Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:35, 18 August 2006

WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE. --Ian Pitchford 10:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ian

IFY: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Zeq Zeq 11:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Page move of Ben Yehuda Street Bombing

I have moved the page back to its old position. You didn't wait long enough for replies and you also made some mistakes during the move, including losing the page history and the talk page. Please see Talk:Ben Yehuda Street Bombing.

I would also like to take this opportunity to talk to you about something. I understand you have strong feelings regarding Arab-Israeli matters. However, you may have misunderstood the way Misplaced Pages uses and cites sources.

• If you want to cite a fact (e.g. something that has happened) then you cannot uses sources regarded as extremist. Further, you should use caution if you have partisan sources, i.e. websites and publications of political parties and religious groups. Caution should also be used when using company or organization websites as sources. You shouldn't use such sources when more reliable sources on the subject are available, or already cited, in the article.
• If you want to cite an opinion, then you may cite such sources. But you shouldn't cite opinions to try to establish facts. An opinion is by nature unverifiable. Opinions are better used when Misplaced Pages is discussing a public debate or disagreement, as opposed to when Misplaced Pages refers to something that has happened or didn't happened.
• Discussion boards, wikis, blogs, or personal websites are rarely acceptable as sources. Also note that editorials are opinions and not facts.
• Lastly, it's not up to editors to determine what something should be named/labeled. As editors we cite sources, therefore we use the names and labels most commonly used by the sources discussing the subject, regardless of whether those labels are accurate or not.

I hope this is informative. I do believe you can be a valuable contributor, but your determination to present what you believe is the truth may be perceived as disruptive to the Misplaced Pages process. -- Steve Hart 19:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and help. I wouldn't say I have much strong feeling about it but rather knowledge and interest. I can't help but try to fix many of the mistakes here in wikipedia. Many of the articles unfortunately are simply propaganda by Arab supporters and they don't reflect the facts. Many of them aren't WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE . What I try to do is bring serious sources which will show the things the way they actually are (as long as they're verfiable of course):

• I understand that for some people, any person who is not an Arab or is called Benny Morris or Ilan Pappe (i.e New historians or Jews speaking against Israel) are in fact extremists. But it's not the case. The leftists on the boards are very eager and enthusiastic about themselves and seem to have a lot of time. That's fine, but they should learn to accept other researches.

• I do not use any discussion boards, blogs etc, but only books, articles, news-sites and so on. Except for external links when it's relevant some personal sites may be used.

• Thank you for handling the bombing page. I waited quite a lot of time and didn't see any objections, not that there's any reason there should be an objection according to NPOV policy in wikipedia. I wasn't sure how to redirect the page though - the discussion didn't have anything in it, but the history is indeed important of course.

• The opinions I tried to put (very few) are only on the debates like you said.

• This is not about opinions but about legtimiate historians and their researches. It doesn't always fall into line with the perspectives and belief that editors already established in their minds about their events, but it doesn't mean they don't have a place.

• The label of the bombing just seems POV. Misplaced Pages should stop use the word "massacre" or name it on all massacres IMO. I saw articles being merged/deleted/moved before for name changes like this.

• Thank you again for your comments and help.

Amoruso 20:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving a note on my talk. I was afraid we'd fallen out given the latest debate on the other article. Regarding the page name for the Ben Yehuda Street incident, I'm personally (as in my opinion) leaning towards agreeing with you. The problem is that my opinion (and yours) is largely irrelevant because it is not the opinion of editors, nor NPOV, which determines the proper name for an article. Misplaced Pages's naming guideline states that articles get the name most commonly used in the outside world. So, sources have to be presented proving which name is most commonly used, followed by discussion and some sort of consensus.

The NPOV policy states that viewpoints should be fairly presented in proportion to the prominence of each. But it's not a blanket statement to include information from various sources just to achieve NPOV, the information still has to be significant and has to come from verifiable and reliable sources.

As for your troubles, in my opinion you sometimes make great leaps in logic in your conclusions. One example is the text, or rather sentences, from some old editorials in Arab papers which you believe expresses the view of most Arabs (back then). If you believe this you need to establish prominence by collecting all the editorials from that period to show that most of them expressed this view - and even then it will still be the opinion of newspapers, not the people or Arab leaders. I'm sure that if we stop enough people on the streets of Haifa eventually one person will express support for the Arab view, but you won't (hopefully) see Misplaced Pages try to use that person's statement to say that this is the view of all Israelis. Nor should wikipedia try to present the view of Israeli peace organizations and their publications as the most important or "right" one.

A different example is the full context of a questionable quote presented to you by another editor. Strangely, you responded by pointing to a 1969 quote as evidence that the person changed his mind. But just as the quote comes from 1948 so does the full text, and both the 1948 full text and the 1969 statement expresses a similar opinion. Now, you can claim the full text is incorrect, but then you should see if you can find the real text in a library.

Frankly, I'm not sure you will be allowed to edit for much longer if you are to go on like this. I witness repeated attempts of inserting information over the objections of other editors and dismissing these objections as "totally irrelevant", "lies", "violations", "distortions" and "personal attacks", in direct opposition to how wikipedia works. Misplaced Pages is not a discussion board which I'm certain that you know. But the unfortunate truth is that sometimes consensus cannot be reached and all we have to do is move on. Still, I'm wishing you all the best and I hope you are able to stay. -- Steve Hart 18:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the editorials back in 1948, you forget one important thing. There is no editorial claiming otherwise. If it was a matter of opinion, then you will be correct, but it's not. The amazing thing is that everyone, I repeat everyone, reported the events that way. Nobody blaimed Israel for the exodus, which is why it is so much important. As for Ghoury's comments, I was trying to show that sometimes people change their mind - same allegation was brought there in respect to Atiyah who later said he didn't mean what he said. The same thing is about Ghoury, because he later denyed the allegations and said - "look, I actually said other things later on..." but the "slip-up" is so important here, and proves the whole point. This is in respect to leaps of logic which aren't leaps of logic at all. Furthermore, it is irrelevant what leap of logic I make, but it's relevant the scholary researches of historians who put emphasis on it, and justly so.

I agree with your comments about NPOV, which is the reason I try to search only verfiable quotes, and furthermore - those that will add something to the discussion. I especially like Katz's comments on these issues, and he's a very much reliable source.

about "Misplaced Pages's naming guideline states that articles get the name most commonly used in the outside world" --> indeed it's unfortunate... it seems "bombing" is more popular than massacre, but will probably apply to all events of death to Jews. I think an encylopedia should try and take an NPOV stance here. It certainly won't look good if every death of an arab is murder ot a massacre and every death of a Jew is a killing or a riot/bombing/violent event of sort. I do have to say that Israeli Media too often refer to the death of arabs as massacres and death of Jews as "piguim" which means... "attacks". Strange, yet disturbing.

If I'm not allowed to edit anymore (possibly I'll give up myself out of sheer bordeom and disgust etc seeing the violent nature and the extreme bias of some of the editors) then it will only prove what I see here as extreme bias of users like Zero00000. Mind you, he was been warned repeatdly by various user like Israigand Zeq for his POV deletions and his attitude, which doesn't comply with wikipedia policy of Misplaced Pages: No personal attacks and so on. And yet, I understand he's a moderator ? Which is stange by itself. Amoruso 19:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"There is no editorial claiming otherwise. ... The amazing thing is that everyone, I repeat everyone, reported the events that way"

You don't know that unless you yourself have looked at all the editorials, or you can refer to a source who has looked at them all (and explicitly says so).

"in respect to Atiyah who later said he didn't mean what he said"

From what I see, Atiyah explains that he didn't say what Jewish sources claim he said (and his opinion appears to be supported by the full text, as opposed to the use of just the single sentence), which is something different than "didn't mean" what he said, which is your view.

"about Ghoury, because he later denyed the allegations and said - "look, I actually said other things later on...""

I'm not aware that Ghoury has been quoted saying this or anything similar anywhere in the discussion so far, sorry (and I can't find it on searching). You referred to some refugee figures, but that's a completely different discussion.

"I think an encylopedia should try and take an NPOV stance here. "

This is the crux of the matter. I think you believe Misplaced Pages should be better than the rest of the world by telling the truth! But you are wrong. Misplaced Pages will continue to tell lies as long as the rest of the world tell lies. Wikpedia is like a mirror. There's an interesting esay about this here: WP:ROUGE (bottom)

FWIW, I'm not familiar with Zero's (or Zec's) history at wikipedia so I won't comment on that.

-- Steve Hart 20:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Some notes

Hi Amoruso, in regards to your edits on Palestinian refugee and Palestinian exodus, I want to ask you for a favor. While I don't agree that Katz is as neutral a source as you claim, I'm usually not one to advocate censorship on Misplaced Pages. However, you could do us a huge favor by trying to make your point (i.e. showing your sourced POV that you want to convey) without endless quotes from one rather biased source. The problem I have is that you are bombarding these articles with an endless tirade of anti-Palestinian quotes that, intentionally or not, turn the article into a hate blog. Again, while I admit I don't agree with your analysis as I think its a distortion of history and a sort of dehumanization, I am NOT asking you to remove it. What I am asking is that you make your point concisely, neutrally, (i.e. provide the point of view in a neutral way, if that makes sense), and in an encyclopedic manner. Endless quotes and tirades like that are not encyclopedic material. There are much better, proper, and neutral ways to make your point. Thanks Ramallite 15:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

p.s. I noticed a new article Western Wall Tunnel in which you used a Haaretz article by Akiva Eldar as proof that Arafat 'incited' riots. That article says nothing of the sort, and barely mentions the tunnel incident just in passing as 'evidence' that Arafat was trying to get out of a dead end. It would be helpful to make that small section both accurate and NPOV. Thanks. Ramallite 15:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ramallite, thank you for your comments. My edits on all articles are made from an NPOV and are accurate. I'm not bombarding any articles with anti palestinian quotes, but only referring to Katz's analysis in specific places where it is warranted. All my quotes are proved in an encyclopedic material. There are also not many quotes, like you say "endless" but rather few, concise and to the point. There is nothing "hateful" among them, and they're all being explained properly and in the NPOV manner.

As dfor the Western Tunnel article, Arafat never denied the incitations. He took pride in them and these are very well known facts. Amoruso 15:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"He took pride in them and these are very well known facts" is not an adequate answer. The problem is that your source (the Eldar article) does not support the sentence you added, so either change the sentence to match the source, or get a new source to support your sentence. Most sources (like New York Times, etc) say that while he praised the rioters for 'defending Jerusalem', there is no evidence that Arafat meant, or planned, for the situation to escalate as it did. As for the anti-Palestinian quotes, I still contend that they are extremely un-uncyclopedic. Like I said, there are much better ways to make your point (using Katz as a source) without a tirade of quotations, most of which are either not relevant, taken out of context, or have been discredited (see Zero's comments on the article talk page). You can still use Katz, but if you go to Encyclopedia Britannica or any proper encyclopedia, you will not see a point being made using a tirade of anti-(topic) quotes of questionable authenticity or context. I believe you are well aware of this, and I hope you will take my advice with good faith even though you have already declared that you do not assume good faith. Ramallite 15:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

As for good faith, I'm well aware that we should assume good faith. I do assume good faith about you, but I've had proof of bad faith already by certain users, and therefore the assumption stage is no longer relevant. For you, it's still assumed. You can edit that section in the western wall tunnel if you want, but I will add the actual speeches Arafat made which I think do speak for themselves. None of the quotes have been discredited. Zero's comments are totally irrelevant and don't hold any water. Some of the people that said what they said later reverted their opinions, and that only goes to prove the whole point... the theory was changed yet if you go back to the war, all comments support the endorsement theory while no-one made any argument to the contrary. This is indeed the whole point. Katz has written quotations to illusrate his point, to prove his theory. It has nothing to do with Britannica which is not a history book. We're writing comments about events, and are quoting from history books of different scholars, and therefore it's all very relevant. Amoruso 16:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Warning

This is a formal warning. You are going to be blocked if you continue your bad faith edits. --Zero 16:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC) (administrator)

here's an example of bad faith from zero. He wants to ban me because I'm bringing quotes from scholars that he doesn't agree politically with. He's trying to abuse his power which is disgusting. Amoruso 16:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't have a clue about 3RR either. --Zero 13:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Popups

Zeq is the only person I know who refers to Navigation popups as an "anti vandalism tool." --Ian Pitchford 20:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a known fact actually. Please refrain from getting into war edits. If you want to include the dubious quote do so in the discussion page. Until it's setteled, the comment won't be included. Amoruso 20:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see one academic source for "Mecca's Al Qibla, 23 March 1918", If you can't provide a source other than an obscure volume by an Irgun propagandist the quotation will have to be deleted. --Ian Pitchford 22:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Your threats are out of line. However, check out http://historycooperative.press.uiuc.edu/journals/ahr/108.2/communications.html Isarig 22:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)