... and yet he still fell for what he'd heard! What do I owe you? Here's the diff you asked for - remember what I told you, this occasion was the very first time accusations against me even came with any evidence. Many people clearly and genuinely found what I'd said offensive - but only because of the culture they came from, people from civilised nations don't give a toss. I don't know if I can make sense of your proposed ground-rules - do I have to run it past you first before I ask if someone has a COI? I can't see a problem with striking out anything you think is out of order. PalestineRemembered 20:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)