Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:04, 11 July 2013

wikipedia principles

Hi Ykantor,

Thank you for your input in the different talk pages. I come back on a point on which you didn't answer :

• contributors are expected to comply with WP:NPoV. It means they are not expected to unbalance the article in bringing information always in the same direction. What you call errors that you identified are also information that all go to the same pro-Israeli direction. Could you please confirm without ambiguity that you read and understand WP:NPoV and that you intend to look for all information by yourself no matter whatever the picture it gives is good or bad for one side or the other ?

• a basic rule of WP:NPoV is WP:Due weight. It means that if you enter information, even true, it must not affect the global picture of what is relevant is not. Eg, stating that the ALA had armored vehicules without talking about those of Hagana is wp:undue (It is also false to shift from "antiquated" to "fighting" to talk about ALA vehicules), talking about the "artillery" of the ALA, without specifying the number of 2-inch and 3-inch mortars of the Haganah, is wp:unde, rejecting the idea that Abadallah invaded Israel because of fights is wpu:undue (it is also WP:OR - original reserch and false) if we would not say that the Yishuv invaded (same word) because of the conquest of Acre and Jaffa. (it is also WP:OR). Do you understand what I mean ?

Thank you, Pluto2012 (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ykantor,

Would you mind answering these questions or explaining why your refused to ? Pluto2012 (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

to pluto: I have fully replied in the Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War, at 20 May. If you search for the word "again", you may find it easily. Ykantor (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You didn't answer this point : "Could you please confirm without ambiguity that you read and understand WP:NPoV and that you intend to look for all information by yourself no matter whatever the picture it gives is good or bad for one side or the other ?"

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

to pluto: I have fully replied in the Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War, at 20 May.

don't you find it funny, that while you are asking other guys to be objective and neutral, you yourself have not obeyed the rules? (by vandalizing deleting a section in spit of Misplaced Pages rules) Ykantor (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I am totally objective and neutral but you refuse to comply with this : "intend to look for all information by yourself no matter whatever the picture it gives is good or bad for one side or the other".

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

to pluto: It is rather funny that you ,the offender, try to show other editors what to write. It seems that it is much easier for you to personally attack people who doesn't agree with you, rather than come up with sources. Whoever reads the talk page, can clearly see that you always blame in general, but do not say what is specifically wrong. You prefer general blames since it is like a smoke screen for your lack of specifics. Unless you provide specifics to base your claims, I do not see why one should waste his time and refer to you anymore. Ykantor (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank so much for bringing this matter to my attention. Thank you also for your valiant efforts to keep good content on that page. That British policy leaned towards the Arab side, especially Jordan during the 1948-49 war, that one of the factors behind the pro-Arab neutrality was anti-Semitism that equated Jews with Communism that was common amongst many British officials of that age, and Bevin himself shared these prejudices are fairly well established facts that would not mean with objections anywhere, but Misplaced Pages, which often puts a strange gloss on events. I really must confess that I am deeply disappointed by the actions of the others, which seems to be motivated by what can be can best described as a certain ignorance of how historians work, and at worse might be considered to be outright malevolence.

All historians are biased in some way, which Misplaced Pages’s much vaulted neutrality at least as far as history is bunk. History involves the assessment of facts, such was a particular occurrence a good thing, a bad thing or someone in between, and all historians are influenced by their views when making such assessments. As someone who is familiar with Karsh’s writings, it is correct that say that he is very pro-Israeli (the fact that he is Israeli probably has something to do with that) and that in his account of the Arab-Israeli conflicts, I don’t think there is any doubt about whose side he is on. But I don’t see why that disqualifies him as a source. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a deeply polarizing dispute as you must know, and there simply are no neutral historians writing about it. There are some historians who more neutral than others, but ultimately any historian has to address the question about whatever they think that Israel is a good thing or a bad thing, which is why the historiography relating to Israel is so starkly polarized. Karsh should be only disqualified as a source if can be established that he had engaged in scholarly misconduct of some sort. In fact, Karsh has been accused of such misconduct, especially in regards to his Palestine Betrayed, which has received savage reviews from historians’ sympathetic to the Palestinian side, and positively growing reviews from historians’ friendly towards the Israeli side. I have not read that book, so I am not qualified to pass judgement on these matters, and as far as I can tell, there have been allegations of misconduct, but that these allegations have not been established. Regardless, that has nothing to do with The Palestine War 1948, which Karsh wrote 8 years earlier or the section dealing with British diplomacy in 1948. Unless it has been proven that Karsh in some way distorted the record, which I don’t believe to be the case, the section should go back in. If someone is really concerned about neutrality, then can cite a historian who has a different interpretation of this matter. As I have learned from experience, it is best not to contribute to talk pages when one is angry, so I will post something on the talk page this weekend, when my temper has cooled. Thank so much for efforts to wage the good fight, and please have a wonderful day!--A.S. Brown (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Ykantor

Thank you again for all your kind words and excellent work! I might take a stab at editing that page soon, but since I suggested that to address the concerns of the opposition that the works of other historians be brought in, I might want to follow my own advice. I suggested treating like a historiography section with viewpoints of different historians being brought in-a procedure that is awkward in the extreme, but is probably the best compromise. Personally, I'll rather like Karsh, since so much of what he writes is grounded in reality and makes sense, but the problem with trying to defend Karsh, so the historiography is so divided. Through you are right that it is rather odd that there is not much in the way of specific objections to Karsh other than he is Karsh. I could easily bring 100 rave reviews of Karsh, and I could just as easily bring in 100 damning reviews of Karsh. Through I am personally sympathetic towards Karsh, one is going to get bogged into an endless debate about whatever Karsh is a RS or not that will lead no-where. For every positive review I can find, the opposition will be able to bring a negative one. This just going to go no-where, and is going to waste a great deal of time. As I see it, the best solution for resolving the dispute and keeping the good content in, is to have the section say that historians are divided about this topic, and Karsh says this and so-and-so say that. This is not I would had preferred, but at least one cannot say it is not neutral. Sometimes one has to do that with there is no consensus within the historiography, but it is a cumbersome way of doing things. Sometimes, that is not necessary and other viewpoints can be safely ignored because they are dead wrong. For an example, at present the article on the Wehrmacht says that the International Military Tribunal ruled at Nuremberg that the Wehrmacht was not a criminal organization, which in fact what the I.M.T ruled was that the Wehrmacht lacked sufficient homogeneity to be classified as a single organization, which is something rather different. The fact that I.M.T refused to rule on whatever or not the Wehrmacht was a criminal organization because of very technical, legal grounds has been widely abused to make the utterly false claim that Hitler's military was a "untarnished shield" that fought a "clean war", an appalling whitewash that one sees way too much of on Misplaced Pages. The historians who say that I.M.T. ruled that the Wehrmacht was not a criminal organization are idiots who don't know what they are talking about or are just lying. I wish that there was a sufficient historical consensus in support of Karsh to score a similar knock-out blow, but there is not. So the best thing to do is summarize the viewpoints of different historians. The reader can then decide for himself/herself which of the dueling historians is the more closer to the truth. In a different context, John Milton once wrote: "Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?" Wishing you the best, thank you again for all your good work and please have a wonderful day! --A.S. Brown (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

ARBPIA

You have continued to make a number of personal attacks on other editors, and continue to misuse the term vandalism against other editors. That is not acceptable behavior for somebody editing in a topic under discretionary sanctions, and if you continue I will ask administrators to sanction you for doing so. nableezy - 20:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It is amazing That you defend the offender, pluto2012, by trying to frighten me. He has proven in a couple of deletions, that the title vandal fits him as described: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages. However, I felt pity for him, since with his record he might have been banned from Misplaced Pages. Ykantor (talk) 07:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep it up and I will report it. You are saying that another user is intentionally compromising the integrity of articles, a user who has added more to this encyclopedia on the 48 war than nearly every other editor around. Youve been notified of the case, and if you continue to violate the requirements that it set for editors in this topic area I will report it. nableezy - 14:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, You may report it immediately. Bear in mind that it will possibly expose this editor to an investigation concerning his action which fits: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages. don't you see the irony i.e. you may expose your friend to possible investigation, while I feel pity for him because of his poor record. Ykantor (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No, Ill wait for you to do it again. nableezy - 16:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Synthax

I don't like you and you don't like me but at least you source your work, which is a very good point.

Please, take note of this mistake (unvolunteer) from your side.

When you write :

<ref></ref>

the brackets are useless and the synthax is not the usual one. The right synthax is :

<ref>William Roger Louis, ''The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951: Arab Nationalism, the United States, and Postwar Imperialism'', 1985, p. 407.</ref>

The brackets are used to link to a website. For exemple, you could have :

<ref>William Roger Louis, '''', 1985, p. 407.</ref>

Which would appear in wikipedia as follows :

William Roger Louis, The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951: Arab Nationalism, the United States, and Postwar Imperialism, 1985, p. 407.

Your source is excellent. You should add what proves so : Oxford University Press. So the final is :

<ref>William Roger Louis, '''', Oxford University Press, 1985, p. 407.</ref>

that would appear as follows :

William Roger Louis, The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951: Arab Nationalism, the United States, and Postwar Imperialism, Oxford University Press, 1985, p. 407.

Hope this helps.

Pluto2012 (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Whereas the fact that I explained you the synthax of sourcing, you didn't follow my advices : eg here but that is true for your last edits of the day.

It is obvious provociation from your side but it is also a real vandalism

Please take time to correct this.

I inform you that you deleted wp:rs information on other edits that I will revert right now.

Best Regard, Pluto2012 (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that you are interested in the British role during 1948 Palestine War

http://www.aish.com/jw/me/Robert-Kennedys-1948-Reports-from-the-Holy-Land.html --Michael Zeev (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

thank you. It is very interesting. Ykantor (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

smileguy91 02:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Abuse of editing privilege

Adding the same extended text to 7 different articles is really quite outrageous. Zero 14:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry. I didn't know that it is forbidden. Would you mind to instruct me what is the correct way to re-write it? thanks. Ykantor (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have found this rule: If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary. Anyway, I will add links, although it is not necessary. Note that the inline text is 19 words long only, and the rest are quotations in the foot notes. Is there more problems with this text duplication? Ykantor (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Pluto

I take back what I said about Pluto being a reasonable editor you can find compromises with. He's completely out of control. I just saw that he removed sourced material over a technicality (the format of the ref) and in another article he claimed consensus without even checking the talk page while saying where a person was born and where they died "is not relevant for the lead" of their biography. I wish I could tell you what to do with this, but I get the impression the admins are not interested in dealing with the situation in the topic area right now, so I guess you're screwed. Sorry. These are bad times for wikipedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)