Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:53, 19 January 2009

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

How-to make and delete a page

• Try to remember how you created User:Tundrabuggy/ Yom Tov Samia! I go to my user page, add /summick to the URL in the browser's address box and hit Enter! Why delete? You might want to go back. I have this permanent sandbox which I simply blank after each session. But if you must delete, just tag it {{db-author}}. — RHaworth (Talk

Your note

Of course you are correct, as was obvious. Thanks for pointing it out. Jayjg 02:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oxford University

What you call a "Blog" just happens to be Oxford University archives of London Book reviews. In my humble opinion I do believe that Oxford University just might be considered as a reliable source...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Montezumapass.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Montezumapass.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Headwaters

The Jordan, Lebanese and Syrian plans were the headwaters diversion plan, it was all three....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What did happen with the intro

You violated WP:3RR. I think it was on good faith, so I am just letting you know, not accusing or anything. We all do it once in a while. In fact, I am not looking at those things closely right now, because that's just free drama. The other thing is, the intro at the moment you edited was subjected to intense discussion based on a proposal from me. Some of the concerns you raised were discussed, but not all. Regardless if I agree or disagree with your views, you owe to your fellow editors to try and reach consensus with them, specially if we all recognize that we need to reach neutrality and be in the watch for biased slants. Be aware that bias can be entered into unwittingly: what you assume to be the truth is not what others assume it to be. Eliminating the point of view of the others is the basis of bias, which is different form NPOV.

RomanC, really stepped out of line above, and I am sorry he did, but he has clearly been good with discussing things. Don't think we all share his opinions on your editing. Perhaps you need to try and see this not as an "us v them" zero-zum situation, and one where we can work together. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Find my fourth revert/post in 24 hours. Let's see the evidence. I made numerous changes to the intro but I don't think even one of them was a staight revert. I added references and changed the wording to deal with concerns raised. I discussed every change I made numerous times. I then followed the wiki precept to be bold. RomanC was also wrong in making the claiming that I had blanked the intro. That never happened by me, sorry. I am taking a break from this article, since it is clear that it is all gang-up and get your WP:POV in. Neutrality is achieved by using reliable sources to tell the story, and balance by putting in the perspective of both sides in a conflict. There is precious little attempt at balance or neutrality here. I don't need a lesson in WP:NPOV. Your bias is as evident as any. This will be a POV and bad article until people start remembering that this is supposed to be a neutral project, and start looking to themselves rather than others, as culprits. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As to 3RR, as I said, I am not accusing you, but indeed look at your editing. In fact, pretty much everyone, including myself, has done tiny 3RR stuff, most of them. But the real fact is that the bulk of the edit warring has been by people who do not discuss the article: one of the reasons I approached you was because you did a rather sad posting on the talk page, thought about it, and I wanted to comment on it here, but saw RomaC's warning. There is no reason why our eidting environment should exclude valuable editors like yourself.

I am sorry you feel this way, but what bias I have? I have attempted, at all times, to ensure that no bias enters my convo, focusing on the intro. An example of what you feel where biased actions on my part would be helpful to allow me not to exhibit bias in the future, as that is not my goal. Perhaps we can work together, since we are both looking for the same thing? As to RomaC, I defended you, and I agree: in fact he is now accusing me of stuff. As to ganging? Who ganged up on you? I think we all could use a chill pill, but for the most part, people have argued from their mind, I see no meatpuppetry and stuff. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I don't believe I have done 3RR but I am in no mood to go check. Don't forget that breaking that rule means 4X. Any changes that I made in the intro had been discussed ad nauseum, if not by me, by others on the talk page, regarding there being 2 sides of the conflict, essentially. I wrote my reasons in the edit summaries as well. I am sure that you do not see your bias, and I have no problem with people having a bias -- we all have one, it's a perspective. Your sympathy for the Palestinian side is obvious, as clearly mine for the Israeli side is obvious as well. But hopefully one can still be fair and balanced and write a neutral article despite our respective biases. I did not mean to suggest that I felt that people were personally ganging up on me, I don't. But they are indeed ganging up on the Israeli perspective, both in this article, and on its talk page. I am taking a break on the page until some kind of stability is reached. It is frankly too much work & disappointment to have a well-written, balanced, and referenced sentence trashed and turned into a POV, illogical, inaccurate, unreferenced piece of trash before I even have a chance to refresh the page. :( Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am not sympathetic at all towards Hamas, and have sympathy for the plight of Jewish Nation (a sympathy that can be described as post-Zionist, in the academic, not partisan, sense). Some of my greatest heroes are the people of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, who died against all odds standing up for all of humanity, not just for the Jewish people. I am, however, indeed also sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians, and unsympathetic of how their very real suffering is abstracted into a cartoonish view of good vs evil - and of late have had their very existense questioned in a sad mirror of Holocaust denialism. I am not dispassionate, but I do have empathy for Israel - and it pains when it is assumed that because I also have empathy for the Palestinians is automatically means I do not.

That said, we should not expect neutral editors, we should expect neutral articles.

It is interesting, because some of the very concerns you raised above are what you hear from Palestinian editors. Now, if I assume good faith, it means both sides feel the same way. However, how can that be possible? Surely one side is cynically lying?

I think it can very well be: it seems the dominant narratives of either side are so partisan and one-sided, that in an environment like Misplaced Pages's, where one-sidedness is against the house rules, any deviation from the dominant narratives will seem shocking and non-neutral. If you side tells you the sky is cyan, and another side tells their side it is dark blue, you will be shocked to find out it is neither, but Sky blue.

For a pro-Palestinian person it might seem non-neutral that Israel actually called upon the people of Gaza to move from targetted sites hours before the first air strikes. For a pro-Israel person it might seem non-neutral that inspite of these efforts there are a large number of innocent civilians dying and getting maimed. For me, both are verifiable facts, that are neutral in as of their own, and deserve to be in Misplaced Pages. So while I think your feelings are genuine, I think they are baseless upon the evidence: the same way I cannot expect you to defend the Palestinian perspective, you cannot expect those with a Palestinian perspective to defend the Israeli perspective. Yet you can certainly expect that your vigorous defense of the Israeli perspective, and their vigorous defense of the Palestinian perspective, arbitrated by more moderated elements of either side and non-involved editors, will result in a neutral article worthy of wikipedia. What you cannot expect is your perspective to be the only one, because that would go against everything this project is about: collecting the world's knowledge in a neutral fashion. Does this make sense to you?--Cerejota (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza conflict response

Hi. I noticed your edit . Please make your views known at Dispute - Official Reaction of Australia. Best, Chesdovi (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

rant

Hey am glad we can find common ground! BTW, I didn't see your respond on the other thread... --Cerejota (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Respond on talk

You have made this without addressing the concerns regarding this edit raised on talk at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Lead#Name_of_the_conflict. I think this is unfair. I'm waiting for you there.VR _talk 04:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You responded on the wrong place, I've moved your comments to Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Lead#Name_of_the_conflict, responded to you, and am waiting for your response.VR _talk 04:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have responded ad nauseum. Going for a little walk now. You guys discuss it among yourselves. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This is disruptive editing, you have been asked repeatedly to stop. RomaC (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tundra.

I never intended to make any remarks regarding you, only on your editing. Even while doing that, I should have been more respectful. I apologize for any hurt feelings, (as often happens on touchy issues).VR _talk 05:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your efforts in holding back a "Misplaced Pages Massacre"

Your efforts have not gone unnoticed. Every time any of us make an edit to the article in accordance with the rules, we am swarmed from all sides by editors using their majority to manipulate the situation. Kinda reminds me of a country............--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

lead

I am sorry you feel that way, but unilateral changes before any discussion in not acceptable. This has been discussed at length, that you do not like it is not reason to continue to persist in making disruptive edits. Nableezy (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Innumerable discussion has already been made at the talk page that the previous edit was not (far from) universally acceptable. Rather than the same old argument which one side consistently opposes and reverts, it is time to try another, fresh attempt at the lead. Such attempts are not disruptive, on the contrary. What is disruptive is constant reversions of the lead back to unacceptable versions, with warnings being placed on anyone's page who tries to be bold break this deadlock. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I am going to tell you this one time, I dont care what you think is important or POV or anything, you have not once made a single objection based on logic. That Michael Safyan has now entered the discussion is fine with me, desirable even, because even though I disagree with what he says, he at least uses logic and reason for his discussions. I am done talking to you, as you clearly cannot understand the basic ideas of rational thinking. Now, respectfully, leave me alone. Nableezy (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much there is a need to stop ninja edits. Perhaps there will never be complete consensus on this matter, but there is definitely a rough consensus to keep it, which is why you get reverted so quickly and only Doright helps. Discussion might be endless, but there is also the need to have what is supported by sources. I think your argument is weak: and in particular has become weaker as time has passed and more sources developed. This is why I opened in OR noticeboard, and in fact all non-involved editors have agreed (the few that have commented) to keep. Same with "intensified". Stop edit warring.--Cerejota (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

er...not. Here are the responses from the 2 non-involved editors at the OR noticeboard. In fact, the way I read their comments, they do not agree with you.

• "And also I'm not sure that right now the conflict is known in English as "the Gaza massacre". But the sources cited are all or mostly reliable ones, so you could use them to develop the "International responses" section, and there you could say that those sources had used the term "massacre". Prefer English-language sources where you can, but also bear in mind the need to reflect views right across the world. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• "I think that, within the context of a neutral discussion media manipulation by both sides, it would be quite appropriate to mention that Hamas leaders use the term "Massacre" to describe Israel's actions. Otherwise we should be skeptical of such words. Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

How do you get consensus out of that? Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, both argue for inclusion of the term: it would be quite appropriate to mention that Hamas leaders use the term "Massacre" to describe Israel's actions and the sources cited are all or mostly reliable ones, so you could use them to develop the "International responses" section, and there you could say that those sources had used the term "massacre". One is uncontrovertibly for inclusion - and for pretty much the same reasons I am. I do agree the second does skip mention of the lead, but I offer that the lead is not separate form the article. This might support the due weight argument at the beginning of the discussion, but I do not know this to be the case. They are not strong responses, and they are only two, but coupled with futher arguments in the talk page, and new sources that have emerged, I no longer have such a weak support as I did once (I might remind you that I opened the thread because I saw value in the objections, but felt discussion was gettting unproductive). That said, I will not revert your edits, because WP:CCC, unless I see tag-teaming, meat puppetry, and the other editors are up fro 3RR - I have a good eye for those things. I do agree you are just being bold, but so are those that revert you.

But lets discuss, because in spite of some of your friends and I not losing any love, you are always willing to talk which I greatly appreciate...

Lets forget rules and all that crap, lets talk about why we are here: writing an encyclopedia. The point is that this is how the conflict is seen and named by one side, as a counter-point of how it is seen by another side. I do not see how encyclopedic value is decreased by the inclusion of this perspective, in particular because it is extremely verified as the mainstream (not fringe) description among those on the other side. True, the facts reveal that this is not a massacre other than in the sense that all wars -just or unjust- are "massacres". This might speak of a sense of melodrama in Arab and Palestinian society, well, any reader with two fingers of brain will see this (as naming a military operation for a children's song speaks of the melodrama of Israeli society). But it is fact that this is the perspective. And we must report relevant facts. I feel other editors - including of your POV - understand this and have let the discussion drop, to concentrate on other, probably more important consensus questions, like the photos etc.

Lastly, consensus is ultimately not the result of discussions. It is a result of editing, but this is why we frown upon edit warring: it would give dedicated individuals the ability to single-handlely create consensus by sheer force of editing. Please consider that. --Cerejota (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Editors' comments regarding the Gaza Massacre in the lead

In fact many other editors have left the page due to feeling insulted by it rather than moving on as you imply. Here is my list of editors who have disagreed with the "Gaza Massacre" being in the lead. Not sure if I have them all. Some of the editors have attempted to remove it from the lead and been insulted with accusations of vandalism on their talk page, with the resultant dif not being allowed to stand for 5 minutes. It seems to me to be 50-50% at best, with the pro- people being entirely unwilling to compromise on any of it - ie to move it out of the lead, to say that Arabs call it a small em "massacre", or to balance it with Israel's perspective of "not massacre" but "self-defense." It is not trying to achieve consensus by refusing all compromise and insisting on something that is considered by others to be POV and OR. We do not need to argue the points over and over again. These editors have done it already and have been bullied and insulted by by those who insist on maintaining it.

• tundrabuggy original dif link re massacre:

The following are not difs but sections:

• doright *The last sentence of the first paragraph claims: "The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: ????? ????) in much of the Arab World.." However, after having read each of the references, it is clear that some have made the claim that massacres have occurred. However, none have said that the conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre. Therefore, this sentence appears to be in violation of WP:OR. Doright (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• cerejota "I do recognize a weakness I recognize: they do not explicitly refer to the "Gaza Massacre" but rather than "massacre in Gaza" or "massacre" and specifiying place somewhere else, etc"

• Itsmejudith "And also I'm not sure that right now the conflict is known in English as "the Gaza massacre". But the sources cited are all or mostly reliable ones, so you could use them to develop the "International responses" section, and there you could say that those sources had used the term "massacre". Prefer English-language sources where you can, but also bear in mind the need to reflect views right across the world. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Blueboar"I think that, within the context of a neutral discussion media manipulation by both sides, it would be quite appropriate to mention that Hamas leaders use the term "Massacre" to describe Israel's actions. Otherwise we should be skeptical of such words. Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC) ]

• brewcrewer The third problem is sort of collateral of the second. Apparently this term massacre in relation to Israeli actions has been around for a while and has been applied to a number of other incidents. A look at Google News archives reveals that this is not the only incident that the Arab world has called a massacre. The term "massacre" is not unique to this particular action. Thus it would be wrong to call this a "massacre". They are not calling it a specific name. Every Israeli action that kills multiple people gets a "massacre reaction". The Arab world is not giving the action a proper noun. They are merely describing the action. Look at this way: instead of calling each Israel action a "killing", they are calling it a "massacre". That being said, there is no intention of giving a specific name to the Israeli operation. The action taken by editors in naming this conflict is original research, at best.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Rabend I agree with all of the above. Rabend (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Coreywalters06 I agree with the viewpoint that it is very POV-ish to say "Gaza Massacre". Israel's view of this is defense in response to Hamas's 144 rockets and 86 mortars fired from Gaza at Israeli 'civilian' targets. Two extremely differing viewpoints from that of the "Arab world". "Gaza Massacre" suggests that Israel has cruelly and hastefully killed a huge number of innocent people intentionally and violated international law. This is very much more POV than "Operation Cast Lead" could ever be. Operation Cast Lead has no accusations, no bias or hateful connotation. Nothing. Its just random words as said above.Coreywalters06 (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• DrorK Another thing - calling and event "a massacre" is an accusation. It is not merely a different choice of terminology, it is a straightforward accusation. Therefore, if you say the Arab world call the events "a massacre", you are saying "all Arabs accuse Israel of deliberately and intentionally killing civilians". If this is the case - fine, but think well what you are writing here. The fact that many media resources use terminology in an irresponsible way doesn't mean that we should do the same. DrorK (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Gabi S. It is not enough to have a RS that describes the event in question as the Gaza Massacre. You have to find a RS that says "The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre in much of the Arab World." I am not aware of such a source. -- Gabi S. (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Jaakabou This standard "massacre" naming convention doesn't work well for Misplaced Pages as it is applied to each and every Israeli operation regardless if it's foe calls himself victorious (Nasrallah's divine victory / massacre, for example). I have no objection to listing this controversial accusation/nickname next to POVs from both sides in the body of the article rather than the lead as that a proper location. The main problem here is that Hamas is attacking Israel and has made declarations that they are martyrdom seekers... clearly we can't play up the double speech of Hamas on one side while ignoring the other side of the coin. This is just too controversial to tackle in the lead in a neutral fashion and should be avoided like fire. That said, if someone can come up with a neutral and wide-scale acceptable version then I'd be ok with having it included in the lead as well as in the body. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 20:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• CptnonoMost of the sources cited and google news hits state "...Gaza massacre". It is being reffered to as a massacre but not actually titled as one by most news sources.Cptnono (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I know it sounds like pulling hairs but most of the sources cited after the line use it in the headline but not as a title which is why it is not capitalized and why it is put in quotations whenever an Arab leader uses the term. ....Cptnono (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just rereading some of it and sometimes it is being reffered to as a massacre. I think my biggest concern is that it is being referred to as a massacre and not titled a massacre. I don't think it history will label this event as The Gazan Massacre so if it stays for now (which will prevent the lead from becomming to argumentative) I anticipate it will need to be changed sooner or later.Cptnono (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2009

• MichaelSafyan attempted a compromise of the lead, but was reverted as a vandal

And thank you

The anti-Israeli (feels like that more than pro-Palestinian) majority relentlessly tries to pull the article in a very specific direction (most of them, to be fair), and it's been really hard trying to make it more accurate and objective and thus closer to the actual truth. I've been noticing your help in trying to stop the anti-I deluge, and I really appreciate it. Rabend (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Attempt to find consensus

I have started an attempt to find a consensus regarding the inclusion of image you removed of the dead Palestinian baby from 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Should_the_picture_of_the_dead_baby_be_displayed_on_the_page.3F.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry

I see no other way. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Tundrabuggy_reported_by_Cerejota_.28Result:_.29. I hope you understand its not personal. However, you should reconsider your edit warring.--Cerejota (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, I've looked over the article history on the article with a specific eye to your edits, and you are a bit out of line. Please discuss matters on the article talk page instead of continually reverting the article, and if a rough consensus has formed, do not go against it. Thank you. --Cyde Weys 21:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)