User:PalestineRemembered/Mentorship2

What's going on here?

I think I've made a perfectly proper, sensible contribution to this TalkPage (I've copied the sequence of three posts below) in response to another editor who is also making a perfectly proper contribution. I feel the response I get from a third-party is stalking, idiocy inserted in order to make collegiate discussion impossible. Should I complain, does it need administrative intervention? What about this other idiocy inserted into this particular page - nobody has answered it because nobody can - could it simply be deleted? PR^talk 17:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Now, will you do me the courtesy of addressing my points, such as explaining why examples of media mistakes or distortions which favour Israel are totally AWOL from this article? I gave several specific examples, each of which has been covered in reliable sources (including Israeli newspapers, heavily) and you've ignored them. <eleland/talkedits> 02:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need to waste still more of our time in Talk - there are at least 3 (probably 4) editors think this cartoon has no relevance to "Media coverage of the I-P conflct". Anti-semitic cartoons are unheard of in the Western media, and there are no elements in this particular cartoon to suggest it might be anti-semitic - so what's it doing here? PR^talk 02:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered, i'm not really following your comment - are you saying that the cartoon does not belong because it is not anti-semitic and because (you believe) others feel the same? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Look, don't call other editors idiots or, by proxy, call what they write idiocy. While I don't expect you to make some amazing communications breakthru with User:Jaakobou, and I'm sure he's happy to be deliberately obtuse to confound the discussion, just try to deal with him politely as best you are able, no matter how much it tests your patience. Good luck. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes on French Muslims

I've inserted quotes from Daniel Pipes (a dedicated supporter of Israel), into his article. His views on Muslims in France appear to be fairly represented eg by "engage disproportionately in criminal activity, and mostly of a violent nature". I think I've made this edit in a 100% NPOV fashion. The only real potential problem is that I'm quoting from a 1995 article - I cannot be sure if he's changed his views since (though I'd suppose it was highly unlikely). What do you think - is this a worthwhile addition that would tend to enhances the standing and reputation of the encyclopedia (while not unfairly treating the subject)? After all these savage indictments of anti-semitism laid at my door, do I now run the risk of accusations of Islamophobia instead? PR^talk 16:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple issues to consider here. First, you are using a primary source (the author himself) rather than a secondary source commenting upon what the author has written. That introduces a selective bias problem, and could be seen as running afoul of WP:SOAP; we're not supposed to be a soapbox for anything an author has written whether we agree with it or not. Because there's no secondary commentary to rely on, it's difficult to give what he has written proper context. If he is simply stating a fact, singling this out as if it were an indicator of racism, no matter how subtly, isn't really playing fair. I could suggest that a Bostonian is much more likely to be shot walking down the street of a predominantly African-American neighborhood, than in a predominantly Italian or Irish neighborhood. Maybe I'm not sure of that, but since I read the Boston Herald almost every day, I'd be shocked if a scientific study said otherwise. It wouldn't be nice for someone to take that (presumably factual) statement and try to suggest that I'm racist and don't like Black people. On the whole, I don't think your edit is terrible, and I know editors willfully ignore WP:SOAP around here right and left, but I'd be happier if you could provide a secondary source. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to run this past you, since I can see some of the same potential issues as you've identified. I'm going to the primary sources - as what were originally intended to be the most reliable in WP, but have since proved to be problematical. However, I'm not inserting "fact/OR" about the state of the world, since the article concerns Pipes and his views. I'm only providing links to his views. I might be over-egging the pudding based on taking things out of context, except I don't I think I am. The article I'm refering to is 12 years out of date and might be thought to make him look like a racist. But nobody proven guilty of antisemitism (even if based on just a single statement) 12 years ago can claim protection under statute of limitations - and I'm reasonably confident that Pipes believed what he said then and almost certainly belives the same thing now. I think you should let me go on this one and grant me a good edit. PR^talk 18:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is one of my pet peeves. During an early WP:CfD for Category:anti-Semitic people, many people complained about people very tangentally related to the topic being stuck in there, and I volunteered for the completely thankless task of patrolling that category to keep it free people whose bios had exactly the sort of problem you suggest. That turned out to be a herculean task, as there were a cohort of editors who wanted to label anyone -- even people dead for a millennium -- who had been critical in anyway of Judaism as an anti-Semite, culminating an attempt to include Jesus, every Pope, all Catholics, etc. and the edit war/move war/wheel war over anti-Judaism/Religious anti-Semitism which I've mentioned to you before; User:Slim Virgin and I still don't talk, or at least when we do it's not pretty. The category was ultimately deleted anyway, so it's impossible for me to keep up with this problem anymore. So, having been through all that, I simply can't call your edit, without a secondary source, "good", though I'm sure anyone else you had for a mentor probably wouldn't blink. Sorry. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll revert my edit if you don't like it, but I'm not sure your line of reasoning improves things. You seem to be saying that Pipes should only be tagged as "racist" (which I've not actually done, I've only quoted him) if we have secondary sources which accuse him of it. I'd have said that makes the problems of smears worse, not better?! (I think that's the problem you've bravely and well spoken out against, correct me if I'm wrong).

There is indeed an edge to my edit, but it's phrased as if Pipes has raised two important issues (non-integration and city-layout), and my treatment of him is as "a thinker". I might go back later and add something else, equally well cited, that did smear him as a bigot (eg proposing harsh solutions to debatable problems), in which case your defense of him and his article might be valuable and understandable. PR^talk 08:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

These sorts of things are always complex. It's Presidential primary season in nearby New Hampshire so I'm soon to get an earful of attack ads broadcast on local TV. And these will no doubt feast on taking a few words here or there some opposing candidate said taken out of context with sinister music humming along in the background. I'm not defending Mr. Pipes; I had never heard of him before. It's just a rhetorical technique, in general, I've never cared for. As to what extent it's permissible to do so in an encyclopedia, for even the noblest of motives, is left unclear by our current policies (which is why I never win these arguments). To answer your question, a secondary source, if it is reliable, is always better than having to defend your own picking and choosing of what material, out of a vast body of work, to present as representative of its author in his biography, which to me seems like it falls on the spectrum between WP:OR and WP:UNDUE no matter how you slice it. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think your attitude threatens to protect the well-funded and abusive. CAMERA or Dershowitz will say or do the most outrageous things (just as Weizmann and Jabotinsky and Ben-Gurion and Menachem Begin did before them). They'll also quote others and smear them in the most outrageous way. Those who challenge them on their own words (or on the smears they've spread) are usually the likes of Finkelstein or Fisk or Einstein or you and I who struggle to be accepted as "reliable sources". When it comes to quoting people there can indeed be problems, but they're relatively easy to fix by providing proper context. These are not the kind of "Primary Sources" that proved unreliable to WP in it's early days, they're good material straight from the horses mouth. Daniel Pipes believes (or did believe) and publish what I ascribed to him - I cannnot see a problem with putting it in, and big problems with taking it out. Show me an example of mis-use of the kind of thing I've done to Pipes. PR^talk 12:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Later - see the article again, the section is "Views and Positions" - and it's stuffed with the same kind of things I've put in it - I brought it to you concerned that a 1995 clip might be out of date. PR^talk 15:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever is clever. This isn't keeping me up at night. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

NGO Monitor

Can you see any reason to revert me here? As best I can tell, what I've entered is relevant/important to the article and well sourced. I don't want to plunge into some pitched battle to improve articles, but I'm pretty sure I can more than justify what I've done - surely there's no reason for the summary "stop misrepresenting and lending undue weight to one critic" that's on the revert. In the meantime, the apparently unmemorable (according to the entry in Talk) Israeli Hasbara Committee has been reintroduced without any discussion.

What I've added (and has then been removed) are these two statements, both cited to one 2005 article of the "Jewish Daily Forward": "NGO Monitor operates out of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs/Institute for Contemporary Affairs. Its editor is Gerald Steinberg, a professor at Bar-Ilan University in Israel." and "A 2005 article in "The Jewish Daily Forward" takes issue with NGO Monitor saying that Human Rights Watch (HRW) places “extreme emphasis on critical assessments of Israel” and is more critical of HRW than on any other of the 75 NGOs it concerns itself with. Leonard Fein claims that HRW devote more attention to five other nations in the region — Iraq, Sudan, Egypt, Turkey and Iran — than they did to Israel but that, despite extensive correspondence, editor Steinberg has failed to correct the misleading claim about HRW on the NGO Watch web-site. The article claims other Israeli related distortions by NGO Monitor, outside its remit." I cannot see anything wrong - careful information and criticism of these bodies is exactly what articles on them need. PR^talk 17:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This seems like perfectly legitimate criticism published by a third party. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Very misleading cartoon in article

There's something very odd going in the article at Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One editor seems to be edit-warring against 4 others in order to mis-caption a cartoon that (according to at least two editors now) has no place in the article anyway. And I'm alarmed by the edit summary here, which looks rather like a wilfully false personal attack on me for supposedly deleting the cartoon, something I've never done. I don't know whether I should allow myself to be driven off by this behavior, or complain about it or what. PR^talk 12:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

He seems to have been confused by your edit summary here [1]. It's no big deal. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Menachem Begin vandalism revert

There's an extraordinary edit here, whereby a perfectly sensible, well-known fact about the subject has been mysteriously garbled. I've been watching it for 3 months, but I was nervous of reverting it for fear of a massive edit-war which would delete the material (which is, so far, only half-concealed and still has it's reference). Now that this other editor has been topic-banned, do you think it's a good idea I fix it? Better still, can you see some way to expand the information to better document what Menachem Begin was really doing in Palestine, even to his co-religionists? PR^talk 11:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This looks like mostly the removal of weasel words, and perhaps editorializing like Isarig says. Is there a source to support that the "reception committee disintegrated" or that information "leaked out" (which is different in connotation that just being publicized)? Or that the group of intellectuals et al. made their decision "belatedly"? -- Kendrick7^talk 16:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Read it again - the story has been quite carefully turned on its head, with the 12 senators and 70 congressmen signing the letter instead of receiving it. I'm fairly happy with the paraphrase I used but I'll ponder it a bit longer before going back: "In November/December 1948, Begin visited the US expecting a hero's welcome. However, news of his wartime activities leaked out and the reception committee disintegrated. At least 11 senators, 12 governors, 70 or so Congressmen, 17 judges, plus teachers and mayors belatedly decided that they didn't wish to be associated with him. Albert Einstein was amongst many prominent Americans (including rabbis) who considered Menachem Begin's new party very similar in significant ways to Nazi and Fascist parties" PR^talk 19:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, hmmm. Good point. Just try to have clear sources for all that; this is my main concern. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I re-read what you quoted below from the Olive Branch text; that does support your gloss IMHO. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The worst problem is doing a pile of stuff you know will be reverted for no reason, rendering careful work pointless and mistakes inevitable. I don't seem to make many (and have no problem with apologising when I do). But I'm very glad you could look over what I've done, I'll put the stuff in and see what happens. PR^talk 20:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, you should have left a more verbose edit summary instead of leaving it blank. Also, while the letter is a primary source, you should still be sourcing that to a secondary source which discusses the letter in relation to ZPV. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't really matter, since this paragraph was, once again, re-garbled. So I tried fix it more correctly this time.[2] Take note of the linking, the cross-wiki linking, the downing down of POV, referencing to the econdary source instead of the primary source, and the explanative without being combative edit summary (wherein I completely failed to make an mention of idiocy, you should note). Please study that edit as a lesson as to a few of the areas in which you can improve. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Draft dodger is Refusal to Serve?

Please have a close look at Israeli 'draft dodgers' protest occupation. I've introduced (and others support using) a paraphrase of "Army statistics show the number of young people who do not enlist for military service has crept up in recent years to more than one in four men in 2007 and more than 43 per cent of women in the article. The RS article treats all those who don't enlist as "draft dodgers" who are refusing to serve. Despite the fact we know (and the article says) it's rather more complex than that, I feel we can and should treat the statistic the same way as the article does (obviously, providing we have the same caveats in our article as appear in the RS). Can you see any problem with doing it that way as here? PR^talk 01:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The RS certainly links that fact to the subject of the article. I don't believe this argument holds water. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to edit-war (in fact, I refuse ever to do so), so I've only contributed to the Talk at the article. As my mentor, I'd be interested in your comments as to the content, readability and tone of what I've said. PR^talk 10:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Other that you indented one too many levels, you make a fine argument. (Strictly speaking, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is about WP:AFD not content, but that's a nitpick.) -- Kendrick7^talk 16:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote Albert Einstein

Zionist political violence is a very, very problematical article, into which it's very difficult to introduce even the most blatant evidence of wrongdoing. (It's where I was to be perma-blocked for introducing rather well known information that I could have supposedly only have picked up from the Holocaust Deniers). Albert Einstein was one of 27 prominent New Yorkers accusing Menachem Begin's party in 1948 of being "closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties". I was knocked back and told not to put it in earlier on the basis that it's only "Einstein's opinion" - something I find very difficult to accept.

But meanwhile, someone else is independently trying to put in the same well known information - should I come to his assistance in trying to improve this article?

There is more funny business happening in this article that needs sorting, claims that the Yishuv genuninally condemned bombings, when (some 50 years later?) we discover they were carrying them out themselves all along. I'm afraid it's a very uphill task to straighten these things out, I can only proceed one tiny step at a time. PR^talk 22:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. The Einstein seems a little like trivia. That footnote like edit is a little strange too. I'll keep an eye on the article though; I think I can add a few sources. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's very difficult to know how much detail to provide - but this story is historically important and well known. Einstein's Dec 1948 letter is just the most famous and specific part of a campaign that dynamited Menachem Begin's visit to the US, and may have kept him from power for 30 years.

The only small question is whether to use the well-known Einstein letter, or attempt to parse in the more complex full story concerning the "public warning" which is supposed to have scuppered the reception committee, the expected first triumph of the US tour. I'd suggest (and the other editor is trying to use) the Einstein letter because the accessibility, historical prominence and detail is so much better. The whole affair definitely belongs in the article Zionist political violence (mysteriously restricted to events before 1948?!) in some form.

This is what Lilienthal, Alfred M., The Zionist Connection, What Price Peace?, Dodd, Mead and Company, New York, 1978, pp.350-3 says of the events. (They're cited by David Hirst in "The Gun and the Olive Branch" 1977, 2003 edition. p472-3).

"His American supporters in the League for a Free Palestine spared no effort to promote the fortunes of `the man who defied empire and gained glory for Israel'. They assembled a Reception Committee which included eleven Senators, twelve Governors, seventy-odd Congressmen, seventeen justices and judges along with educationists, public officials and mayors by the score. It required only a public warning by three prominent clergymen, one of them a rabbi, however, and the Reception Committee disintegrated. All the duped politicians - among them Congressman John F Kennedy of Massachusetts - suddenly discovered that either they had been ignorant of the true nature of Begin's activities or they had no idea how they had got on the list. Albert Einstein joined other distinguished citizens in chiding these `Americans of national repute' for honouring a man whose party was `closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties'".

More of the letter that Lilienthal refers to, signed by Einstein and 27 other prominent Americans: "During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.". The newspaper titled it "New Palestine Party; Visit of Menachen Begin and Aims of Political Movement Discussed", Letters to The Times, The New York Times, December 4, 1948, Saturday, p. 12. The full text (and a commentary) can be seen at here and an image of letter is here and here.

Despite being told "This is only Einstein's opinion", I feel that his letter is the most important single historical document attached to this visit/incident, and is the one we should have in the record - anything else would bloat the article for no particularily good reason. PR^talk 09:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

PS - I've also added this reference to Lehi (group), but only as evidence that the name "Stern gang" was still in general use by late 1948. PR^talk 15:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you have enough sources to support an article on the letter itself? Then you could just leave this as a see-also. I'm sure it would be relevant within a longer article on ZPV, e.g. if the article discussed the general U.S. response to Zionist terrorism, then U.S. intellectuals' response would be more relevant. But as is, it just seems out of left field. Is there a title under which the letter is generally known? If so, I can put it up on Wikisource. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikisource, ha! Perfect, save arguments from people who don't like JFJFP. The letter title is: "New Palestine Party; Visit of Menachen Begin and Aims of Political Movement Discussed", Letters to The Times, The New York Times, December 4, 1948, Saturday, p. 12. Text here, image here. I'm assured it's copyright free (59 years old), though I'm not well up on details. Anything else you need? PR^talk 19:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure who JFJFP is exactly, but they don't seem to have paid their bill this month, or for whatever reason I can't access the site. But, I found an online version of the letter anyway. I've put it up at s:New Palestine Party; Visit of Menachen Begin and Aims of Political Movement Discussed. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

How about the image, can we put that up? I've been assured it's copyright free too. PR^talk 20:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't know if it would be copyright free or not, but follow your bliss. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Shaw report

I'm trying to improve the wording of this article and I'm adding a reference. Yet my edit keeps getting reverted - what do you think? Am I doing something useful on either or both counts? PR^talk 22:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've put this page on my watchlist. I don't have ready access to the source. You might want to copy the relevant passage from Morris which are you glossing to Talk:Shaw Report and attempt to defend your gloss there. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The reference I'd like to use contains the following clips/information. It doesn't come from a Palestinian but from a top Israeli historian: Morris Benny, "Righteous Victims, a history of the Zionist-Arab Conflict 1881-2001", First Vintage edition 2001, p.112.

Do you need me to e-mail you a photograph of the page/s of this book, or myself with a copy of the book?

• ... The contention that the Jews were bent on taking over ... had long been a theme in Arab propaganda. For example, the Palestinian delegation to Mecca during the hajj, or pilgrimage, of 1922 had declared: "the Holy Places are in great danger on account of the horrible Zionist aggressions"
• On September 23-24, 1928 ... the SMC complained that Jews had set up a screen to separate men and women at the Wailing Wall (or Western Wall) in Jerusalem's Old City.
• The screen violated the status quo principle ... Failing to persuade the Jews to take it down, the police forcibly removed it.
• In 1928 the Muslims sought British confirmation of their traditional rights at the Wall, after all, they owned the Wall and the adjacent passage where the Jews worshipped.226 ... Right-wing Zionists began to demand Jewish control of the Wall
• On August 14, 1929, some 6,000 Jews marched in Tel Aviv, chanting, "The Wall is ours"; that evening, three thousand gathered at the Wall for prayer. The following day, hundreds of Jews-some of them extremist members of Betar, carrying batons-demonstrated on the site.
• If the aim of the rioters' leaders had been to shake Britain's commitment to the Balfour Declaration, they succeeded, at least in the short term. Sir John Chancellor on September I ... The Balfour Declaration, he wrote, had been "a colossal blunder."253
• Shaw Commission ... recommended that "excessive" Jewish immigration be halted; that eviction of Arab peasants be stopped; and that the government look into the issues of land sales to Jews immigration, and the Western Wall. The panel said the evictions were giving rise to "a landless and discontented class" of evictees.257
• Whitehall sent Sir John Hope-Simpson, a retired colonial official, to look into immigration, Jewish settlement, and land sales. "... The helplessness of the fellah appeals to the British official. The offensive assertion of the Jewish immigrant is, on the other hand, repellent:"260
• On October 21, 1930, the British government issued the Passfield White Paper, seriously reducing its commitment to the Balfour Declaration.
• But the riots ultimately failed to hurt the Zionist enterprise. "We had built too solidly and too well," wrote Weizmann.263 Britain's partial volte-face was to prove extremely short-lived. By early 1931 well-applied Zionist pressure in the press and lobbying by Weizmann in London bore fruit. PR^talk 23:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Those quotes seem fine; I'm sure you have the reference. It's only a matter of how to properlly summarize those points into the article. You're argument is with Armon, not me. :shrug: -- Kendrick7^talk 02:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You're probably like me, I don't understand why it should be necessary to own a particular book in order to edit the encyclopedia, let alone provide a photograph.

But I was expected to prove that I had a particular book I'd referenced for Israel re-burying as war-heroes the 1944 killers of Lord Moyne in Cairo. (Turns out the same information is everywhere, including the hard-line JDL, see "Israel Today & Always: Remembering Israel's Martyrs From its Third Rebirth into Statehood" - and has been condemned at least twice in Parliament, see here).

Another editor clinched the exceptionally nasty business at this article with yet another solid reference (J Bowyer Bell) - but see the carping and quibbling which continued here. If you think I'm soap-boxing, do tell me - but I don't believe bitter POV editing on this huge scale has any place in editing articles at Wikipedia. I certainly don't do it, I don't think I'd last a minute if I did. It makes an utter mockery of accept good faith. PR^talk 10:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Lynching in Ramallah

Hi - Kendrick - will you have a look at this and tell me whether I'm inserting information that belongs in the article? There are some (many?) other RS sources for the claim I'm making (Palestinians enraged by shooting of the 12 year-old led to the lynching of the two Israeli soldiers). I've produced one of these other claims from the BBC in the TalkPage of the same article, no response there, only reverts claiming UNDUE. PR^talk 21:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the editor is mistaken in claiming this would be the only source which makes this connection (also, I don't think it's clear the source is an op-ed). You might as well try to find an addition source or two to support this; I don't think it would be too hard. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ace - I'll obviously have to tread carefully and not just try to edit-war it back in, but it's very useful to have a second opinion on whether my encyclopedic-understanding-like is going to improve an article or not. PR^talk 21:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)