Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:52, 4 January 2009

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

• notes

Stuff I'm reading:

		The Israeli Barnstar of National Merit
		Jaakobou, You have worked hard to attempt to improve wikipedia's Israel/Palestine related articles. You have made appropriate additions and changes, added sourced content, and dealt with the POV issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I believe you have at many times tried to promote improvement and NPOV in many wikipedia articles, and have greatly improved many articles. You have had to deal with some issues in the past, have faced at times controversial sanctioning, but when you were wrong, you have learned from your mistakes, and improved your editing, and since, you have become a very good editor. For all you have done, you have won my respect, and are in my opinion very deserving of this barnstar. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Rashid Khalidi

Thank you for your work yesterday, adding important information to this page. Unfortunately, Wikidemon has removed the material. A move that is in violation of the three-revert rule. He has a history of aggressive editiong and threats of blocking people who disagree with him. Also, he removes evidence of his behavior from his talk page.

There are two important new pieces of evidence re: Khalidi's PLO connecitons.

1) The Los Angeles Times is backing its 1976 description of Khalidi as a PLO spokesman with a new story describing Khalidi as, “a renowned scholar on the Palestinians who in the 1970s had acted as a spokesman for Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization.”

2) A truly persuasive report has surfaced on martin Kramer’s blog. It comes from Pacifica Radio. According to Kramer:

Khalidi is given an affiliation by the narrator five times, as follows (with the elapsed time in parentheses): • "Rashid Khalidi, interviewed in Beirut, is an official spokesperson for the Palestinian news service Wafa" (7:34)

• "PLO spokesperson Rashid Khalidi" (11:45)

• "Rashid Khalidi, official spokesperson for the PLO" (21:00)

• "Rashid Khalidi, interviewed at the headquarters of the PLO in Beirut" (29:57) • "Rashid Khalidi is the leading spokesperson for the PLO news agency, Wafa" (32:51) I listened to the program (Kramer has the link) and found his citations to be accurate.

I believe that these two sections should be added to the article as footnotes and that the lead of the PLO Connection section should read as the Los Angeles Times reads: “acted as a spokesman for Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization.” With Khalidi’s denial at the end of the section. The Los Angeles Times did not print something like this at this moment in time without serious consideration. Historicist (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Heyo Historicist,

1. If a fellow editor is in violation of a policy and ignored outside commentary, there is room to consider a report at a relevant forum (WP:ANI, WP:AN3).
2. The second source seems like one which should not be used regardless of how persuasive it sounds. If the content is accurate and notable enough for a bigraphy, it can be expected to be found on a wiki-reliable source per WP:RS.

Cheers, Jaakobou 22:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing wording again on Rashid Khalidi and the PLO connection. You had suggestions last time concensus was attempted.Historicist (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

I'll probably only have time to give it a look tomorrow. Jaakobou 17:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Still going, and going, and....Historicist (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

I do think your opinion could be useful.Historicist (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

We are at teh brink of concensus, a few opinions would be useful.Historicist (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist

at the risk of being wrong again, it seems possible that we are nearing consensus on the Khlidi page.Historicist (talk) 13:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Carlos Latuff in Russian

Ok, I will add information.--Mosn1 (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate comments?

Well, thank you for clarifying about comments; however, please note that Nickhh and another fellow - Nishidani - have been deleting factual content (as distinguished from links) that I have added to the 'Hezbollah' page. The subject matter is the level of support for the terror organization in Lebanon. 'Hezbollah' has lost popularity among numerous Lebanese since its 2006 war with 'Israel', occupation of Downtown Beirut, and invasion of Beirut and the Druze villages of Mount Lebanon. These are facts. But the guardians of the reputation of 'Hezbollah' -- Nickhh and Nishidani -- see otherwise and make it personal (referring to this contributor as "Abbas Whoever"). Obviously, that is a sign of their distress, which makes suspicious of their motives to say the least.

I would like to invite you to take a look at the content that they thought is inappropriate (in the history page of 'Hezbollah').

Fastabbas (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

I'll try and give it a look, but my time is limited these days. Don't be discouraged, use maybe WP:3O and other suggestions from the WP:DR. If you honestly feel persecuted and bullied, you can try WP:WQA and/or WP:ANI - but it's better to try and resolve the issues through DR first and move on to other areas only if that fails. Jaakobou 19:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Note noted

I appreciate your comment and will take it to heart, as best I can; it is my tendency. I expect nothing less from you and your tendency. Different opinions should not become an obstacle to collaboration on an article so important to both our povs; you for your reasons, and me for mine.

Many individual differences will arise, and will be discussed cordially. My view is, simply put, it takes more than the inclusion of one pov to approach NPOV. I see the current presentation as one or two threads, among several others, which must entwine to make the neutral article LOI should be. The recent warring in the lede and in current political usages, causes me worry, however, because I view it as less than cordial and contrary to wiki-policy. These edits were not discussed cordially and are not currently allowed on the page for some reason. I can not agree with that interpretation of wiki-policy and NPOV, considering RS and V, et.al. Personally, my level of rhetoric tends to be minimal when there is collaborative progress toward an NPOV presentation. You get your points and others get theirs; there is more than one side to the story. Concerning my usage of ‘asymmetric support,’ please note that I do not use such inferences without an relevant RS behind them. In this case, I decided that might be too provocative at this stage of the discussion. From my pov, an NPOV description of LOI is absolutely necessary. If we do it correctly we should both get what we want, and Misplaced Pages gets what it demands. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE

I have reported you to WP:AE for your disruptive talk page comments at Q-D-S. I am tired of your soapboxing against Arabs and Muslims, and your following me around to areas where I am happily editing quite productively until you jump in with your incendiary and provocative commentary. Feel free to comment there. Tiamut 18:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely nothing against Muslims and/or Arabs. I still believe that my noting that, militant groups who tend to call their endeavors "holy" are a not relevant enough for a "see also" link on the Q-D-S article, was not soapboxing but a fairly reasonable and certainly not an anti-Muslim argument. Let me know if you feel otherwise and I'll think of ways to rephrase this argument in the future.

Coridally, Jaakobou 23:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Final warning

Jaakobou, I have previously spoken to you about disruptive talk page conduct. If the problem persists, I'll give you a 1 month ban from I-P articles. PhilKnight (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Phil, please see my comment in the AE thread. I have to disagree with your assessment of the situation - I don't think Jaak has done much wrong here. This is a content issue at the minute, and it should be dealt with via content RfC or mediation. We don't need to start banning editors just yet. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur (although I admit I was invited by Jaakobou, although I don't recall any former interaction with him, positive or negative.) It's a content issue, and his comments on the talk page seem reasonable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Hi, Jaakobou. Re this comment: please comment on content, not on the contributor. I don't know the circumstances and you don't give diffs, but it seems quite possible to me that the difference could simply have been that Timeshifter happened to disagree with what you wanted to do, and agree with what the other editor wanted to do. I suggest putting any comments about editor behaviour on user talk pages to leave the article talk page clear for content discussion. I've also put a comment on Timeshifter's talk page, among others. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 23:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems like good concerns but not sure the discussion was understood. My response given here. Jaakobou 23:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your understanding response and for your willingness to consider my concerns. It's possible that I didn't understand all of the discussion. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 23:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Quds

Hi Jaakobou - I'm sorry I missed your ping the other day on IRC. I have a feeling it may have been about the Q-D-S issue. My advice would be that this is an argument you are unlikely to win - as I think you've seen in the discussions on the Q-D-S talkpage. Think of these disputes as costing capital, "editorial capital" if you will. You have a limited amount of this sort of capital, less even than most editors because of your history, and you should share it out very carefully and only when you have a very strong argument. Avruch 17:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, regardless of other matters, could you provide a sanity check on the content issue?

Basically my argument is that there are many groups that use a word (Quds) and the word is derived from the root Q-D-S. Inclusion of these groups into the Q-D-S article would be even worse than adding companies that use the word "International" into the International article since this is not even the 'Quds' article but rather an article about the root of the word Quds.

Let me know what you think, Jaakobou 21:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all an expert in the field. But reading over the arguments on the discussion page, I did find those presented by Tiamut to be the more convincing. If the see also were linking to a page solely devoted to militant groups my conclusion would likely be different, but that isn't the case here. Your analogy to the International article is inapt, I think - the Q-D-S article is about a linguistic root, and while it wouldn't make sense to link to every use of the word "international" it does make some sense to link to uses of the linguistic root and even derivatives. The article text shouldn't (and, of course, doesn't) include a list - but a see also is a small compromise to make, and it isn't unreasonable. Avruch 22:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Should the see also be added a list of Israeli people who are also nicknamed Kadosh or all the brands of Kidush candles? (hint: no). What is the encyclopedic value in linking a bunch of people/groups/universities/etc that merely use a word that is derived from the root? I can see (and have suggested) a list of words that derive from the root, but not all the people who use one of these words.

p.s. thanks you for taking to time to address my point, something which was refused on the article talk page. Jaakobou 08:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

cat:OAF

Gee. That's just too easy for words, isn't it? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

And that's even easier! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hope the method for making a redirect was understood - Yes, thank you.

apologies for deleting your work (or at least proposing it for deletion) - I'm a bit confused here. For what are you apologising? Haven't you simply done what I requested? If so, no apologies required - just thanks from me. If not, well, I don't understand.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Was apologizing for the off chance that I misunderstood your request. Seems that was not the case :) Jaakobou 13:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC) typo 15:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Fugutive

There are many sources that call him a fugitive - see , - I deliberately chose that source because it is an Arab one, to avoid the regular excuses that this is just an "Israeli terminology". NoCal100 (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:K-B-D

Jaakobou, I am not a native Hebrew speaker (see my user page), so I encourage you to make those changes (all of them) you brought up on the talk page. Epson291 (talk) 05:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

re: Israel HaShlema

Hello, I did not remove your addition of Hebrew phrase "Israel HaShlema", I merely added back-in the link to the Misplaced Pages Greater Israel article. That phrase is English, and this is the English edition of Misplaced Pages.

Coverage on Misplaced Pages should not make a subject appear more notable than it actually is. The phrase Greater Israel returns 607,000 pages on Google, and about 16,500 references in Google Books. Eretz Israel Hashlema only returns 361 web pages and 84 references in Google Books. In order to be notable enough to appear in Misplaced Pages, an idea should be referenced extensively, and Greater Israel is obviously very common terminology that belongs in the list. harlan (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Heyo Harlen,

Well, there seems to be a problem with the terminology because I don't believe 'Greater Israel' is a clear enough terminology on it's own since it doesn't even exist in Hebrew. Perhaps we should clarify with a bit of source searching (talk page discussion) if the term is actually used for 'Palestine' or if it is used for something else. After this is clarified, if it is determined that we should add the term, then an article explanation that this term is quite ambiguous should probably be added... it would be bad to suggest that "from the Nile to the Euphrates" is a term for Palestine since it is clearly not. I'll see you on the article's talk page, Jaakobou 13:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

 Marlith (Talk)  has given you a kitten! Gifts of kittens promote Wikilove and holiday spirt. Hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and raise the holiday spirit! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

 Marlith (Talk)  04:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

check this out

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Haaretz&diff=256487575&oldid=256487065 Oren.tal (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Jaakobou, I objected to Oren.tal reverting an edit on my talk page; and, rather than get into an edit war on my own talk page, I took that to administrators. I had no wish for him to be blocked. As far as the issue of the info box in the Ha'aretz article, if you think that was POV, I would be happy to have you get involved in editing the article; or, if you choose not to do that, I could answer any guestions you have about my thinking on my talk page....or here. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment deletion

Why did you remove this post by PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs)? I'm not seeing any policy violations there. --Elonka 18:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem, from my perspective, is that PR did not stop at calling the sources biased. He moved on to advocate the alleged illegality of something which has very little to do with the sources.

Anyways, there's a chance that this was a subjective offense as you're the second person who seems to consider his comment to not violate WP:SOAP as did Coppertwig on the ANI thread I opend to have my revert reviewed by the community.

I am currently in the process of reconsidering if the comment was indeed a violation of soapboxing policies or that it was my own sensitivities.

Regardless, this might be a good occasion to find PR a new mentor.

With respect, Jaakobou 18:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Rashid Khalidi. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 16:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in Yip Pin Xiu's peer review

Happy New Year, Jaakobou! May you have a wonderful 2009! I now present to you Yip Pin Xiu, an article about a Singaporean Paralympic swimmer, which I wrote as part of my series on Singaporean anti-discrimination. The article has potential to become a GA and I have filed a PR to help get it there. You are invited to give the article a thorough review. Thank you for your kind attention. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

And I've noted that you too make sound edits and keep a cool head. I mean you must have had a sharp eye to see that the first sentence in the article saying the conflict was between "Israel and Palestine" was inappropriate. Even I didn't catch that one! Cheers,VR _talk 22:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

1. McCain, Palin demand L.A. Times release Obama video, By James Rainey, October 30, 2008, Los Angeles Times
2. "The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Palestine Liberation Organization," produced in 1979 for Pacifica in Berkeley, California.