Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:44, 16 December 2008

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

Mosley

What do you think about including a link to Alan Donnelly, will a reference to http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3411_3726064,00.html be good enough? Possibly the place I added it a reference to isn't the best but in light of Jacky Stuarts latest comments http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3213_4056632,00.html I thought it seemed relevant. Information on Alan Donnelly seems hard to come by on wikipedia and he isn't mentionedin the Mosley article but apparently he's now Mosley's official representative at Grand Prix's now. I realise there are lots of POV to avoid! Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.173.86.208 (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

FPaS RFC

As a participant in the recent discussion at WP:ANI, I thought you should be informed of the new RFC that another user has started regarding FPaS's behavior.

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No Worries

No worries, I'd said my piece and intended to leave it alone. You watch out for WP:3RR mind. Happy editing :-). Justin talk 20:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It looked like you were sailing close and 4 reverts isn't a right remember. You have to watch these POV types don't drag you down with them. Justin talk 21:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

86.xx.xx

Hello Narson. I'm growing concerned with that IP's behaviour at British Isles & his/her refusal to register in (though it's not required). GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know what a gobbie is. Perhaps, it's better that I don't. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Giggle giggle; IP 86.xxx.xxx is too entertaining to have blocked. I'd say let him/her rant. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, do not block him. Audiatur et altera pars Bogorm (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The thought never crossed my mind, Borgorm. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite true. IMHO the page movement proposal was DOA. PS- I think this is my third British Isles page movement discussion. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The IP must be a speech writer. He/she is quite good at it; I'm impressed. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've chosen (hours ago) to leave the discussion at British Isles. IP 86.xxx.xxx? has pushed me over the edge (I congratulate him/her). GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I've had better days. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

He he. Ironically, I'm an athiest & a republican. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Garling

They can only be speedied as orphaned if they're non-free- this will probably be left lying around on the off-chance that he becomes notable. I don't actually know what the procedure is with things like that. J Milburn (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you urgently help Milhist please?

We've had a rather large bombshell dropped on us. The Misplaced Pages editorial team are aiming to release a version of Misplaced Pages on CD/DVD in time for the end of year holiday season. They've provided us with a list of 1333 Milhist articles they intend including.

The problem is that the quality of these articles varies considerably.

We've put together review page listing all the articles, in twenty-five article worklists. I'm hoping that 15-20 trusted editors can work through the list, weedying out problem articles and identifying suitable versions for release. The work is as far away from a tagging and assessing drive as you can imagine though, for convenience and ease of use, we've closely followed the traditional Milhist drive format.

This is, at the moment, an invitation-only review. The reason is that time is short and we can't afford too many mistakes. I'm only contacting experienced editors who performed very well indeed in the last two Milhist drives. I guess that working through a worklist of twenty-five articles will take between one and three hours to do. We're aiming to get the preliminary work done by next Sunday, so it's urgent too.

I do hope you can help but – if it's not too much trouble – if you are unable to participate at the moment, would you please let me know on my talk page? Thank you for your time, --ROGER DAVIES  17:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Pacman_Jones#Requested_move_to_Adam_Jones_.28football.29_revisited

I would like to solicit feedback concerning moving this to Adam Jones (football). It makes sense to me, but is there consensus? Please opine in the section of the article talk page. Cheers, Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Generalmesse is back

Cheers can you also add Military history of Italy during World War II‎ as another favourite for sock puppetry. Oh and thanks for the Falklands War revert, can't understand that guy's agenda, for several edits he insisted on adding some weirdly wrong information to the infobox. Justin talk 16:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Israel Navy

Hi Narson! I have replied to your comment on the Israel Navy discussion, and would like your input, if possible (assuming you were not already watching the article). See Israeli navy#Name of this article. Cheers, Ynhockey 15:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi there Narson. Just to let you know that I have removed vandalism over at Talk:Gibraltar, and as your recent edit was related only to that vandalism, I have removed it too. Hope that's ok with you. Regards, --Gibmetal 77 19:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The last to ever sail in Gibraltar waters were Barbary pirates led by Barbarossa in September 1540 ;o). --Gibmetal 77 19:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty

Discuss? It has been discussed ad infinitum, and we still have comments such as:

"...what is the basis for the removal of sourced material under WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. What is specifically in error? CasualObserver'48 (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)"

Note that this request has not been answered.

In effect, after discussion by several persons, we still have the question of why the entries are removed and why are they perceived as being against WP:Undue and WP:FRINGE. And we still have no answer to that question. (I don't believe one will be forthcoming.)

However, I am a patient man and see no reason why I can't wait for, say, 7 days.

The 7 days is to give time to those willing to discuss the item further. If more time appears to be needed as evidenced by a lively discussion continues, it will be given. Do understand however, that I do not plan to allow a 'discussion' to provide for infinite delay.WorldFacts (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As per your Liberty talk page request. The full name of the Moorer commision as entered into the Congressional record is "FINDINGS OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE ISRAELI ATTACK ON THE USS ‘‘LIBERTY,’’ THE RECALL OF MILITARY RESCUE SUPPORT AIRCRAFT WHILE THE SHIP WAS UNDER ATTACK, AND THE SUBSEQUENT COVER-UP BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT". The short form of the title I bolded. I also found this link which mentions the commission http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6690425.stm. Enjoy Wayne (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

re: Camel Corps Express

That deserves my very own "thinking completely out of the box", utterly surreal, "this is not a fish" barnstar. (Congratulations! You're the first recipient!

		The Ceci n'est pas un poisson barnstar
		For the deliriously inspired nomination of "Camel Corps Express" as the new name for the military history newsletter. --ROGER DAVIES  18:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if not actually greatest, certainly one of the oddest :) I see there's an article on the WWI reincarnation. --ROGER DAVIES  18:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Gibraltar Media

When I'm not engaged in wikipedia, people pay me for writing software, designing websites, and taking photographs. All these things are done on a professional basis, I sell my work and some times give things away - the product of my labours are thus not necessarily mine legally.

Gibnews.net belongs to a Gibraltar company. If you read the terms and conditions of use, its pretty plain where the content comes from and if the GoG publishes a press release using it, that has equal standing to any on their website, despite what some might claim.

you might like to read and make a comment on

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Gibnews.net_and_User:Gibnews

I may change my username to something less likely to confusion as to my intentions, like Admiral_Rooke or G17900. --Gibnews (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Gib

Nah, editing while slightly drunk, probably not the best of ideas. Justin talk 09:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Tsk, national stereotypes, you'll be talking about "rebellious scots to crush" next and I don't think thats going to happen. Justin talk 20:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there!

Hi Narson, If you don't mind, I am adding my revision of your suggested intro to the East India Company page for now. I am doing this only because some people have begun to add citation needed tags etc. The discussion about the appropriate wording will of course continue on the talk page and the consensus there will form the final version. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

South Georgia

I really didn't want to revert but the way he chose to introduce it was against MOS. I'm sure it will be a useful resource but the best way to introduce it would be to use it as a reference and then include it as an external link. Justin talk 22:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit war at USS Liberty incident

Hi. Though mindful of WP:DTTR, I want to point out that the situation at USS Liberty incident has moved beyond simple content dispute into the neighborhood of edit war. I've advised User:WorldFacts of the WP:3RR rule; he has gone over it, but had not been notified. I expect that you're already familiar with it. But in the heat of the moment, you might have lost sight of the fact that you're skirting a bit close. I hope that the group of you can resolve the matter through discussion at the talk page. I can see that it's quite heated. (P.S. I watchlisted the article on dealing with the copyright concerns at Moorer Report. Prior to reviewing that, I had no familiarity with the issue.) --Moonriddengirl 23:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It does look complex. :/ Since the reversions are ongoing, I've temporarily permanently protected the article. Given what you say about the length of the dispute, it doesn't seem likely that a 24 hour moratorium is likely to resolve the matter, but perhaps it'll allow time for more discussion at the article's talk page. Good luck resolving the matter. --Moonriddengirl 14:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The book chapter does speak to it most directly. I'd be a whole lot more comfortable with it, though, if the chapter had not been written by Alison Weir, whose If Americans Knew seems from its Misplaced Pages article like a POV publication. (I am utterly unfamiliar with it otherwise.) Less partisan sources would obviously be much superior to sources that seem predisposed to a position, any position. Good luck with your sourcing search. --Moonriddengirl 22:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit War at War of 1812

Thanks for the warning. Just trying to get to a non US NPOV bias without creating pro British Bias. I had initially started the talk page so this very topic could be discussed, so hopefully people will discuss it and some kind of compromise will come about. Definitely needs more non US users for their opinion.

USS Liberty

Yes, whenever new, single issue editors show up, defending each other on very narrow points, it is quite suspicious. Jayjg 07:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Though they have a similar POV and MO, they seem different enough that a RFCU isn't warranted at this time. Jayjg 05:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite obvious this is being discussed on some off-Misplaced Pages forum, where people are being encouraged to come here and insert the Moorer report into the article. Jayjg 02:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, good edit regarding the Moorer report. That amount of material and placement seems about right. Well done, but let's hope it sticks! Jayjg 23:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd be pretty drunk but you being a soft southern softie would be risking alcoholic poisoning. Justin talk 20:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty

Its been on my watch list for ages, ever since some conspiracy nut posted Invincible conspiracy theory nonsense on the Falklands War and then some anti-semitic nonsense on the Liberty article. BTW Palestineremembered just made an appearance. Ho Hum. Justin talk 15:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Know what you mean, I've thought about it a couple of times but haven't made a start on cleaning the article up because it would only be disrupted. BTW did you notice that ADL source was quite complimentary about Cristol's book. As an aside with your student status do you have access to JSTOR? Justin talk 12:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

JSTOR gives access to a ton of documents in PDF format on a range of topical historical documents. I'm forever finding Falklands references there but then have the frustration of no access. You'll probably find it invaluable with your history degree. Justin talk 12:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You've had basically the same result I got, I can find no credible secondary sources whatsoever. Do you want to make a comment on the talk page re-inforcing that point. Justin talk 20:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't parachute into this article, I have a long term interest in USS Liberty incident. It has to be long term, since we have 10 more years to wait, based on the length of time it took for the 1954 false-flag Lavon affair attack on US assets to be admitted (2005). PR 14:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You can find the findings of the Moorer Commission here.WorldFacts (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

After thinking about it and seeing you got the same treatment, it would probably be better if you filed. I'm tired and cranky, probably not the best frame of mind. Justin talk 00:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: you have 3 USS Liberty sections on your talk page. You may want to consider merging them.

Also, I read the WP:NOT and WP:CONSENSUS as suggested, while the WP:NOT talks about democracy and the fact that the notion of counting the opinions of other Editors - that is - treating them like a vote - is not appropriate vis a vis WP Policies, the one that is more interesting to me is WP:CONSENSUS. Of particular interest to me is the flow chart describing how consensus works. Your method in dealing with the Moorer report entries is always the same: removal. Reaching a consensus this way is impossible - hence the charge of censorship.

You base your removals on WP:FRINGE and/or WP:UNDUE. I have argued, with support from other editors, that WP:FRINGE doesn't apply due to the reputations and ranks of the officers and the fact that one of the authors of the report was an ambassador, hence there is no need to supply a third source - the qualifications of those who conducted the investigation is sufficient to warrant mention of the report on this page. The idea that WP:UNDUE is a valid reason for removal is completely absurd. Every other report listed has some commentary with it and NO third party sources. I even went as far as identifying the Moorer report as an "Independent American Investigation". Even that was 'not acceptable'. The fundamental problem here is that the mention of the most important contents of the Moorer report is only a problem for about 4 editors. Sorry - 4 vs the planet - you loose.

If the Moorer Report were purely a Fringe theory, why is there a link at the bottom of the USS Liberty incident page to it? Is this a link that you now plan to remove? I can't imagine that you didn't know it was there. So, if the link is there, and you have not removed it, for ANY reason, why is quoting text from the report such a crime, in your opinion? I have gone head over heals changing the text, changing the way I write the text and I am getting nowhere, with only 3 or 4 of you. How am I supposed to reach a consensus if you don't even attempt to negotiate. If you unstated intention is simply to remove any mention of this report, It looks like your efforts fail. There are now other editors undoing your undo's of my adds. This report is getting traction. We need to come to some kind of consensus because as far as I and now other editors appear to be concerned, removing the entry is inappropriate.

I believe that it is only salmon who are willing to die while swimming up river. That's fine, we aren't salmon. Personally, I think it best that the rest of us should go with the flow. WorldFactsWP@yahoo.com, if you want a more private conversation. You can't say I'm not trying. WorldFacts (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Just saw your response. We are making progress.

You said you would accept an entry "once the edit is of a good quality..."

1) What would you do to improve the quality?

Please suggest some text which is acceptable to you.

The only requirement I have for acceptability is that it state what is central to the findings of the commission: The belief that the attack was intentional. That is central to the report. Any one with half a brain reading the "Findings of the Investigation" would come to that conclusion. I refuse to have the Moorer report listed, and then have some lame, flimsy 'conclusion' listed as it's outcome. The reason this report is so controversial is PRECISELY because it lays the blame at Israel's feet. But that is not my problem, nor yours. That is simply, using your bold words, the truth, that this report believes is the truth. There are many reports listed on the USS Liberty incident page which claim that it was an accident. Having one report lay the blame at Israels feet is not intrinsically evil. Some of the entries for other reports quote the reports they discuss. Most of the quotes from the Moorer Report are quite explicit. I have chosen several and in all cases, they are deleted. (That, incidently, is why I am so furious. No attempt is made to modify for satisfaction - just deletion. As you can tell, I won't be settling for that, based on the reputation of those involved in doing the investigation.)

So, the ball is in your court - we can debate in your talk space, in mine, or via email. (Incidentally, WorldFactsWP@yahoo.com is NOT my private email address. It is an email address I use ONLY for WP. Create a Yahoo/gmail - whatever - account for ONLY this conversation if you like. I don't want your private email address anymore then you want to provide it. I hadn't made this clear earlier.)

2) You also said "and the source is appropriate,..."

The source is much more difficult. Based on my attempts to negate the WP:FRINGE accusation, I can't find what I would call a 'good enough' article.

I have seen half a dozen articles which say something like "Moorer investigated - performed an independent investigation - was part of an independent team who investigated the incident - part of this investigation was brought up on the hill". Phrases like that.

What I can't find is an article which says explicitly something like "Admiral Moorer, who chaired the Moorer Commission, an independent body which investigated the USS Liberty attack...". In other words, I can't find anything that ties "The Moorer Commission - or the Moorer Investigation to Moorer himself. It seems to be more 'in passing', as if it's 'understood' that this investigation IS the Moorer Investigation. To me, it's obvious - I don't have a problem reading it that way. Certainly, the findings of the commission make that abundantly clear. (I presume you have checked the link I provided you earlier which has the findings - the same one I added above.) It lists those who 'chaired' the commission, and the findings thereof. It's finding an article that has been difficult. I even had to write to the archivist of Stars and Strips to get a PDF of the Page in the newspapers where he wrote an opinion piece. It's not available to the general public online. I had to get it emailed to me. Well - there you go - an OPINION piece by the person who led the commission, Admiral Moorer, doesn't pass muster for some of those who dislike the entry.

Let's tackle your reservations with the entry one at a time. First, let's start with quality text which you will find acceptable. We'll rummage through articles later, once we can agree on the text of the entry.

Lastly, as to personal attacks. I don't want to resort to that. But incessant removals wears one's patience down - and I have been dealing with that for 2 months. We're talking now - let's keep talking. WorldFacts (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Heads up, can you have a look at CasualObersvers latest comment and give me your opinion? Justin talk 12:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the heads up, I'd already asked on WP:AN. I may have thrown the baby out with the bath water on some of those edits. But he removed relevant material again and maybe I'm getting a tadge fed up with the bad faith assumption and constant POV pushing. Justin talk 17:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

For baby insanity see , wasn't sure I was getting revert happy. Justin talk 23:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Solveig Gunbjørg Jacobsen

Dear Narson, you might be interested to know that Solveig's article has been proposed for deletion. In my opinion that's an ill-founded idea, same like the suggested merging as several other articles have links to Solveig's one. Best, Apcbg (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Point taken

re your correction on PR's page. As explained there, I had in mind the large debate that erupted over it earlier, and hadn't noted recent edits. I find this page and many others that are controversial, a headache to edit, let alone to read, and tend to stay away from them after an initial review of the long threads, to form an opinion. Apologies for my phrasing.Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, from another Formula1 fan. This crisis is going to take all of the interesting technology-competitiveness out of it, with the probable uniform engine ruling. The Italian race commentary is virtually monopolized by engineers with a remarkable capacity to explain the course of any one race, and each performance at every section, in terms easily understandable to the layman. Totally off point of course!, but happy to see a shared interest. Regards Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The world financial crisis will resolve these issues, against the big spenders, I should think, irrespective of what individuals wish or think or want.Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

AN/I discussion

Hiya Narson. I'm just suggesting that we don't tar & feather the administrator. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing, the Irelands discussion will (eventually) be heading towards Arbcom. I don't think there's ever gonna be a consensus for moving (to my regret). GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Those 3 articles should be reverted back to Ireland, Ireland (disambiguation) & Republic of Ireland. If they are, I won't dispute it. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the administrator should revert the page moves. The IP's pestering him, isn't helping. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this isn't a good Wiki-time for Sarah777. It's gotta be stressful for her. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Her British or Anglo centric POV charges, don't help. But, whatcha gonna do. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been called a British unionist, Devolutionist & Irish Nationalist, over the years. Not bad, eh? GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how those Ireland articles would've turned out, if British Isles editors were barred from the 'straw polls', taskforces etc. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm confident Ireland & Ireland (island) will remain. As for Ireland (state)? not so confident. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, Ireland (state) should be reverted to Republic of Ireland & then have an RM there. More so, as that article was the most fought over. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted the administrator, Sarah777 & Matt Lewis on this matter. Sorta my 'swan song' advice. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Have no fear. Those articles are gonna remain on my watchlist. I'll be watching, just not squawking. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

My only hope, is that Sarah won't pulverize me. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Just the same, I'm keeping my football helmet on. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Very well, my Army helmet. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

My Baseball batter's helmet? GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

GD's involvement

It was made apparent to me 'bout a week or so, ago', that I have a tendancy to cause mischief/havoc on those articles. I've taken that criticism & used it to reform my behaviour (on those articles). I'm stickin' to it. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hustler

I could barely contain myself when he used a jazz mag for a source. Pardon the pun.... Justin talk 22:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

British Empire

Fetch your own lemsip ya big jessie. I'm sure we can have a cosy little chat about how my mother's family fled Franco's fascist dictatorship. Justin talk 09:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Grandad was an intellectual and was above all that hedonism in the South of France...nah they originally settled doon sooth, then this debonair Scotsman whisked her off her feet. Trials work is 90% boredom waiting for all the safety stuff to be in place. Justin talk 11:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland naming dispute compromise proposal

You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, the name Ireland. When one considers the article Republic of Ireland, one could also think of the name Jack. Quite often a fella called Jack, tend's to actually have the name John. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Suez

I'd already suggested a compromise by adding political victory in there, doesn't look like he is interested. He simply reverted before I had a chance to put it in. Justin talk 00:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but when did you say even mention that to me? You reverted it 3 times Justin. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk 15:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty

Alan Hart is one of the most knowledgable Britons on the subject of the Middle East, he's reported from and around there for 40 years, specialising in talking to the people involved (including Dayan, though that's not where he gets the claim that Dayan threatened to sink the USS Liberty.

I've added this, which is a careful and balanced republishing of his highly relevant views. I trust you won't simply revert again.

Alan Hart, reporting for ITN in Israel at the time of the Six-Day War writes that Israeli planes directed fire-control radar at the Liberty at about 2200 on the Wednesday night, the 7th. It was a warning - since an hour or so earlier, the U.S. Defense Attache in Tel Aviv had messaged the U.S. Army Communications Centre in Washington. "By telegramme in code the message was that the IDF was planning to attack the Liberty if the ship continued to move closer to the Israeli coast." Hart writes that either "the messages were inadvertently misrouted and delayed" or another possible explanation is that someone deliberately held up the message, believing it to be an act of surrender to Dayan. wrong clip deleted Stephen Green is a third source (highly regarded, 26 times more cited than Cristol) claiming that Israel decided to attack "Sometime in the late afternoon or early evening of June 7, probably just after the routine "move" order was given, the NSA learned, from an intelligence report emanating from the Office of the US Defense Attache in Tel Aviv, that Israel was planning to attack the Liberty if her course was not changed." (All this on top of Assistant Secretary for Defense John Stenbit telling Harvard University in 2003 that the Israelis had warned the United States to move the USS Liberty or they would sink it within 24 hours).

1. "Zionism: The real enemy of the jews" Volume 2, 2007 by Hart, Alan. "By telegramme in code the message was that the IDF was planning to attack the Liberty" p.138. Also on his web-site, "The Liberty Affair and the Problem with the Truth of History" Alan Hart "The attack on the Liberty was ordered by Defense Minister Moshe Dayan ... I knew this Moshe well enough to have private conversations with him". 11 June 2007. Verified 6th Dec 2008.
2. "Taking Sides" "Israel was planning to attack" Stephen Green, p215.
3. John Stenbit, Assistant Secretary for Defense at Harvard University, 2003 "the Israelis had warned the United States to move the USS Liberty or they would sink it within 24 hours"

PR 12:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The publishers lack of any reputation is still a bit of a worry there PR. They have no reputation for fact checking or anything else and I don't think such an unknown quanitity is a good source for such a controversial subject, especially when we have just had a paragraph saying the exact same thing. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You're not denying that Alan Hart is a highly knowledgable and trusted commentator. Nor that Stephen Green is highly knowledgable (with none of the serious doubts that swirl around Cristol, for instance). The worth of the information stands or falls by the expertise of the author, not where it's published. (Book and his web-site, see above). With this level of evidence for Israel having threatened to sink the ship, a proper discussion belongs in the article. PR 14:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

We have a paragraph on the claims just before it. Why do we need two? I still remain unconvinced on using material some would consider coming from, at the very least, an incredibly negative (As as much as Alan Hart doesn't appear to be pro-US but he is incredibly anti-Israeli) source as fact, when we have other sources saying much the same (As demonstrated by the previous paragraph) --Narson ~ Talk • 14:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

On Stephen Green....I am assuming we are talking fundementalist protestant Stephen Green? Much ridiculed by all? --Narson ~ Talk • 14:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Alan Hart was there. He's a very trusted individual - he credibly claims that ITN was going to broadcast his 40-second voice piece predicting the attack on Egypt 4 hours before it happened, the only one of 100s of foreign correspondents to be in the know. (This life-time scoop was squeezed out by the crash of two civilian airliners, one in France and one in the UK). Hart's account of Dayan pushing Eshkol aside and seizing the Defence Ministry (a political coup being preferable to a military one) lends depth and background to this knock-down claim that Israel threatened to attack the USS Liberty at around 9.00pm (local time, I think) the evening before it was done. (Of course, this threat by Dayan also makes sense of the otherwise inexplicable but well accepted fact the Liberty was ordered to move away from Israel).

Stephen Green's book "Taking Sides" 1984 is also clearly much better considered than Cristol's "The Liberty Incident". And not just by the "Amazon Reviews" (there are 3, all giving it 5 stars) but by the much more authoritative Google Scholar, giving it a really respectable 26 citations. By comparison, Cristols 2002 book (the one we treat as the only authoritative resource on the subject) gets just 1 citation. The question for you is now becoming - what, other than POV, is stopping us using the real Reliable Sources and writing a good article to them? PR 15:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Before I added my entry, the string "Moorer Report" appears only once, in a link to the Findings of the report itself. The report itself is not discussed on the USS Liberty incident page. It is that which I am correcting. That excerpts from Captain Boston Ward and Lieutenant Commander Ennis are discussed in the "Ongoing Controversy and unresolved questions" section is fine, but strangely, the mention of the report itself, with direct quotes lifted from it are the only types of edits which are reverted. Trying to ignore the ONLY independent report on the incident by government and military officials with excellent reputations is simply un Misplaced Pages like. I'm sure you'll understand.

Not trying to be disruptive, but previous attempts at discussion have been very one sided. I talk and you or Justin or Jayjg revert. I have found that talking isn't productive if I am the only one arguing my points with facts and others simply censor the report from the USS Liberty Page. You are right, we have discussed this many times. Alas, it has never been to my satisfaction and, more importantly, to the satisfaction of the majority of editors who have been willing to discuss the entry. WorldFacts (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Attempt at Mediation

I am attempting to help with the dispute regarding the USS Liberty incident. If you are interested in participating, please add your signature accordingly. — BQZip01 —  20:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)