Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:05, 16 May 2009

"I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people." Where this user currently is, the time is 06:49, Friday 27 December 2024. This is the user talk page for AGK. You can also send this user an internal email. I have taken 68,260 actions on Misplaced Pages: 54,362 edits, 3,301 deletions, 2,661 blocks, and 7,936 protections. You are welcome to reverse any of them, except if my reason mentioned "checkuser", "arbitration", or "oversight".

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Varoujan Garabedian

User talk:Arcticocean/S Thanks for taking time to look into this issue. While the dispute may not constitute a basis for any action, could you please help to bring the article in compliance with NPOV? In particular, I'm not happy with the claim that Garabedian's role in bombing was "alleged", while he was found guilty in planting the bomb by the court of justice. Could you please advise if such wording is acceptable? I know it is a content issue, but a third party opinion would be very helpful. Grandmaster 21:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Your query is a difficult one to answer easily; please allow me to reflect on it before offering a response. AGK 21:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, there's no rush. Thank you. Grandmaster 04:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I may need to delay responding to this 'till Friday (15th May 2009) evening. A reply will come, though. AGK 14:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What with all the articles I'm currently dealing with, I doubt I'd be able to take this one on board and do a reasonable job with it. You might want to solicit assistance at the administrators' noticeboard?

AGK busy, Thursday 14 May.

There's a possibility I might be unavailable tomorrow (well, technically today—I'm editing late), Thursday 14 May. If so, I'll respond to any outstanding messages or matters that require my attention on Thursday evening or on Friday.

Thanks, AGK 23:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Exodus from Lydda

User talk:Arcticocean/S

Hi, I'd appreciate your help with User:Malcolm Schosha. The latest issue is that he keeps removing that people were killed during the "invasion" of Lydda, or "conquest" of Lydda, and wants to insert "battle" for Lydda. Historians differ as to whether it's accurate to call what happened a "battle"; some call it a "massacre," and some call it "ethnic cleansing"; for that reason, we chose a neutral term (invasion or conquest). But Malcolm keeps reverting.

Here are examples of his editing:

• removes the number of Palestians expelled from the lead
• changes invasion to battle in the lead, May 8
• changes invasion to battle in the lead, despite objections on talk, May 9
• removes from the lead that there exists an expulsion order signed by Rabin, May 13
• again removes from the lead that there is an expulsion order signed by Rabin, May 13
• changes conquest to battle in the lead, May 13
• removes bold from Lydda death march in lead, though it is standard practice to bold akas.
• changes conquest to battle in the lead, May 13

He has otherwise added no content. Is this acceptable editing? SlimVirgin 23:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• The number of Palestinians who died was still in the lead, just not there twice. We have been over this point previously.
• The change to "battle" was with an excellent source, but SlimVirgin deleted it, and then deleted it again even after I made changes to meet her objections.
• The information about Rabin needs to be in the article, but not in the lead. This is all discussed on the talk page.
• removing bold type from Lydda death march had been discussed, and the majority of editors seem to support the change. No content was deleted.
• Etc. I general, I have tried to clarify points that need clarifying or adjusting. I do not anticipate making major additions to the article, and am not required to do so.

Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You have reverted to "battle" four times, today against two editors. Three editors have explained to you on talk several times why "battle" is not neutral, yet you won't allow us to use another word. SlimVirgin 00:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You have been deleting sourced content ]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The push for euphemistic "battle" is not surprising. Dozens of similar attempts for example at Deir Yassin massacre, despite the clear preference for that name among historians etc. My pro-Misplaced Pages bias says look at reliable sources and stay neutral. RomaC (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you figure that? The word 'battle' did not replace the word 'massacre', but replaced the word 'conquest.' Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I appreciate genuine rebuttals of another editor's comments, folks, but I'd rather we keep things professional and avoid turning my talk page into a battle ground.
I'll examine this issue—including both SlimVirgin's report, and the responses to it—presently.
AGK 11:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Query for Malcolm: I'm interested in this argument of SlimVirgin's—

• Historians differ as to whether it's accurate to call what happened a "battle"; some call it a "massacre," and some call it "ethnic cleansing"; for that reason, we chose a neutral term (invasion or conquest)

Would you agree that that term is a suitable compromise between the various positions the sources hold? Wouldn't such a compromise—using a term our readers will find neutral—be the best course of action? Indeed, wouldn't opting for one term that a source uses, at the expense of another, be presenting to our readers a non-neutral point of view?

AGK 12:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is there was a fight (battle) between the defenders of Lydda and Israeli forces. Following that there may have been a massacre, which is certainly lamentable. That was, without doubt, followed by a population transfer. I do not think the term ethnic cleansing, applies because there was never a policy (or even an unspoken intent) to remove the Palestinian population from Israeli. What happened was not ethnic cleansing, but more similar to the violence and population transfers that occurred on a far larger scale in the partition of India/Pakastan, which had occurred just a few months previously.

If others are unwilling to live with the word battle, I could accept the word "fight" instead. But battle is an accurate description. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you have an objection to "invasion" or "conquest"? AGK 14:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Some editors are unwilling to admit there was a fight, which appears intended to place all blame on Israel for these events.

As of late March-early April, there was no shortage of arms in Lydda. In fact, Lydda became a center of arms supply, military training and security coordination for the neighboring villagers. By late April Lydda had become a safe haven for thousands of refugees fleeing from Jaffa and the neighboring villages occupied by the Jewish militias, which almost doubled the town's original population. (6) While these refugees constituted a heavy burden on the city's economy and utilities, the military command managed to incorporate part of them into its militia and, during the truce, provided them with arms and training. A Haganah (7) intelligence report of March 10 assessed that "if attacked," Lydda's inhabitants intended "to rely solely on their own forces and not upon undependable and untrustworthy strangers." (8) Myths and historiography of the 1948 Palestine War revisited: the case of Lydda .

I am certainly disinclined to willingly allow a WP article be turned into a propaganda vehicle for one side. I am willing to compromise, but the argument is because these small points have meaning. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Which side would that be? AGK 14:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If you think either side might be inclined to slant the article, that is correct. It is also why it is harmful when editors on one side try to get rid of editors on the other side via wiki-lawering. NPOV flies better with both wings attached to the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Shot in the dark here, but would a completely separate choice of word—not suggested by any source, and thus not giving its allegiance to either side—not be preferable? Something like "hostilities"?

Until agreement is reached for wording that doesn't violate the site's NPOV policy, I've installed an indefinite protection on the article.

AGK 15:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"capture". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The "capture of Lydda" is certainly another option. Malcolm—what do you think of those two options? AGK 17:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm,

Writing an article in wikipedia is not done in googling but in buying,reading and studying books and articles concerning the topic. The article given by your link is not even full.

That is not the way wikipedia functions.

You don't have access to any source, so you physically cannot help editors of reaching WP:NPOV given you don't have any idea of any point of views on this topics.

Misplaced Pages is not the place for a compromise between you and others.

Ceedjee (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't make me laugh, Ceedjee. You would still be arguing the same argument if I bought a hundred books. As for the JSTOR article, I could have it by the end of the week. But the issue will not be resolved by my accumulating books and print outs of articles, it will be resolved by a willingness of editors on both sides demonstration a spirit of compromise. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Ceedjee is right. It was a point made by Nishidani too, and the earlier editors. Many of the editors on the page are clearly unfamiliar with the events, and that's fine -- no one can be expected to know everything. But they are also not willing to do the reading. Malcolm has said he has no time. Continuing to revert and argue, and holding up the development of the article, while having no time to do any reading about the topic (except what's easy to find on Google) is extremely unhelpful, to the point of being disruptive. Some of us would like to see this article make it to FA. Ian Pitchford has offered a bounty if we achieve it. That means the article will have to contain all reliable POVs on the issue. That means going to academic libraries and reading, then adding the results of that reading to the page. That takes time and there is no shortcut. I would ask all editors who want to be involved, please go and do the reading. It will substantially reduce the arguments, because then you'll have real knowledge to add to the page, instead of spending time arguing about minutiae. SlimVirgin 19:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, what would such a compromise be? Synergy is essential in a collaborative encyclopedia, but all quite useless if we haven't developed a simple solution that forms a compromise between the various stances—and where that solution presents a neutral point of view.
So, I'll ask again: of the different wording used by the various sources, which do all the editors support? AGK 18:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This was my original edit . But there were protests that did not accurately describe the events . So I changed it to this . Now that is rejected too. I feel I tried to accommodate the objections, but that there has been no effort from other editors to meet me half way because the flat rejection of the word "battle" is not acceptable. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Excluding the wording you've suggested but has been removed, Malcolm: of the different wording used by the various sources, which do you support? What's your "next preference"? AGK 18:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I could accept the word 'fight' to replace 'battle'. But battle is used in excellent sources, and I do not see why it should not be used. It would be better if they added their preferred term(s), rather than insist that something WP:RS be removed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Which is each editor's preferred word choice?

I'd appreciate it if each editor posted, in a format such as,

• Preferred word choice. AGK 19:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The word choice they'd like to see used throughout the article. "Invasion," "conquest," "fight," and "battle" have all been suggested. AGK 19:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Fall" is another neutral possibility - "X number were killed during the fall of Lydda." SlimVirgin 19:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Or "occupation." SlimVirgin 20:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

AGK, I have decided to take a break from the article for a while. I have work that needs attention. Also I think that Malcolm fatigue is setting in, and it will be a kindness to give other editors a some space. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy your work, but do consider sticking around; everybody's involvement is needed, if we're ever going to get anywhere with this article. My regards, AGK 21:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi AGK, could you unprotect the article, please? As the editor who was reverting says he's taking a break, I don't think anyone else will revert "battle" (for or against it), without consensus. I've added a lot of content today at User:SlimVirgin/Lydda, which I would like to add to mainspace before it becomes overwhelming. I think the new content should satisfy some of the editors, as it comes from two historians who see things differently from the historians we've been using so far. SlimVirgin 06:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done, but I won't be adverse to re-protecting if more disputes arise. AGK 08:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

John Carter, again

User talk:Arcticocean/S Sorry to bother you again about this, but our problems with John Carter (talk · contribs) and the Macedonia case continue. Apparently he has now been sending insulting e-mails to Taivo (talk · contribs) disparaging his real-life professional qualifications, followed up by yet more of his aggressive ad hominems at User talk:ChrisO and User talk:Taivo. I think it really is about time he is removed from this case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've sent an email to arbcom-l, asking them to deal with this. AGK 21:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Evidence&diff=289967826&oldid=289894578.

Rlevse has placed all edits to the case on a professionalism parole; any further instances of bickering, mud-slinging, and whatnot will be met with a block. I intend to enforce this—as do the other clerks and the case arbitrator.

AGK 21:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

MEDCOM

User talk:Arcticocean/S I recently nominated myself for MEDCOM. I was just wondering if you had any pointers for me.Drew Smith What I've done 10:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The short response is that I don't think you're anywhere near experienced enough at the present, Drew. I've weighed in on your nomination with the following opinion:

Membership of the MedCom requires extensive experience with complex enwiki disputes and with tough mediation situations; unfortunately, you don't seem to have that yet. In fact, I'd venture to say that you're quite a bit short of the requisite experience levels. If you are interested in mediation, I would strongly suggest you look at taking a case from the Mediation Cabal; and try also to get some serious editing experience under your belt. Sorry, but I think it's much too soon; try focusing on editing (and perhaps a little light DR work) for now.

I hope my advice is useful, and sorry if my opposition has disappointed you—but I think I'd be doing you a disservice if it was any other way.

Regards, AGK 16:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Long term conflict regarding Falun Gong articles

My edits on the Falun Gong related articles are always systematically reverted by a group of overzealous Falun Gong activists. I'm really getting tired of these people with clear conflicts of interest patrolling the Falun Gong articles with little regard for the arbcom probation , following me around and trying to stop my right to edit wikipedia. This has been going on for 2 years with no end in sight, and we all have been blocked for edit warring.

There's further details on the ongoing dispute here .--PCPP (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

WTC controlled demolition conspiracy theories again

Hi AGK — a quick update on the World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories issue. After reliable third-party sources have been found, the information on the publications have been removed again, citing WP:UNDUE. (These publication are actually part of the article's subject here, not sources on another subject. There is an article Collapse of the World Trade Center, where including these sources would actually give undue weight to them.) See Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories#Undue weight?. — Regards.  Cs32en  23:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)