User talk:CasualObserver'48

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Moved from Talk:List of massacres during the Second Intifada[edit]

Hi,

I decided my reply should be here, not in the article talk page, since it's too off-topic.

Your post:

Okedem, first I’d like to know where you think I am ‘at least partially’ correct. It would help me understand where you stand. I appreciate your point; there are those who will never accept Israel. Similarly, there are those who will never accept a Palestinian State. That is the problem for both the PLA and Israel; personally it is also a problem sitting very squarely in America’s lap. All these groups use the 1922 (post-Jordan) Mandate map, but I believe this is is exactly the point. You have your country and they do not. Concerning maps, I will also note the Israel has never declared her borders and has continued to expand (save Sinai). So, this point tends to be somewhat mute, especially considering continued settlements and the Barrier Wall.

I did look at your suggested reference ‘Israeli-Palestinian conflict (under history)’, but note sadly that nothing (apparently) happened in the I/P conflict between ’48 and ’49, between ’67 and ’93 or between ’00 and ’02, which is certainly not the case. (Yes, I also know the ‘main’ article exists.) Concerning Hamas, I will never support their beliefs statement as is, but I will make my own reference to History_of_Hamas#Before_1987_.E2.80.94_Palestinian_Islamic_activities_prior_to_the_creation_of_Hamas and, similarly, History_of_Hezbollah#What_originated_in_Hezbollah. My point is that Israel can do a lot better that it has. It is time to work toward peace, not an endless continuation of ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend”. There is plenty of blame to go around.

On your later post concerning the right of return I agree this could be a real problem; Israel must remain a democratic state or it is lost. I suggest that time is running out and note that this is purely an internal Israeli political problem. Thankfully, however, the right of return includes ‘or reparations’, with which Israel is quite familiar.CasualObserver'48 05:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

  1. You are partially correct in the fact that the Intifada is very closely connected to the occupation, but it (the occupation) is not the only cause, as evident by their own statements and actions - they (some/most) view the whole of Israel as occupied by "the Zionist entity". So I find it simplistic to say that if there was no occupation (of the West Bank and Gaza Strip), there would be no intifada. Playing "what if" is a rather mute exercise, but there's more to it than just the current occupation.
  2. "You have your country and they do not." - Yes, however, they could have had their country, and would have been larger than anything they'll get now - they vehemently opposed both partition plans - the first, in 1937, suggested a very large majority of Palestine be formed into an Arab state - they refused. The second, still suggested a large Arab state, though smaller than the 1937 plan - they still refused, because they wanted more, or generally opposed the very idea of partitioning the land in any way to give Jews a state.
  3. "Israel has never declared her borders" - a common misconception - though Israel hasn't declared its borders in a single, formal document, most borders have been set in an acceptable legal way (like many other countries) - the border with Egypt is set by the peace treaty, and so is the border with Jordan. Israel has recognized its border with Lebanon as the "Blue Line", demarcated by the UN experts, after the 2000 withdrawal from Lebanon, and was very precise about that (to the point of tearing down an outpost, because one of its walls was about a meter beyond the UN determined line. The border with Syria indeed remains unclear, to be determined in future negotiations, like the border with a future Palestinian state. So, basically, most of Israel's border are set and declared, though not all.
  4. "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" - I only reffed that for the emblems...
  5. "Israel can do a lot better that it has" - most certainly. The problem is, the Palestinians don't know when to stop the violence, for their own good. Case in point - the 2005 withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. Israel took an extremely difficult step, and removed some 7,000-8,000 settlers from their homes, despite a serious internal struggle. It completely left the Strip, leaving no settlers, or army presence behind (though still controlling the sea and air). What did it get for this, a possible pilot for a major withdrawal, obviously necessary for a Palestinian State? It got violence. The Palestinians somehow claimed the withdrawal was an evil move (since it was done unilaterally - but what does it matter? They got the land, and weren't even asked to give anything for it in negotiations). The rate of Qassam launches only increased, more and more terrorists tried to cross the fence to perform suicide bombings, etc. The they kidnapped a soldier (Shalit) stationed in Sovereign Israeli territory. Instead of using this opportunity to show Israel they can be trusted, that we can live alongside each-other in peace, they chose to continue with the violence. The idea of a Palestinian State has grown from a minority viewpoint (a very small minority, at times), to a majority view. Israelis have mostly given up the idea of controlling the entire Land of Israel. They just can't trust the Palestinians anymore, and with due cause.
  6. The Erez joint-industrial area has been closed for a long time, now. Why? Well, despite giving many Palestinians jobs, it was constantly under attack by Palestinians, who couldn't bear, I guess, to see Israelis and not try to kill them, even when it hurts their own people. Even before the rise of Hamas in the Strip, the border crossings were often closed down, for both persons and goods - preventing people from going to work, study or get medical treatment in Israel, and preventing exports and imports, vital to the Gaza Strip's economy. Why were they closed? Because every time they opened, militants attacked them - again, they saw Israelis in a relatively vulnerable position, and couldn't bear not to attack - again, hurting their own people way more than hurting Israel.
So - plenty of blame to go around (I only wrote about the Palestinians' "blame" here, but believe me - I'm a very strong critic of my own country's actions). okedem 10:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I appreciate your reply here and agree that I’d gone off-topic; I somewhat knew it at the time, but was partially still cooling down from an earlier un-cool post. I am very new to Wiki and unaware of the best wiki-ways; you’ve taught me one. Sometimes also, my fingers are in motion before my mind is fully engaged….. I am posting my reply on my page, because it’s 'mine', it seemed to make sense, and I don’t know any better (what's the wiki-way?- I've wasted a day trying to find the preferred). Concerning your numbered points:

You wrote: 1. You are partially correct in the fact that the Intifada is very closely connected to the occupation, but it (the occupation) is not the only cause, as evident by their own statements and actions - they (some/most) view the whole of Israel as occupied by "the Zionist entity". So I find it simplistic to say that if there was no occupation (of the West Bank and Gaza Strip), there would be no intifada. Playing "what if" is a rather mute exercise, but there's more to it than just the current occupation.

Simplistic maybe, but it is not untrue, as you note. Current Occupation?- It has continued for 40 years, two generations, older than you. That is not current; that is a fact of life for Palestinians (and you), which too many Israelis and Americans fail to recognize or choose to forget. I strongly believe that the Second Intifada results much more from and is more directly related to the continued occupation, than from the permanent existence of Israel. I am talking about the ‘average Joe’ Palestinians who, dispite what they might (have to?) say in public and inspite of their ‘government’, just want to live in peace and see their children grow old happily.
The continuing occupation, with its increased level of daily humiliation, ghettoization, deteriorating economy (imposed by Israel to limit the First and then Second Intifada), has resulted in only abject hopelessness and no visible way out. This in turn increased the level and type of violence. I will also add your ref here to stress my point. This shows that (though I objected to it and know incidents happened) between ’49 and ’67 when Israel did not occupy the WB&G, (and the focus shifted to the broader Arab front) Israel had a much lower level of violence from the residents. When the Palestinians were occupied in ’67, on top of (pre-’49) dispossessed, they quickly resorted to violence. They had been forgotten by the rest of the world and used as a tool for the broader Arab front. The Palestinian people had gotten nothing in those first 20 years; after ’67, they ended up with less and reacted (violently) for themselves.
The PLO did eventually changed its charter and accept Israel, though they were damned slow in doing it. (I’ll get to ‘Zionist Entity’ maybe later; understanding it is very important). The PLO changed its charter both because they (finally) saw some hope/advantage in recognizing Israel and because they saw a loss of control if they didn’t. I don’t know which was more important, but note that the First Intifada was on-going for years before the PLO finally made the decision. I believe the Palestinians (people) gained credence during the First Intifada because of their stone-throwing tactics, similarly, I’m afraid Israel lost credence because of their tactics in that period.
Both sides have lost credence during the Second Intifada, again because of tactics; the tactics on both sides are those of the radical hard-liners. You are the one living ‘under the gun’; I recognize it is your life on the line. Maybe I should defer to your fears, but I can’t totally because of what I see happening on the other side. Based on my personal experiences, I must defer to Palestinian human rights, over Israeli fears.
Israel absolutely has the power and influence to overcome whatever chance for peace she takes; the PA has very little and the Palestian people have less. I just wish Israel had more hope. Where is your Sadat (and where is the Palestinian’s)? I guess, therefore, it is a ‘what if’. I do not think it is a mute point, however, because it is looking forward, not backward.

You wrote: 2. "You have your country and they do not." - Yes, however, they could have had their country, and would have been larger than anything they'll get now - they vehemently opposed both partition plans - the first, in 1937, suggested a very large majority of Palestine be formed into an Arab state - they refused. The second, still suggested a large Arab state, though smaller than the 1937 plan - they still refused, because they wanted more, or generally opposed the very idea of partitioning the land in any way to give Jews a state.

This argument is absolutely a ‘what if’ mute point. The Zionists of the time were happy to get anything, officially. Similarly, the Arabs at the time (more properly Palestinians) weren’t willing to give up anything, officially, particularly as the result of the last gasp of colonialism and their first chance to act for themselves as a ‘nation’. Really, why should they have, several of the founders of Israel have recognized this. But I guess, with 20/20 hindsight, that the Palestinian’s refusal likely guarenteed the creation of Israel, rather than just a ‘homeland’, which I also guess (in light of future events) the Zionist founders would not have accepted for very long.

You wrote: 3. "Israel has never declared her borders" - a common misconception - though Israel hasn't declared its borders in a single, formal document, most borders have been set in an acceptable legal way (like many other countries) - the border with Egypt is set by the peace treaty, and so is the border with Jordan. Israel has recognized its border with Lebanon as the "Blue Line", demarcated by the UN experts, after the 2000 withdrawal from Lebanon, and was very precise about that (to the point of tearing down an outpost, because one of its walls was about a meter beyond the UN determined line. The border with Syria indeed remains unclear, to be determined in future negotiations, like the border with a future Palestinian state. So, basically, most of Israel's border are set and declared, though not all.

This is a fact, okedem, not a misconception; your need to explain-around Israel’s current situation just proves the point. Yes, Israel has borders with Egypt and Jordan because of wars, negotiations and a Peace Treaty, perfect, great. The UN Blue Line with Lebanon is a more fuzzy colored line and less perfect, but good progress (something about Shaba(?) Farms). The border with Syria still must be negotiated, but I suspect that there is a less fuzzy colored line somewhere that is mutually agreeable. Since this border has generally been the quietest (excluding Lebanon-related incidents), I don’t expect many problems. The border you don’t have (Israel’s longest?) is the Israel-Palestine border. The Israel-Palestine border is the one Israel hasn’t yet negotiated and declared; it is the border Israel must declare for you to have any hope of peace and security. Most of the world recognizes, and (I believe) the majority of Palestinians will accept, this border to run more-or-less along the Green Line and through Jerusalem.
The border can’t follow the barrier, because that leaves the Palestinians with a non-viable state, which I doubt will allow some of them to live in ‘peace and security with defensable borders….’. The settlements are a violation of International Law, but I’ll live with whatever the Palestinians may accept. The declaration of borders is an act of a sovereign government, subject to negotiations with beligerents, if it is wise. Since Israel crossed the line, and UN 242 was passed in ‘67, the solution has been Land for Peace. This is simplistic, but we are getting much closer to what I see as the crux of the problem (and which I will maybe get into later).

You wrote: 4. "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" - I only reffed that for the emblems...

I know, and then I went off-topic….

I'm having trouble with your 5 and 6. The quick answer is I agree, but..... I didnt want you to think that I was not going to reply. I need more time on these two, because my personal experiences include former West Bankers, rather than former Gazans. There are also things like the dynamic of PA versus Hamas. Give me a while longer. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


Hi. I'm editing here, I hope you don't mind.

1. Yea, no argument here about the causes. I just noted that there's more to it than the occupation (I don't even remember what I meant by "current").

Frankly, the safety of my family, my friends, and my fellow citizens takes precedence over that of another people. So I do support IDF actions that kill militants, even if that means civilians get hurt in some ways. However, I'm for the separation fence, and the whole concept, which can diminish Palestinian interaction with IDF, and give Israelis security. If we are to have two states, they must be separated. However, the Palestinians have quite a successful campaign against it, claiming it's an "apartheid wall", as if the very notion of a fence is evil. While the fence does create problems when it diverges from the Green Line, the underlying concept is necessary. For a Palestinian state to exist, Israel must separate itself from the West Bank. The Palestinians' complete dismissal of the notion lends further credence to the opinion they don't actually want a state in the West Bank and Gaza, but want to take over Israel completely (as will happen with the Right of Return).

3. Hold on - I didn't say all of Israel's borders are set. But the common claim "Israel never declared its borders" is misleading. A peace treaty is a common, recognized way to set a border, and Israel's borders with 2 countries are now set. The West Bank issue is, of course, problematic. The thing is, the claim "Israel never declared.." makes it seem as if Israel is some sort of foggy creature, stretching about, expanding, with no set limits. Also, I'd like to point out that a great many other countries have border disputes (like with Syria) - Britain, Argentina, Pakistan, India, China, Turkey, etc.

5,6 - you really don't have to reply. What I'm saying is this - I am against the occupation. I'd really like to remove all settlements. I don't care about "sacred land", or holy places. Jerusalem can be divided (it was never really united). However, the Palestinians have to "work with us". The supporters of peace in Israel can't continue to support the Palestinians when they work against their own self interest, and the interest of peace.

Their behavior after the Disengagement plan of 2005, which they somehow portrayed as wrong (don't ask me why), was telling. It was very difficult to convince the public to remove the settlements there, and very costly, both financially and politically. The Palestinians had a golden opportunity to show some good will. They failed, and continued their violent ways, destroying their own people as a result.

I cannot defend their cause any more. I don't believe them. I don't trust them. They've shown themselves as incapable of peaceful coexistence, lacking any goodwill. So as far as I'm concerned, I'd still like to remove settlements, to make Israel whole again (as the occupation corrupts us), and make the IDF's job easier. I'd like to build a high wall, and forget about the Palestinians. Their suffering means little to me anymore, because they've used up my goodwill. Speaking for their cause really makes one sound like an idiot nowadays. Opponents can cite so many good evidence against it, I don't know what to say, and don't really care to. The word "Peace" has never rung hollower than now.

In the root of my words here is this - members of the "Peace camp" in Israel feel betrayed by their Palestinian "partners", and so can't really support them any longer. okedem (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Diaspora disambig page[edit]

Thank you for adding an entry to this page--just in time for Thursday. There's no need, however, to make charges. The page is only nine months olds. African diaspora wasn't listed until the end of September. -Acjelen (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles[edit]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, RlevseTalk 22:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Casual Observer[edit]

I'm really sorry to have missed your previous note! I'm not sure how that happened. You didn't provide a link to the exchange you were referring to, so I've only reviewed what you quoted in your note to me...but in general personal attacks are not very well enforced on Wikipedia. I can't tell you what you should do, but my own approach is to try to have a thick skin. But then I tend to get far more agitated by deliberate obstructionism (endless strawman arguments, moving goalposts, etc.) than by someone calling me names.

As far as the evidence requested, I really don't know what they want at this point. The idea of everyone giving their blow-by-blow resentful recountings is really too much to bear; I hope that's not the idea. But I haven't posted anything yet because I just don't know.

I will keep in touch.--G-Dett (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi; I left you a response explaining your mis-perception. I wasn't responding to you as an individual but to the discussion at hand, and even then in general terms. If you thought that you were called an anti-Semite; I understand how you would feel; but if you read it again you will see clearly that it is not the case. I hope you retract your accusation . Itzse (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

arbcom ideas[edit]

Hi. I like your suggestions at the ArbCom case. however, could i please suggest that maybe you could set up your own section, for the ideas which you wish to suggest? doing so might make things easier. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

About Arabic names[edit]

I wish there were many more hours in the day! I would love to do something there, but I'm pretty overloaded as it is. I will try to pop by later and thank you very much for bringing it to my attention. I wish I had better access to library resources, but in Nazareth, we don't have one, and with the requirement for English sources, it makes filling out such subjects challenging.

I love your user page note by the way. :) Tiamuttalk 02:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Shebaa Farms[edit]

Hi. It's so nice to meet a fellow baby boomer geographer with expertise and understanding in said field....I too have been fortunate to meet many wonderful residents of Pakistan (and Nepal & N. India) during recent tourist trips there. But St. Lucia? And yes, I too find most frustrating the labeling by some in WP as WP:OR when they misunderstand that, for ex., measuring lengths from an authoritative, large scale govt. issued map is somehow not as valid for WP as copying some www text from somewhere. Pfly is another like-minded editor who is "right on target" on this issue. Anyway, I uploaded Sheba_Farms_1966map.jpg (under list of uploaded images at 18:46, 25 January 2008, adding the red dashed line which is the new UN definition. The UN text is below. You're right, I put in a restricted UN link by mistake. I corrected that (below) and a couple other small items in the article...let me know what you think. Har Dov is the well-known Israeli military facility quite visible on Google Earth at the word "Jabal" in "Jabal el Rous" on the uploaded map which also shows the El Jajidiye village from the UN text below......So the UN, like the map that's been in the Shebaa Farms WP article for some time, does not include in the Sheba Farms the little wedge of flat land (below the foot of the hills visible from the countours on the uploaded map) that borders the 1949 Armistice Line (and the Hasbani River-Al Ghajar part of the Lebanon-Golan boundary.) The Wadi al Asal watershed starts at the upper right of the uploaded map, while the Mt. Hermon Ridge continues for another 23 km beyond that, so you had a good solution to say "drains a large part of the Israeli-occupied part of the Mt. Hermon ridge." Thanks much and lets stay in touch.....Keep up the good work keeping WP "honest" on matters geographical!DLinth (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.spot-on.com/allbritton/UN-Report-on-Implementation-of-1701-Oct-31.pdf :

58. The term Shab’a Farms generally refers to former hamlets, grazing areas and some cultivated land south-west of Shab’a village, on the western slopes of Wadi al-Aasal and on the southern slopes of Jebel Rous and Jebel Soummaq. Based on the information available, the senior cartographer has provisionally concluded that the Shab’a Farms area extends north-east from Moughr Shab’a village and north-west from Wadi al-Aasal. Thus, it is now possible to state that a review and analysis of recent evidence can provide the basis for a provisional definition of the geographical extent of the Shab’a Farms area as follows: starting from the turning point of the 1920 French line located just south of the village of El Majidiye; from there continuing south-east along the 1946 Moughr Shab’a-Shab’a boundary until reaching the thalweg of the Wadi al-Aasal; thence following the thalweg of the wadi north-east until reaching the crest of the mountain north of the former hamlet Mazraat Barakhta and reconnecting with the 1920 line.

Good to hear from you....St. Lucia to Alaska thermal coefficient! (someone had a sense of humor!) And excellent catches-edits on this article. I particularly agree with your insight that water issues are predominant in this part of the world, and your preference for using less accurate coords for non-point features (33°17’N, 35°42’E is perfect....you should make that change.) I just noticed that there's still one instance of my old restricted link that you caught and I'll change that.
You should definitely change "unpopulated" to "depopulated"...good observation.
The several turns in the boundary south of El Majidiye is a problem with Google Earth's boundary lines, which should be greatly improved soon.....There's only one sharp turn there in reality (and on accurate lines/maps)....of course the IDF road that you see switchbackong back and forth across the line was abandoned on the Leb. side in 2000.
Yes, that SW edge is the most vague, but the UN said (not in writing) that they found an old map from the '40's that the border demarcation committee at the time had used and proposed (though never ratified/accepted by the two governments)....and that map has the same "foot of the hills" wiggly line that you saw in red on the '66 map, with Moughr Shab'a (and the pipeline) just to the SW.
Just a guess, but I think your guess is probably correct that Wadi al Asal is mostly surface flow, sometimes even dry....but hydrology, etc. is certaily not my specialty....Ghajar is much better known on the water issue front, with the Jordan River-feeding Hasbani there and the contentious Wazzani Springs immediately across the Hasbani from Ghajar. There's a lot of info on the web on this topic if one puts in the various Wazzani spellings so its absence in the Ghajar article is glaring.
And the Ghajar article is misleading, as north of the boundary, which has never moved there, there was prior to 1967 a settlement, called Wazzani (Ouazzani) there already....see the '66 map....and the two merged after 1967.....I may try to change that if I find time. Mostly fences with roads right next to them than trenches, by the way, east of there, visible on GE.
BTW, in the Ghajar article, wouldn't you think that the lead line should say "on the Lebanon border with territory annexed by Israel but still recognized as Israeli-occupied Syria by the UN" (Much longer but more NPOV.) ??
Thanks again. DLinth (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Zionists and Arabs attitudes etc[edit]

I answered you while you were justifying your revert. Ceedjee (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are the oldest references I could find :
  • Hurewitz, The struggle for Palestine, New York, 1950.
  • Jon and David Kimche, Both Sides of the Hill : Britain and the Palestine War, London, 1960.
Both are in the bibliography of the chapter dedicated to The Birth of Israeli and the War of Independence of Howard Sachar, A history of Israel : from the rise of Zionism to our Time, p.1152.
When refering to events that started on 15 May 1948, it must be talked about the 1948 Arab-Israeli War (like in the article on the topic). When refering to the whole period with the Palestinian exodus and the intercommunal war between between Yishuv and Palestinians Arabs, one talks about the 1948 Palestine War (Deir Yassin massacre - Kfar Etzion massacre - War of convoys - The Siege of Jerusalem - ... all this occured before the 1948 Arab-Israeli War).
There is no WP:RS. Like most people you was just not aware of some important parts of that war.
If Efraim Karsh who wrote The Arab-Israeli conflict : The Palestine War 1948 and also The New Historians : fabricating Israeli history had read your comment, he would have died a heart-attack :-)
Ceedjee (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi CO'48, thx for joining editing in some articles I also edit in.
I see Ceedjee is suggesting some books to you here. Please be aware that these books are of apologetic nature. See e.g on my user page for some examples in Morris' work. Most are reliable though (I think), except Karsh, who is a real distorter. If you want to read something from the other pov I can recommend Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict by Norman Finkelstein or 'The ethnic cleansing of Palestine' by Ilan Pappe. Neutral works are hard to find, but I think C.D. Smith's 'Palestine and the Arab-Israeli conflict' does a remarkeble job here. It covers the conflict from start till now. --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi CO'48. Ceedjee explained to me why he referred to Karsh and Gelber here: [1]. It seems I was wrong assuming he suggested some reading to you. Regards, --JaapBoBo (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The Myths[edit]

About the immigrants.
You must be aware that New historians make appear numerous myths accompanying the War of 1948. The most famous are the rejection of "David vs Goliath" etc.
But traditionnal israeli historians and sociologists also studied this. Eg, Anita Shapira, in L'imaginaire d'Israël (The Imaginary of Israel) explains the anecdotical reality of the role of the immigrants whose myth birthed after the war, when numerous immigrants came and settle in Israel (population tripled in 4 years after 1948).
Whatever, there was no zionist immigration during the civil war period. That was forbidden by British. And none side fought the British. Hostilities against them stopped on dec47 (even if some died after). All parties expected their support. Ceedjee (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Main objection[edit]

CO48 : "My main objection is that the 1948 PalWar is a link with little info substantitive info in and of itself, it requires going other places. A far better way is to work on that article and flesh it out with your sources. I admited that I didnt know the terminology, I didnt say I didnt know the subject. I have no problem really with the facts the New Historians bring, but the 1948Pal war is a concept at this point, certainly not a fact of wide acceptance, yet. It is bedtime on my side of the world" CasualObserver1948.

  • I agree that the article is short. Sorry for that. I wrote on wp:fr the whole of the article related to the 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine that is FA there. Somebody translated it here. That is already a good stuff.
  • These are not New historians !!! Please : click on the names I gave you : Efraim Karsh and Yoav Gelber. You made as if you were open minded but that is the 4th time I give these names to you ! And I added the Kimche brothers on your talk page here above. Do you know who they were ?

"but the 1948Pal war is a concept at this point, certainly not a fact of wide acceptance, yet".

Among people who doens't know the topic, I think you are right. And I don't care because among historians, there is not a single doubt about this formulation. Find sources that put the events from Nov47 to May48 in a chapter titled "The 1948 Arab-Israeli War" and we will discuss. (There are some. :I found 2 who did so) but I refuse to discuss on another basis than sources and scholar's minds. Ceedjee (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
nb: Where I live, it is still not the night.

WP:IPCOLL[edit]

Hi. Thanks for joining WP:IPCOLL and for your active participation already. Did you want to vote on an article for collaboration? (I added your Semite idea to the options, fyi.) Meanwhile, I'd like to archive or move your long thread. Or better yet, how about if you or I move the first paragraph to the Members statements above and the rest archive or to the Lounge? Thanks. Pls let me know soon. HG | Talk 14:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your note. I copied your statement and archived, as you suggested. Here's the link Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Community lounge, it's also linked at the top of the project's Talk page. Be well, HG | Talk 15:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi again. Just so you know (betw us and the trees), Nishidani is editing again. :-) Take care, HG | Talk 20:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Just testing to see what this filter filters[edit]

I have been "Spam Filtered' out of existence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.32.71 (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to save again after making a sizable post to Jewish Lobby wouldn't let it go thru, even tho I am signed in. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried a few more times but never got anywhere; logged out, shut down and re-booted. Got on and left a message at User:carolmooredc. It worked, so I tried to send my post in small pieces. Blam!! got spam filtered again. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Casual[edit]

Pls see my response to your welcome note on Zionism. BYT (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

1948 Palestine War[edit]

Hi,
pre warning to keep everything cool :-)

  • I am perfectly aware we are not on wp:fr
  • I am perfectly aware that a discussion is not another one...
  • I am perfectly aware of the issue and its difficulty.

So, I brought the discussion on wp:fr here (in French - If you don't read French, please, don't hesitate to ask to somebody to comment this discussion to you). I took many precautions to take distance with the topic and to focus on principles. After, I explained what was the precise topic (war of 1948 etc).
There was a global consensus so that events are refered to with the name scholars give to them and that knowledge should be our line.
I am ready to discuss this issue with you and/or others. All I ask is that it is done in sourcing our minds and not only in giving them and that you accept the idea that I have been working on that precise matter for 2 years and that I wrote 3 FA articles on wp:fr on the matter. This doens't mean that my mind is better than any others but that means that I know what I am talking about anyway. If you respect WP:AGF and if your work for the encyclopaedia and not for any pov, whatever it is, we will find solutions.
Kind Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

what you did is called "edit war " and I suggest you self revert and discuss.... Zeq (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree and replied here [2]. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

thats my pa[edit]

Hey Dad, happy to dig you up. What was your involvement in the arbitration on that one case? if you want any of your resources to be online, i have a personal wiki you can upload scans or excerpts to: [3] (account creation is on the bottom) Moc.aidepikiw (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew Labor[edit]

Thx., CO '48.

I think the term Hebrew LAbor is more accurate than Jewish Labor. In those they they called it Hebrew because of associations with the past, when the whole people still lived in Palestine. I think they also wanted to distinguish from the Diaspora and therefore preferred not to use the word Jewish. --JaapBoBo (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

So very kind...[edit]

of you. I really do appreciate the sentiment. It's been a tough past few weeks, (in both the real and wiki worlds) but it's people like you who are active and aware in the community here, that have made it possible to keep on keeping on. Warmest regards, Tiamuttalk 13:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-18 Second Intifada[edit]

Just notifying you, that as you have been involved in the discussion regarding the Second Intifada article, which is now the subject of a MedCab case, I'm notifying you of this as you may wish to partake in this case to discuss a resolution to this dispute. Feel free to leave a comment on my talk page. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Aware of this?[edit]

I noted before you had a collection related to this sort of thing, and thought you'd be interested. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe there are various tools available to certain admins to check on sockpuppets, sources, COI, etc.. Has the CAMERA COI been nailed down? I did not have time to delve into all the details. You have probably already read this section of my user page:

IPCOLL[edit]

Hi co'48,
Thank you for your kind message on my talk page.
>But since you do know about it, do you know of any learned sources (RS) that discuss this crisis in the American context?
In fact I have few knowledge on this topic. I am aware of that identity crisis just by discussing with Israeli and Jew friends. I think people doens't need much empathy to become aware of these matters. And as stated, one of the issue is indeed the fact Jews are (or could be or should be) torn between the Israeli power and the Jewish ethics in the context of a war in which the real risk is difficult to eavaluate.
I don't know anything about the relation between Israel and the US or Israelis nation and Jewish americans but they are of course extremally strong.
On this topic, I am fascinated by jewish and Israeli sense of humor : [4] With the F16, this can be analysed at first, second and third degree.
Sorry if I can't help you more on this topic but it is definitely an interesting one. Ceedjee (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi co'48,
From an american point of view, particularly today, I understand it is not funny.
But this is jewish humor and illustrates how they are torn between an Israeli and a Jewish culture. At the same time you have the Israeli arrogance and jewish auto-derision. In this picture : at 1st degree, they tell they have the stronger army of the world (stronger than USA), at 2nd degree, they tell that without the USA they know that they would be lost (this is a F16) and at 3rd degree they thank USA for their support and show how aware they are of the links between both nations and that they have been for 50 years in the first line of the western side, particularly the US one.
FYI : In Europe, we pay an average of 2 times the taxes US citizens pay. But social security is not far from being free. And US weapons paid by a part of your "taxes" were used to destroy Palestinian infrastructure paid with a part of our "taxes"... What happens there is stupid but that's the way the world turns and we cannot change anything to this.
Concerning sense of humor, I prefer this one from Meir. That should interest you :
She said : "In Israel, we read from right to left"...
To Henry Kissinger who had written her that he considered himself 'an American first, Secretary of State second, and a Jew third'
...
Have a nice WE,
Ceedjee (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI (I don't have access to Jstor but JaapBoBo has). Ceedjee (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Zionism's article[edit]

Hi CO'48
Thx for your comments in the talk page but I understand what you mean (English is not my mother langage). Could you please explain me with other words or a more direct way ? Thank you. Rgds, Ceedjee (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Historiography of the History of Zionism, by Yoav Gelber, sounds exactly like the book that I would hope for. Would you consider it a discussion of 'moving goal-posts' during Zionism's history, which Jay has trouble with? What are the various 'circumstances' they discuss for different tactics. Seeing that I am also stuck with books, instead of blue hyperlinks, and tend to believe them more, what I generally have done is to put longer block quotes on the talk pages to stir interest and allow discussion, before they go in the article. That is the way I try to do it, anyway. That way no one can say they weren't aware. Often these quotes, or portions, are thus available to all, and tend to find their way in other articles. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi,
I made a little mistake. Title is History of Zionist Historiography but this is not a book but an article in a book. And I started reading the article last evening. That book seems extremally interesting, gathering different historians around the debate of New Historiography.
>Would you consider it a discussion of 'moving goal-posts' during Zionism's history
Well. I am not sure to understand : 'moving goal-posts' ? I have just started the article but I think Gelber shows that the way Zionism is pictured depends much on the time it is pictured and the historians who pictures this.
>What are the various 'circumstances' they discuss for different tactics ?
"tactics"... I think not.
He just explains there exist numerous "points of view" on the same issue, but he doesn't refer to "one brain" that would change tactics but rather to numerous historians/actors, who see Zionism a different way, according to their own feeling/hope/bias...
>Often these quotes, or portions, are thus available to all, and tend to find their way in other articles.
I lost any trust in wikipedia ability to write articles on these issues.
But I am here because it helps me to "dig" some issues. wikipedia is (also) a nice place to find new information or analysis we are not aware of.
Rgds, Ceedjee (talk) 08:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism in the United States[edit]

Since you seem to think that Antisemitism in the United States is not a "Wiki-article" due to POV issues, perhaps you would care to explain what you think a Wiki-article is and how the current revision fails to meet your standards. Do you believe there should be an article titled "Antisemitism in the United States" and, if so, what would you change in the current revision to make it acceptable to you? You might also answer the same questions for History of antisemitism in the United States.

Please answer on the talk pages of the relevant articles. Thanx.

--Richard (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


A question from the newbie hinterlands about facts, WP:CON and WP:NPOV[edit]

  • Why you? Your blurb was the first to strike me, and it led to m:Association of Structurist Wikipedians, which I felt was good from a cya pov, since it deals with my approach.
  • Why here? I would appreciate your ‘sniff-test’ of my previous approach and advice concerning where to proceed from here. I posted this [5] on 12 April. Responses seemed not of a negotiating nature and I replied [6], [7], [8], and [9]. My use of their suggestions, newbie-ness and unresolved NPOV concerns led me to make this post [10] at CON on 21 April and I received those responses and maybe(?) started another section. Having become aware of this, I posted this update [11] at the original page, with a little more heat. You can see where it now stands. No progress and lots of work later, I guess ‘frustrated’ is the best characterization.
  • Why bother? That is more for you to decide; I know where I stand concerning the three linked terms in this section title, and the current CON’s POV'd re-presentation of them.
  • But, be careful. It’s a hot topic. I have taken an unusual approach, but arrive with reasonable baggage. I also have my own reasons, but would be forthcoming, should you be interested.

Initially, I’d like your considered opinion on the following questions: Have my bulleted NPOV objections been logical and factual? Do I have a legitimate NPOV complaint? Have I followed Wiki-policy to get here? And, where can I go from here, given what I've already tried? Respectfully, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

After going through your edit history a bit, and through the history of that (and a few other pages), I have a few suggestions.
You indeed come with some baggage. It's not necessarily a bad thing to have a POV (and you might wish to read the essay for future reference), but it is not a good idea to begin "pushing" that POV. And it's tough to be the dissenting opinion, there's no two ways about it. Especially when one becomes involved in potentially contentious topics.
A few things that aren't helping you is that, at the moment, nearly everyone on that discussion page stands against your suggestions (centring of Israel, and the "Other..." heading), and the way you're coming across. And they're right, on the surface at least, one could easily assign a consensus concerning the two items as things stand atm.
Several of the statements you're making would be fine, but you really should bring some external sources to the discussion. Unreferenced claims tend to "fall flat" in such discussions.
In addition while it may or may not be "useful" to reference internal Wikipedia convention, or information (such as you did concerning article information, or they did concerning other ethnic transclusions of that same infobox), we should remember that (again) Verifiability trumps convention nearly every time. (Though, remember that others may have references which may differ from yours, or be more or less reliable than yours.
Simply relying on Rhetoric typically isn't enough, especially in contentious topics (as I mentioned above).
Now I think you'll notice that I'm being exceedingly polite. That doesn't make me naive or blind. I just see no need at this moment to assess and analyse your and their possible personal biases or POV. Though I will say I'm not thrilled with more than a few comments on that talk page.
You asked about policy, so I'll finish by giving you some links which I strongly advise any editor to read: WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR; WP:OWN; WP:CON; WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:EQ. (Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines has a pretty good list.)
To summarise, Use references, rather than your own personal thoughts or feelings. Play nice with others, and presume that others are intending to play nice with you, unless you receive evidence to the contrary.
Two other pages that I think would help you in this case would be: Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial and Wikipedia:Controversial articles.
And finally, Since you show interest in such topics, I'd strongly suggest helping out at a WikiProject:
(A larger list can be found at Category:WikiProject Middle East.)
I hope this helps. - jc37 15:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
(I guess it goes here.) In a few words, thanks for your suggestions and comments. I would have replied sooner, but seriously undertook the learning opportunity your comments provided. I noted the baggage at the outset because I knew I wasn’t just floating there on Helium. I appreciated and learned from your ref to the POV essay. I have swallowed hard, but accepted your note on pushing that the post entailed, though I tried very hard to maintain sweetness and light as other things occurred. I am considering how best to un-shoot myself from that foot wound, which I see as causal to the flat fall and agree with your view of consensus atm. I am not sure I fully understand your examples of ‘may or may not be "useful" to reference internal Wikipedia convention, or information’, however. Thank you for your tone, specific use of emphasis, and I understand your lack of assessment, atm.
I will continue to work with your long list of blue policy links, but suspect I will again have questions when contrary evidence presents itself. I have particularly noted the opportunity and necessity of defining what various povs might be and likely will pursue that concerning WP:V and ownership. I definitely am interested and knowledgeable on the general topic and certain specifics, but so far, I have decided that it is best to join neither of the specific projects, but note I am already in WP:IPCOLL and systematic bias. We shall see what happens, I am still 'playing by ear', rather than having any 'seat of the pants' experience. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
You're quite welcome. I'm glad if you found my comments helpful.
To clarify per your comments:
  • "In addition while it may or may not be "useful" to reference internal Wikipedia convention, or information (such as you did concerning article information, or they did concerning other ethnic transclusions of that same infobox), we should remember that (again) Verifiability trumps convention nearly every time."
I was referring to a section of the discussion where you were quoting specific articles, and other Wikipedia-specific references, and was merely attempting to reinforce the idea that finding references external to Wikipedia would probably aid you better in potential future similar sutuations.
Also, I left a request for clarification on that talk page. Be aware that it's not a statement for or against, but merely a neutral request, asking for clarification. (As it's been several days with no response, I may ask someone else who was active on that talk page, or perhaps one or more of the WikiProjects.)
Again, if the comments above have helped, I am gladdened. I hope you have a great day : ) - jc37 18:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Just saw your clarification post, thanks. I've been looking at other things for the last few days and will probably wait for something to happen. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Just read your user page[edit]

And read this sentence: "It is ironic (many people might say oxymoronic) that I learned my MidEast NPOV in Iran. " I had to laugh, as the whole "happenings" section on your user page relates your slow devolvement into a unmistakable and --I would almost say virulent-- anti-Israeli POV. Your recent statement at the wikilobby page where you apparently liken the Israpedia group to the Israeli government and the whole 'EI/CAMERA incident' to the USS_Liberty_incident and support the idea that Wiki should punish everyone associated with this list they can find, (as if to punish Israel for the Liberty) is a perfect example. You may have been NPOV then, but you certainly are not now!Juanita (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A laugh before the frown. Thanks for reading my user-page blurb, it not only shows that I am POV’d, it explains why and how I got there. I wish more editors would approach Wikipedia that way. Being new to this and unfamiliar, I considered that the only way to approach Wikipedia was to explain my POV, honestly, historically, the way it developed. I believe, however, you missed the point of my post and you seem to be putting words in my mouth, so let me clarify.
My point was that CAMERA is very much part of ‘the lobby’, whether it is termed the Israel lobby in the United States or the Jewish lobby, or AIPAC or even the re-directed Zionist lobby, and all of its groupies and hangers-on; they are all very much part of the sharp end of the spear on the editorial front of a larger conflict. That spear is already aimed where Wikipedia has decided to exist and that arbitration case is the front along which it is being waged. Given that, Wikipedians can put up our shields, or maybe flash some mirrors in their eyes, but if the attack is deemed severe enough, we might well sharpen our own spears (pens, metaphorically). If Wikipedia is to remain what it hopes to be, it is time to decide. That decision is for the Wiki-crats, not me, I just added my two cents, as you have.
Allow me also to remove from my post what you apparently see as anti-Israeli words. I have absolutely no problem with Israel, (defined as Medinat Yisrael), and I wish them and all peace and prosperity; it is terrible that they and the world don’t have it! I do, however have some objections to the Israel (as defined by Eretz Israel), because as the RS’d Tivnan quote indicates, this would be “supporting a particular Israeli ideology”, which is specifically not NPOV and our Wiki-job to NPOV-ify. In my second quote, concerning the USS Liberty incident, RS’d from George Ball, I felt it apropos because it a) can be RS’d and V’d, b) is specifically topical concerning CAMERA and the larger lobby’s work over the last 40 years and, c) is analogous to how I see CAMERA’s attack on Wikipedia and its implications on Wikipedia’s NPOV-ness. This may be my POV, but it is RS’d, not rhetoric, not WP:SOAP.
As you recognize, I seem POV’d and am, but that is much different than and separate from my commitment to Wikipedia’s WP:NPOV, which I must watch and I do. What I might post on talk pages is very different than my edits on article pages; when I edit an article, NPOV, not my POV, is king. I had hoped that was true for all; let’s just say CAMERA’s approach disappointed many. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Given that, Wikipedians can put up our shields, or maybe flash some mirrors in their eyes, but if the attack is deemed severe enough, we might well sharpen our own spears (pens, metaphorically). If Wikipedia is to remain what it hopes to be, it is time to decide. That decision is for the Wiki-crats, not me, I just added my two cents, as you have.
What you see as a spear to attack, others see as a weapon of self-defense for Israel and Jews. You speak as if the rest of the world has no defense against the Jews, when in fact the U.N.(Durbin), the Arab League, the Muslim nations, the radical Left, the anti-semites world-wide all have no problem with disseminating anti-Israel(and anti-Jewish) propaganda. As Jews have learned from bitter experience, a propaganda war is always waged before they are expelled or exterminated. Why have I heard nothing from you about the "wikiforPalestine" group and the possibility that the 12 editors from that group are part of group that is waging this war against CAMERA, its members and its possible influence on wiki? Why is it you have said nothing (I have seen nothing) about wiki using Electronic Intifada's words against us? Do you think that Electronic Intifada does not have a spin nor influence? Do you think that the 22 Arab nations have no influence at the UN? Do you really believe that the oil-rich Arab countries, who fill the coffers of American presidents and politicians; that radical Islamists rioting in western countries have no influence? Juanita (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links[edit]

Unfortunately, I will not be around much in next couple of months since I started work on a collaborative artistic project with a rather demanding schedule. I will read those in the little spare time I have though. Many of the articles related to the subject could benefit from the use of high quality academic sources. Thanks and happy editing! Tiamuttalk 18:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

JIDF[edit]

Don't worry about that crap. After all, most of us listed have reverted, challenged and disagreed with each other on many pages regarding I/P articles, and yet are bundled up as though we were a collective coven with the same ideological cast of mind. It's rather a badge of honour, except for the fact that they drove off a good pro-Zionist editor many admired for his learning (Ceedjee), precisely because he edited unideologically. They only want to be talked about, and the general feel is that ignoring their jejune provocations is the way to go. Regards Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Note[edit]

Please avoid 'asymmetric support' style rhetoric (see: irrelevant advocacy/commentary). Such commentaries could be ascribed to either side of the conflict and are therefore provocative and not conductive to a collaborative atmosphere.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 08:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Response by CasualObserver'48.
Certainly sources exist which support any type of opinion piece. What matters is that if the commentary's only merit is promotion of a political narrative then it's best to avoid making this commentary.
Cordially, JaakobouChalk Talk 13:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Gerald Ford in AIPAC article[edit]

Hi there, looks like we have a dispute going on the AIPAC page, and I think we're talking past each other in our edit summaries, so let me try opening this up for dialogue. From my starting point, I'm not clear on what the section you are adding seeks to impart. What is it that Ford was met from opposition about? Support for the state of Israel? What "reassessment"? I'm not playing dumb about history, here. I am saying that the addition does not make sense to me in context of the paragraph. What is it exactly you are trying to say? You can see where I tried preserving the citation and the description of AIPAC's growing influence in my previous edit, but I guess that wasn't it. Given your current version, I just think this is confusing. That's why I said "non sequitur" before. I'm sure we can find an agreement here. Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Bio[edit]

The amount of world experience you list in your bio was very heartening.--99.137.127.111 (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Arabic wiki[edit]

I haven't ever really checked it out, since most of the people I know who have used it before, say it's a piece of crap. (No offense.) They say a lot of it seems to be written by non-native Arabic speakers (usually native Hebrew speakers, you can tell by certain grammatical formations and literal translations they make). Anyway, if you're interested in having a particular article translated so you can make comparisons, I can do that for you. If there is any other way I can help let me know. 09:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Search result question[edit]

I have replied at Wikipedia:Help desk#Search result question. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Your note about Taguieff[edit]

I do have a copy of that book, though I don't remember whether I wrote that sentence; I think I did, but one part of it doesn't sound like my writing, so I'm not certain. Anyway, what would you like to know? SlimVirgin talk|edits 21:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

FARA discussion[edit]

I have left a response on the AIPAC Talk page. Interested to see your reply. Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Banias[edit]

The unnamed book just happened to be the Australian government official history of the 2nd world war....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The Paris Peace conference was where the powers divided up the spheres of influence before placing the done deals in front of the defeated....The second part was then placed in front of Turkey in the treaty of Sèvres, this was never signed, the details were then amended in the Treaty of Lausanne... Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe you'll have to deal with the deletion express that followed. I'll just keep an eye on it. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for your vote at Banias. Here. I particularly liked the 3RR balls. And Yes I was using Banias to grow the article which has now prematurely been created at Jordan River basin water politics. So any time you'd care to contribute you would be welcome, as it is a massive subject and not something to be done on ones own. PS It was I that moved the material over to Water politics in the Middle East to preserve it for later use....Although I did get some improvements in before the deletionists got back...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement[edit]

As you've been involved in the dispute with Keverich1 (talk · contribs) over Israel-United States military relations, I thought you should know that I've reported his continued edit-warring and assumptions of bad faith (in breach of arbitration sanctions) at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement#User:Keverich1. If you have any views on the matter, please feel free to add them to the arbitration enforcement discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

1919 Zionist org. map[edit]

Hi. You're quite right, the map posted in numerous places with the red line is quite inaccurate......actually, the map is fine except for the red line, which is not even close. You correctly note that the railroad referenced is on the order of 40km, not 20 km east of the Jordan R. Very busy here....perhaps the best thing would be to try to find a better map (you linked to a couple, though black and white) that could be uploaded to WP and substituted, as long as the fair use (copyright) issues were not a problem....I don't pretend to understand the latter well but there's plenty about it on WP! Good catch.DLinth (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Above moved from user pg to talk pg. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please help me decode Wikispeak[edit]

Hi, thanks for your response in CAMERA talk:

Please see my comments inserted above; I probably said enough there. I guess I have a greater acceptance of things than you may, but I try to make my edits on more historical topics; this is too current, active and reactive for me. Just look at how fast recent events are propagated by our fine subject, and look at other sites of the associated camera crew and their opposite numbers here. These are not the actions of un-interested parties. They exist to react; neutral editors will see how NPOV’ly their views are presented. Watch coverage on these sites over the next month, and then read the next issue of WRMEA or FAIR. All will be heated; some will be more sober than others. I have better things to do, good luck.

Could you please point me towards these discussions, which sound very interesting? In particular, I don't know what or where are WRMEA or FAIR. Thanks! cojoco (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I didn't mean to take up too much of your time, I just wanted some help decoding your acronyms! While I am of course interested in the I/P conflict, it is far too complicated and partisan for me to want to venture into Wikipedia editing on the subject. However, I have spent a lot of time reading about wiki-fiddling associated with CAMERA and Naked Short Selling, and have attempted some modest contributions to the discussion on these articles. The Wiki-fiddling associated with these two topics has been both blatant and extremely well documented, and I have spent many hours reading the Wiki admin pages watching the opposing groups interact. One of the external links on the CAMERA article was an egregious misrepresentation of the facts as I understood them from comprehensive reading of the case on Wikipedia, hence my "garbage" comment in the CAMERA article. cojoco (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I've just had a look at the "Media Coverage" page, and its description of the CAMERA actions I find very frustrating:
"Electronic Intifada accused CAMERA of "orchestrating a secret, long-term campaign to infiltrate the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia to rewrite Palestinian history, pass off crude propaganda as fact, and take over Wikipedia administrative structures to ensure these changes go either undetected or unchallenged."
Again, this appears to me to totally misrepresent the situation, because EI's involvement was limited to the original leaking of the emails. In my opinion it was the WP discussion and examination of these emails, evasion on the part of the partisan editors, and the empty accusations leveled at the other side, which led to the Wikipedia admin's actions, and EI really had very little to do with it. cojoco (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
That description was here, which makes CAMERA's actions sound quite innocuous, which is not actually true. cojoco (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I might try to get to that article at some point. The reason that those editors were banned was not because of different ideas of NPOV. It was for several reasons:

  • Refusal to answer questions about the provenance of incriminating emails
  • Attempting to set up "sleeper" administrators (who had not edited I/P articles) who would be available to step in to arbitrate I/P disputes, which is a clear violation of Wikipedia's meatpuppetry policy
  • Sock-puppetry

cojoco (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


Hinterland seeks advice[edit]

Hello again. I would appreciate your advice concerning this post and its threads, before I proceed. I am unsure how best or where to proceed, since I would prefer to have it corrected, but my straightforward approach to that has failed to flourish. At the same time, it is POV-motivated OR which should not be on Wikipedia. I would like to find a policy/procedure where it gets a hearing, which might otherwise give impetus for correction. My technical ability regarding correction is zilch, so my only choice is really to delete it. However, I do consider it an ‘incident’ since it has been there unchallenged since summer 2007. Your previous advice was of great assistance and, combined with a wiki-break, a positive influence. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll tell you honestly, I'm not sure what you're asking. I left a note on the talk page of someone I consider an image expert, so at this point, we're waiting to see if he has a moment to check this out. (And perhaps he'll understand this more quickly/clearly than I. : ) - jc37 07:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Appreciate the rapid response. You are doing what I did, seeking knowledgeable advice. Thanks, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
User_talk:J_Greb#Map_query
Hope this helps : ) - jc37 22:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, now I am also somewhat confused, although I greatly appreciate the assistance. Based on my reading, he is talking about two points; the first deals with free use versus non-free use images and, a reference to a comics article, which is somehow related. I am totally lost with his use of ‘clarification for well referenced points (Phantom (comics) has one...)’; my well referenced points are verifiable locations on a map. OK, that one I will leave for heavy hitters in the image arena; I tried once to understand this and got lost/frustrated. I will leave that because it deals with wiki-propriety regarding use of images.

His second point, which deals with accuracy of the image and WP:OR, is the one that I am questioning. He does say ‘but this one may be stepping over the line’, and I read that as seeming to agree with my take on this map as being OR. I am less concerned than he, since I have long-since decided to play the game. I am well aware of the consequences and personally unconcerned as to the shape of the football or arena in which it is played. My concern is to ensure that the Wiki ground rules are followed; mainly these are RS and V, as you pointed out in your first assist last year. Frankly this map is BS, not RS, and I can V that.

So, where to go from here? I would like another read from you, in case I missed something, but have a plan as to where to go next. I consider it the most expeditious route to keep the map and provide Wikipedia with NPOV data. I also found the original source for the previous link I provided; it comes from a highly rated RS. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I decided to take the plunge, we shall see. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick FYI: I left a note at J Greb's talk page to help educate us, if he has the time or inclination. - jc37 10:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to keep this to a "short version"...
Maps are, by their general nature, something that can fall under copyright. There are some maps that have been released to the public domain either through age or as generic, basic templates. File:BlankMap-World.png is one example of the later, and if the categoris are followed you can find similar free-use blanks of specific regions and areas.
File:BlankMap-World.png, used in Phantom (comics) is an example of how the blanks are used. In this case, denoting countries where the character is still in print in new material.
And yes, there is a File:Israel districts blank.png, sutable for finishing to support in-article points. That's more of the "line" I was looking at - unless of course the underlay for the image is in the PD (unlikely since it looks like a relatively recent map).
The lesser part, from what I was looking at, is the POV push/OR. The original image in question is one editors interpritation of one source's explanation/guess about the topic. That would not be mitigated by using a single non-free image... - J Greb (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
J, thanks for the reply; it certainly helped illuminate a side of the question where I was in the dark. I will still leave most of that to others. Can a letter be written to the author of a map asking to give Wiki copyright permission to use his image with proper authorship reference? (Or however that might be handled.)
My main concern is the 'lesser part', as you put it. The text reference to a city on the Med. coast, scales approximately 57km north of the border on my paper map; this distance is consistent on File:Map of Lebanon.png and File:Lebanon 2002 CIA map.jpg. This location however, is shown on wiki's current map as being only about 13km north of the border. I understand maps are interpretations and provide an explanation/guess according to a source. In this particular case, considerable more care should have been exercised in interpreting the locations provided in the source. I will keep my AGF and leave it there. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

hahaha[edit]

funniest thing. Too bad nobody is willing to respond to the point. In a complaint in which the first item listed was a users removing, or modifying, another user's comments that very same user does it again and nobody even thinks to mention it. And to change it in a way that at first glance it now appears to be about a conflict dispute at a certain article, wow. Peace and happiness, Nableezy (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

From hinterland, not hinder-land, but…[edit]

Is this a legitimate ‘incident’, re-factored, or not? Quandary, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the subject of the thread(s) - which I'll admit to not researching/reading - I think the refaactor request was mostly due to the end (starting with "This is subterfuge..."). Possibly because you stopped asking, and started making presumptive statements about others (which would have the appearance of leaving WP:AGF behind).
And, in general, I think IronDuke's subsequent comments/advice after the refactor may turn out to be insightful/helpful.
Hope this helps. - jc37 11:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic, having read your userpage[edit]

Two things bug me about your interesting account -

  1. You said you used to be pro-Israel, and you lived in the Middle East for a while, but apparently you never visited Israel. Weren't you curious to see the place as it actually is?
  2. Do you think people in democratic society have the right to elect a non-democratic government to rule them? Do you think other democratic nations should accept such a choice, or should they response in some way? DrorK (talk) 12:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

DrorK, Sorry if anything on my page bugs you; it has been there more than a year and probably due for adjustment. I am still pro-Israel (Medīnat Yisrā'el) (מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל‎‎), but you missed that I also know the difference between the recognized State and Eretz Israel, as well as the desire of the Zionist right wing to sell and confuse the two; that distinction is important. I also discern a disconnect between Judaism and Zionism, which is widely referenced intermurally, but little forthcoming on Wikipedia. (There is a Hebrew/Yiddish word for that, which I have lost; can you help?) The best evidence for that disconnect may be the innumerable references from the Zionism page to the people of that faith. But please note, there is only one single text mention going the other way, and it is not even linked! That is more than happenstance; that is POV, and a quite specific one.

To answer your first question, when I traveled for work, I considered going to Israel also, but the potential official problem that would have caused my border-crossing passport (e.g. Kuwait for a visa renewal, or Beirut for R&R) was the deciding factor; that might have complicated my employ-ability and that was too important. The second questions are less-simple. In a democracy, people may elect whomever they choose; it is their choice. Hopefully, they choose wisely and knowledgeably, and it is not our choice to make, though we may wish. An elected government only becomes truly undemocratic when it won’t stand down after loosing an election, although when any partisans continue to fight and obstruct an elected government after loosing, I see it as their preference of a political agenda over democracy, which is disturbing. The next question appears to cross international borders, so it brings up what sources call ‘the national interest’. That is defined many different ways and is a national government policy, not necessarily a democratic choice; hopefully, the latter affects the former, should any government decide to re-define what that ‘national interest’ is. It also depends on geography and proximity, as well as how democracy, international law and human rights are interpreted as part of that broader national interest. I guess the national interest is like personal financial stability; there is a definite difference between what you want and what you need, and that decision is best considered with a very long view. As we have recently seen, instant gratification is not the best way to go. I hope my responses to your questions are helpful; you might learn more by looking at my contribs. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. I meant to use the verb "bug" innocently. Despite using English for many years as my main foreign language, I still find it hard to "fine-tune" the use of words. I remember I once said to a friend in England that a sport team "screwed up". He became red, and I was told later that while this verb is quite usable in American TV dramas, it is not acceptable in England.
About Zionism, it is in fact the dominant Jewish movement since WW2. This was not the case prior to WW2 and the Holocaust. Actually there was a bigger Jewish national movement called "The Bund" - they were the bitter rivals of the Zionists - but the practically vanished after the Holocaust. Judaism is not merely a faith, it is an ethnic/national affiliation. Many people find it hard to believe that there are "secular Jews", but they are in fact the majority of Jews in the world (at least 50%). Jewish secularism and nationalism started quite a long time before Zionism, so we are not talking about a new thing or a Zionist invention. Eretz Yisrael and Medinat Yisrael are two different things, and the Israeli law acknowledges it. There are right-wing (mostly religious) movements which try to blur the difference, but they are a small minority (with a loud voice).
About democracy - it is funny how democracy is perceived differently in different places. In Israel, a party which does not acknowledge the democratic regime itself, or the general idea that Israel is a Jewish country, is banned from running to parliament. I know of two cases - the US-born Rabbi Kahana's party "Kach" that called for discrimination against Israeli Arabs was banned in 1988, and an Israeli Arab party (Al-Ardh) which suggested to turn Israel into multinational state (I think it was in the 60ies or the 70ies). I was taught in high-school that Israel is a "defensive democracy", and the case of Hitler winning democratic election was mentioned again and again. For me, hearing people saying: Hamas is the Palestinian democratic choice is very strange, because Hamas itself is not democratic at all. Furthermore, suppose it is in fact a democratic choice, doesn't it make the electors responsible for the consequences? DrorK (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I was not bothered by the word’s usage and considered that it was intended and should be taken neutrally. I understand the problems inherent in translation, because I could neither read nor write the two languages I best spoke. I have some great stories from my past about this particular problem; they range from the hilarious to the horrific. Gestures too, may be mis-translated; do not use a ‘thumbs up’ in the Persian world, for example, it tends to translate to a different digit. Wiki-editors perform a form of translation also; they take events, ideas and concepts and translate them to the neutrally understandable, based solely on reliable sources. This assumes however, that all potentially relevant facts and views are included in input, so that output on the wiki-page is a valid and coherent translation. I tend to use the more rural American vernacular, particularly on talk pages; it is easier to write, contextual and no offence is intended.

About democracy first, it may be shorter. Yes, truly funny (different); things just happen and a democracy must deal with them. I think it depends on where their specific ground rules, house rules, humanity and national interest stand relative to the defined rules and the specific pattern on the wall [poor link] how these are relatively perceived. There are at lease two sides, one looking out and one looking in; there are also perspectives from the left and right as well as a view from one of hope and one from fear. In Israel, I am aware of only the first example, and agree, but can also provide a political view that offers a reason different than the officially accepted one. I have never heard of ‘defensive democracy’ before, but think I can understand, given your reason after the ‘and’; I will also suggest with a chuckle, that it seems to have been what George W. tried to sell post-9/11 (no assumption of equivalency please). I too find Hamas to be strange as democratic, but opine that the election was more a matter of Fatah loosing, than Hamas winning, it may be similar to ’77 Labor/Likud, (but without the Mizrahi dynamic of that time). I will also opine that if one listens only to the words (not attached to a specific source), there is really very little difference between religious fundamentalists regardless of their tripartite Abrahamic flavor; they all tend to short-cut the route between man and God, by forgetting most teachings along the normally prescribed path. It was a democratic choice and was theirs to make; they did and live with the consequences. Will they win again? - I doubt it, but don’t know; Palestinians can not answer positively a basic democratic (American?) election question. That question is: “Are you better-off now than you were four years ago?” And yes, it definitely does make them responsible for their own choices, but one must distinguish somewhat between those loudly advocating a wrong, right-wing political/religious line, versus the vast majority of voters who may only accept the (generally limited) choices they are given. I do not like a 2% threshold; too accepting of fringe, too hard to build and keep government consensus; Wikipedia has set a few limits and bounds, it is an interesting parallel.

About Zionism. The first three sentences are fine, although I’d add some commas, ‘ands’ and ‘buts’. The fourth is discussed below. I am well aware of the fifth and constantly have to make somewhat similar edits on Wiki to maintain that fact and proper balance. The sixth is ok, but below also. I strongly agree with seven and eight and they go together. I added the ref to the last lede paragraph here, and have had to defend it. You may have the assumed good faith to add the last thought; I doubt I do. The minority will shout down most inclusions, but I can ref US usage specifically to Abba Hillel Silver’s “loud diplomacy.” There is nothing really wrong with the fourth sentence, except to be more accurate, add ‘following Zionism’ immediately after the comma and add an ‘also’. I agree that Judaism was ethnic before Zionism and in fact multi-ethnic. Similarly, before Zionism, it was multi-national, but for reasons of diaspora, not choice. Secularism and nationalism did start quite a long time before Zionism, but these were heading in several different newly enlightened directions. Zionism and the horrific historical imperative cemented Israel in the world as well as in the world’s conscience; Zionism succeeded. The basis, however, was poorly implemented (not that it ever could have been); the first phrase succeeded, but the failure of its second phrase caused failure of its last phrase. The leaders that fought for it and won, kept pursuing the thought, not its implementation after the fact; that seems quite Arafat-esque. The second phrase is still on the world's conscience.

Zionism is whatever Israel, Judaism, Jews and Zionists say it is; it is also its history and what the rest of the world says, sees and hears. Its country is recent, and similar to America’s relatively recent role as a superpower in the world, it has some kinks to work out. Currently Zionism is defined poorly, largely because it changed so drastically in ’77 as a result of ‘67 and it still changes when governments do. The four parts of Zionism that I list consist of the first two implements and the latter two implementers; differences exist between these internal parts. I have few differences with the former, but there is too much variance in the latter to accept without discussion. It would be so much easier for all concerned if there was an internal basic written understanding, and an internal question answered. Their lack of resolution seems to divide rather than unify a nation and therefore questions its nation-ness. These are strictly internal; I hope the answers are ‘universalist’, to use the RS’d phrase. The chosen must choose. Zionism on Wikipedia suffers from the lack of articles on the Israel identity crisis and the Jewish identity crisis. It also shows an imbalance that is very Euro-centric and too far to the right; the former, because of history and limited sources, the latter because of their audible volume. I will note that American Jewish views and contributions to Zionism are not included, despite their equal or larger numbers, their financial commitment and their political commitment of that power. Louis Brandeis is not mentioned once, his views were different than European Weizmann’s; that historic tiff is also not mentioned on the proper page. Until a fuller picture emerges, I will continue to characterize Wikipedia’s Zionism as excessively revisionist, quite incomplete, unbalanced and non-neutral.

I appreciate your time and the opportunity to respond, but it is too time-consuming for me to do well. I look forward to collaboration on edits, but will reply. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This is very interesting, and it will take me some time to read and think of all you wrote above, but one thing caught my eye - your edits to the "Land of Israel" article were indeed inaccurate. The term Eretz Yisrael became "politically incorrect" in Israel only in very specific contexts. For example, the term Arviyey Eretz Yisrael (Arabs of the Land of Israel), which was very common until the mid-80ies, is hardly ever used today, and the term Falastinim (Palestinians) took its place. In some political contexts the term "Land of Israel" which was very common before statehood and continued to be used in the early days of the State, was eventually changed to "Israel" as a reference to the State's actual name. Perhaps the most famous example is "lira Eretz-Yisraelit" (Land of Israel pound, a.k.a. Palestine pound, which changed its name to "lira Yisraelit", Israeli pound, a few years after the State was declared. "Eretz Yisrael" was considered by the British Mandate as equivalent to Palestine, though the British authorities were reluctant to use it, and whenever writing the Mandate's name in Hebrew they wrote: "Palestina (E.Y.)". In the Israeli legal terminology, Eretz Yisrael refers to the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine (this is probably an inheritance of the British Mandate Hebrew translations). In everyday usage, for the Israeli Hebrew speaker, it is the term used for the geographical region known by foreigners as Palestine, and it is quite neutral. DrorK (talk) 05:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That Eretz edit may be inaccurate in detail, since you seem to know more specifics than those stated in the current version, but it indicates that political/nationalistic usage of the term changed post-Begin and subsequent events (though the specific geography may not have). My point is that without that ref, the article would not be fully discussed and more NPOV; the two meanings are becoming mixed and propagandized.

If there was no ’67 and no Likud, Eretz Israel might be only a Judaic religious subject officially delineated in 1948. With those events, however, things changed. What is a recognized state, becomes redefined (Medinat/Eretz) to a biblical concept, by the democratically elected government with a right-wing maximalist ideology, along borders that previously defined a different people. That seems a subject of notability, with parallels to Serbia since Yugoslavia. Now, that concept gets sold as ‘we never changed our tune’ and ‘this is what God intended’; sorry, that latter concept is out of anyone’s reliability league. There are differences in basic concepts between the two words; one is democratic, I don’t know how best to characterize the other, check the ref. Under international law and human rights, the spelling differences generally spell a Palestinian state, since other things would come into the mix of how Israel has been self-defined. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comment[edit]

The edit summary says "Reverted to revision 276891682 by CasualObserver'48"[12] It doesn't say it reverted your edit, but rather it reverted someone else's and went back to yours. It's an automatic comment generated by Twinkle. Jayjg (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

based on Historic not moral[edit]

Moral claim was that Jews should have a country. the historic biblical claim was that it should be Palestine...2 separate claims, the first could be anywhere (hence Madagascar, Uganda or Canada territorialist options), the second a religious based (messianic) "historic" claim thrown out in 1920 King Crane report....It was the cross fertilisation of the two, one secular second messianic used to motivate a movement... Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


The historic claim was also thrown out again in 1947 when played out in front of the Ad Hoc committee...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Check these[edit]

The problem is that this comes out in specifics. One example is the MacDonald letter para 3 (1931), which elaborated on the 1930 Passfield White Paper which HMG recognized that its obligation was to the ‘Jewish people and not just to the Jewish population of Palestine. The Palestinian Arab response to such a clause only fuelled the notion that world Jewry possessed rights that the Arab themselves did not possess in Palestine. Chancellor could not perceive the logic of equality reflected in the idea: he wondered how Jews resident in Poland or Russia could be more entitled to the land of Palestine than was the indigenous Arab population.'

For example employment on public works was supposed to be according to percentages. The Jews were less than 20% of the population in 1930, but the Jewish Agency got round this by arguing hiring percentages should reflect the Jewish contribution to the tital revenue of the Palestine administration, which was 50%. See Kenneth W. Stein,The land question in Palestine, 1917-1939, p.130

The problem therefore was, and you see it in every detailed account of every major crisis 1920-1948, that the mandate's priviliging of as Jewish homeland, though not supposed to infringe on Palestinian rights, invariably did. Every negotiated agreement with Great Britain involving Arabs as a population with equal entitlement was then reneged more or less as the government backtracked under pressure to make sure the priority of a Jewish homeland outweighed the duty to be impartial, and give equal weight to Palestinian claims or rights.

See also, Raymond A. Hinnebusch, The international politics of the Middle East, Manchester University Press, 2003 p.155

Henry Cattan's, The Palestine question, Routledge, 1988 p.25 (is useful because there he notes that the original Balfour draft desired by Zionists spoke of ‘historic rights’, but this was changed this to ‘historical connection’ to the land. The word rights was then used of the other majority part of the population.

The same author's, Palestine and international law: the legal aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict,Longman, 1973 p.28 is also worth a shufti.Nishidani (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

CAT interest?[edit]

I have noted you involvement in the past concerning development of Categories; my experience in this area is zilch. I consider a Cat:Israel lobby to be of sufficient notability to have its own category. Currently, there is a Cat:Zionism in the United States, and maybe others.

From an organizational point of view, related articles currently exist for ‘in the US’ and ‘in the UK’ and various other articles from within those. There are also many groups that no longer exist, and those that might only be called the ‘Zionist lobby’, since they existed before Israel did. In addition, the Israel lobby in the United States article documents a right-leaning and a left-leaning split, which is of immense import, concerning various groups with opposing views; a similar split exists in the UK. This all quickly gets over my head. Any interest on your part? Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You could try creating Category:Israel-related advocacy groups or Category:Israel-related organizations and see what happens.
I looked around a little at some categories and their subcategories. For example;
Category:Foreign policy political advocacy groups in the United States
Category:Advocacy groups
Category:Political activism
Category:Political organizations
Category:Jewish political organizations
Category:Jewish-American political organizations
Category:Political organizations by issue
--Timeshifter (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the informative post. Although I have looked considerably over time, it seems that I should have looked differently. Your post points to deeper roots of the category structure, or more generically higher on the food-chain, so to speak. This is a decidedly more neutral view. I have spent more time looking into it since; the CATs you noted mark a more informed, top-down approach than I had assumed, since I asked the question from the bottom-up. Over time, I would like to pursue questions, should you care to, which result from findings in this regard and my initial determinations. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

relation with[edit]

Hi CA'48,
Even if the threaths were made 5 days before the start of the war and were dedicated to prevent the vote of the partition plan, all this is in relation with the war because : massacres were performed during the war, because the New york times reported the "dangerous situation" during the war (on 14 May) and because Efraim Karsh reports these "events" in his book during the war.
On the other way, if you move this material at the beginning of the section, it sound completely pov and not justified...
What do you think? Ceedjee (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is about bad shit happening during the 1948 Palestine War; that includes three thoughts; the bad stuff that happened, in that specific time period, and in or related to that war and its cause. If, Aden and Tripolitania happened in that time period, then OK; if not, they should be removed, or moved as appropriate to the ‘regular war’. I understand why the Egyptian UN rep said what he said, but he also understood the three-sided Balfour coin was being flipped again, and if it was going to happen with partition, the third side would be affected. Balfour had already established the (uneven) balance of the Jews and non-Jews in Palestine, as well as other Jews elsewhere. He gave a warning, as did many non-Arab others, by the way. The section title should be changed to ‘Arab warnings and threats of massacre’.
The civil war was ongoing and opposition to partition was already established; the 1948 war widened as a result of the partition vote. Since no other mentions to happenings outside Palestine exist, it pretty much must be included in this paragraph. I do not see what you consider POV problems with my edit moving the paragraph higher in the section. It happened before the vote. Additionally, I see no problems if the last sentence (Aden and Tripolitania) is moved to the bottom of the ‘After the Partition vote’ paragraph. It is probably more accurate to relate it to the war, but some minor re-wording would be necessary. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Tripolitania events were before (even if there had been some others in '48)
I agree with the remaining. The title should be changed. Ceedjee (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies[edit]

My account appears to have rollbacked one of you edits. Fortunately someone noticed and fixed it. Sorry about this. (If you're interested in the gory details of what may have caused this see [[13]]).--Peter cohen (talk) 08:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Gadara Aqueduct[edit]

Gadara Aqueduct. Kind regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Documentary self-FYI[edit]

For documentary purposes, you are notified of this, with which you are most definitely involved. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Clouds on hinterland horizon[edit]

I would appreciate your read of this; my questions remain unanswered on the noticeboard. The lack of response, I may assume, indicates concurrence; to assume however, might also indicate, ass u me. You might remember a common thread through my previous environmental analyses from here. Two threads are now entwined around the gaming on and of this particular noticeboard, which is project-designed to end the game, not be a hall of fame forum for it. Is this real, or just virtual? (The Memorex question in an earlier era.) Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I won't claim to necessarily know anything about the topic, and I honestly didn't attempt to research it, as I noticed that User:John Nagle seems to have responded. To me, his response seems a suggestion to simply be bold and make your suggested edits.
If you feel that I am misunderstanding, please feel free to clarify. - jc37 02:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Simply put, my first edit was definitely bold; it was flippantly deleted as being OR. That bold edit was correct and for the specific reasons I provided at the time; later events (refs) support this and make it moot. Making that edit now is only clean-up and addition. I have since made another bold edit, however; it is not on an article page, so maybe not quite so pure as policy intent. Please read that short discussion, and advise me on what you see as valid, invalid, as well as proper and improper. Stop (An archaic language usage for the end of an item and the start of a new thought).
I have just now become aware of other relevant things, but the votes aren’t in. My most recent bold edit also may become moot, and decisions have much bearing on my future comments/actions. I would still appreciate your impression of the above. I look very positively on the impending decisions, find it very conducive for more proper project implementation, with much support for my over-all pov. It may cause me however, to push more into other closely-related subjects and pages, following those content-specific decisions. We will likely be talking again. Thanks, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hasbara[edit]

No problem. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

ELi Hacohen bias claims.[edit]

Having looked at the article in Haaretz and noticed that Hacohen's organisation were joint sponsors with Wikipedia Israel of the conference, I decided to post at the IPCOLL talk page and not to an admin board.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter, thanks. You seem to have a better, more current and Wiki-experienced reaction to these things than I do. You are also likely still on the only up side of life's hump, while I am likely over that and on the natural downward slide-side. I have deferred to your more current and aware understanding of the world and the Wiki-universe. That is what happens, what is natural; but, there is no neutral in that. What happens in one's life is most basically an unknown mix of mother, father and the all-mighty, with the added complication of what and when inevitable shit happens; life and pov are all real, but similarly all relative, and all non neutral. After that, and as a result of that, is when an editorial pov is developed. In America we say; there are only two things that one can depended upon, death and taxes. The wiki-world is now much wider, with more chances to do something, and thus, more opportunities to fail. I made the choice to do something, and appreciate the opportunity to pass to you the result of my decision. Thanks, and I will watch what develops. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Upside? I entered the plateau some while ago. (My earliest memories of the outside world are of Churchill's funeral being broadcast and of William Hartnell turning into Patrick Troughton.) And your judgment seems just fine to me. No blocks and on the JIDF hate list. What more could I ask?--Peter cohen (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Un-Block Request; please, it ain't me[edit]

Artículo bueno.svg

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock #1506961 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Note for Blocking Admin: I am indirectly and wrongly blocked from editing. I am unaware of all the technical lingo but the ISP provider is likely the largest wireless internet provider in the country. Outside of major cities, wireless is the only way to connect. I hope something may be worked out soon. Thanks, [[User:CasualObserver'48|]] (talk) 08:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I am assigning you the IP block exemption flag, so that you won't be affected by the autoblock. However, please read that policy and ensure you do not breach it, as that will result in the removal of the flag. Apologies for the inconvenience. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC Haredi or Ultra-Orthodox[edit]

Please add your comment to Talk:Modi'in Illit#Ultra-Orthodox.2FHaredi. Thanks --Shuki (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits[edit]

Thank you for your helpful edits at the South Lebanon conflict (1982–2000) article. I have been recently working to clean up that article and I appreciate your review of the introductory paragraph to rephrase and articulate the events more clearly. Please feel free to contribute more to that article, if you have any additional editorial ideas. Nimur (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. Having an article understandable for an average reader is one of the things that is often missing (sometimes by design/default) in the ME arena which I generally edit. In this case, I was unsatisfied with the uneven coverage of the '82 Lebanon war and ended up going thru parts of the siege and South Lebanon to be familiar with content and to return necessary parts to re-construct a whole there. This instance is a little too forky for me. Sometimes however, I don't receive such positive comments. Thanks, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for William B. Quandt[edit]

Updated DYK query On October 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William B. Quandt, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, gee, thanks. I appreciate the specific DYK tidbit that was used and hope his views are seen in a similar, somewhat NPOV, light when his books are used as a source within the specific editing arena. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Your change[edit]

Hey, just a quick note on your change here. The source says "the Washington Institute derives 87 percent of its operating revenues through direct public support." It then says that it has over 600 donors listed in its 2005 tax returns. It wasn't clear from the source if those donors fall into the 87 percent or the 13 percent, which is why I just went with the wording in the source. If 87 percent of its revenues are from private citizens, what would the other 13 percent be? I assumed that was referring to the private donors, but I'm unsure. ← George talk 13:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see your position, but I considered that edit carefully, and for now still consider it better than how WINEP has said it. I light of their following sentence, they might have meant 'through direct support publicly'. This could be an editorial conundrum and can see that, but as I said, in American usage the term 'public support', and specifically 'publicly supported' generally means gov't (sanctioned financial) support, while 'support of the public' or 'private support' generally means from individuals, when dealing with 'funds'. WINEP, I am quite sure, gets no gov't support, but lots of private support publicly, as their long list of trustees indicates. On a somewhat lighter but less AGF note, based on a reasonable familiarity with WINEP's history and what it has said over the years, I'd give even odds that the wording they provide has been carefully considered to include the content of this very conundrum. As an alternative to keep more current words, I could also accept 'through direct support of the public', but I have trouble with Wikipedia's NPOV accepting their usage of the phrase 'through direct public support'; that is fine when one is speaking of positions and ideas, but not when speaking of funding.
The other 13%, based on what they say they do, might include annual conference fees, closed-door policy forum fees, publication sales and contracted research programs (being paid by others to do what they do). It might also include, investments, speaking fees and even contracted research work for the government, but this latter would be from their 'work' and definitely not 'public support'. I don't mean to cause editorial headache and I don't like to step on or misrepresent others' own words, but I do expect their words to be clear in their meaning when used in Wikipedia, and in this case they are clearly muddy, or possibly even muddled. Hope that provides some help to establish my editorial position regarding the edit. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


South Lebanon conflict[edit]

Hi CasualObserver'48. Thanks for your recent work at South Lebanon conflict (1982–2000). I have copyedited some of your contributions, and I am continuing to work on the introduction to make it as clear and concise as possible. Let me know if you have any comments or suggestions to help make the content of this article more understandable. Your background is helpful information, and as you point out, the historical context does indeed go back to earlier dates. I'm a little concerned that this article is becoming very large - the title specifically states that it is for the 1982-2000 conflict. I see two options:

  1. Rename the article to encompass the whole South Lebanon conflict (1918 or 1948 - present)
  2. Move other useful content into a new article, "Background of the South Lebanon conflict" or some similar article

I'd be happy to discuss these options on the article talk page. Nimur (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Iran and weapons of mass destruction[edit]

Hi, I found you on the Countering Systemic Bias page. There is currently a dispute at Talk:Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#US_claims_of_a_weapons_program about wording.

I have proposed noting that the US intelligence's assessment of Iran's nuclear program is an assertion or allegation rather than a definitive fact and have had some problem with my placement of a disputed tag on the area which is disputed in the article.

Could you help provide some input? Thanks,--71.156.89.167 (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Outdent: While I have made some edits already, I’ll comment here first, concerning the article’s bias, and state my point of view by making some suggestions. You are the first one to ask me anything on systematic bias. I really do not see any particular systematic bias exhibited in the article, but I do see some critical systematic errors, that some might see as such. First of all however, I must suggest that you establish a username and page; it is an advantage, because you aren’t an anon; and there is realistic systematic bias there, especially considering your choice of topics and approach. Other than your anon status, I personally see no lines crossed or edits warred, and you come with your own RSs, RS, V, and NPOV are most important in a very, very long list. Learn to make those edits with more finesse; editors do not own articles, but many watch the bird that exists, rather than the potential benefits of better/more. I will keep an eye on it, but generally choose to delve into other buckets, which are less recent and warm to the touch.

Concerning the article, the first problem I see, is the lede, which constitutes a poor summary of the content. The second is a missing section, which should deal with the RS’d allegations themselves and which, to me, is the notable foundation of the article itself. This section should include specifically what these where/are, who leaked/made them, hopefully why and indicating them with consistent chronology. The veracity of those RS’d allegations is another subject entirely. It one that includes another instance where previous allegations were later RS’d as largely improper and untrue, after the fact, and Iran’s case, which has been repeated and repeatedly dismissed, officially. But only, because those allegations of a program positive cannot be ‘verified’; certain parties appear to demand proof of a program’s negative, which is a logical impossibility, and happens to be IAEA’s job in this case, more-or-less. Go figure.

The article suffers from some quite original OR, particularly in ‘The U.S. stance’ section; my favorite bullet starts with; “Iran has been repeatedly threatened with a nuclear first strike by the United States. The U.S. Nuclear Posture Review made public in 2002 specifically envisioned the use of nuclear weapons on a first strike basis, even against non-nuclear armed states. Please read the attached ref, and convince yourself that the Wiki-prose is a NPOV synopsis of the RS. Many other sentences suffer similarly, and lead to an overly anti-US bias, in my mind. My next for the hall of shame begins; ‘A potential reason behind U.S. resistance to an Iranian nuclear program lies in Middle Eastern geopolitics.’ Read the ref, is that NPOV? Seems like a lot of CB to me. The best approach is to continue using the ref in your lap and correcting it to a proper job of symopsis.

Another consistent problem is the improper mixing of chronological events; the paragraph above is a prime example, it refers to decisions resulting from of the cold war’s end and other changes in the world, upon which other decisions have been made. If anything, much of that para should go as the first bullet.

The US/Western view of ‘once burnt, twice shy’ (for example, noting Iraq, Pakistan and Israel) is a valid argument, as Iran’s is. Add to that suspicion, distrust and unnecessary hate, which continues generally unabated on rhetorical, political and individual levels, for many varied reasons, and the Wiki-editor gets it dropped in his lap, tries to absorb and reflect it; some actually choose to deal with this particular bucket of shit. I wonder, once various courses are set, plans made, and an existing threat is defined, how does direction change, if that alleged threat remains unverified? Does it change, has it changed, or will it ever? Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ghajar Article[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Please note that I am bringing this to the attention of the admins. Not only are you violating 3RR, but your edits show a lack of understanding of the purpose and objectivity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. You have inserted a sentence in quotation marks with no context, no attribution, and no reason. It doesn't provide the reader with additional facts; its only goal is pushing your own POV. I hope you will use these events as an opportunity to review the policies and change your editing style appropriately.

Breein1007 (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  • I've considered the WP:AN3 report made by the other editor, and after looking over the page history and its talk page, I've conclude that it's a content dispute by both. You should end the reverting now and utilise the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution. If reverts continue after this notice, then the reverting editor is likely to be blocked and/or the page will be fully protected until the dispute is settled. I'd prefer neither to happen. NJA (t/c) 07:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

merry christmas to you too[edit]

I was not offended, though i may of come off a little snarky, and if that is the case, i apologize. identity issues are sensitive ones. I appreciate your comments and insight. About 'Arabic-speaking Christians', it might perhaps work, but it problematic in that Arab Christians of the Arab diaspora do not generally speak Arabic. I do blieve we can write an npov article under this article, if we include all significant viewpoints, including those of Christians who reject arab identity, with a link to articles on discussions on them. thanks again for your comments and best holiday wishes to you and yours, Tiamuttalk 10:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Your reverts at 1953 coup in Iran[edit]

CasualObserver'48, you must work toward establishing {{WP:consensus]] and you have not done this. Please try to persuade those of us reading this talk page (and who have a long history writing and editing this article) that what you have repeatedly added to the lead of this article is the unchallenged mainstream view by historians of this coup. Using mainstream sources AND PAGE NUMBERS from recognized historians, journalists or academics who are expert in this subject, please show that this was THE single primary motivation of the US government. If you believe this strongly, you ought to be able to prove it. We will listen. In the absence of proof, you are acting as the catalyst for an unnecessary edit war. Skywriter (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:The Professors[edit]

I hope you don't mind, but I've created a new section on the talk page for your comment, in order to keep the notability discussion on track. --Ronz (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, and can see likely that I will not get too far into the discussion. BLP stuff is too contentious for me. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In regard to your comment, I'd already pointed out that "Sourced information related to both the book and the specific person on the list might be appropriate, depending upon the source." My meaning was that a mention of any individual from the list would require such a reference, and even then there would likely be problems depending upon the reference. Realistically, I don't think the BLP and WP:COAT problems could be resolved given the minor notability of the book. --Ronz (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't completely understand what you said, or your explanation of its meaning. But by your words, do you expect another source to be required so that one of those noted might be presented on some form of a list? I do not necessarily agree with that. The author has named many as the title indicates; isn't it equally neutral to indicate their type, tenor, and notability, based solely on their blue name? Their notability previously has been established by their own blue link, established elsewhere and with their own arguments. You mention 'minor notability of the book', I assume you have a ref for that. I might agree that the book is of minor consequence, of minor credibility, or given his POV, quite incredible, but by his concatenation of those, the author has created his own list, his own coatrack. While Wikipedia must avoid that in its own articles, I don't think that it should undo what the author has done. Rightfully, wiki might even provide a source that notes this. The work is a classic slam-piece, a fine example of propaganda, inuendo, with its documented errors duly noted. I believe, with the list included, the Wiki article provides the readers with what they should know; let them decide. It is also what the book deserves. The book is not scholarly, its reviled subjects are; it is his only POV talking, set by his adgenda. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your perspective. You bring up some good points. Is acceptable to make a coatrack article on a coatrack book?
"But by your words, do you expect another source to be required so that one of those noted might be presented on some form of a list?" No. I mean that if a list were made, each entry would require its own source, and each source would have to meet BLP.
By "minor notability" I mean that the book only meets the most basic of WP:BK criteria. It's no award-winner. It's hard to find even a few thorough reviews.
I'm with you on feeling that it's an ineffective use of editing time... --Ronz (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Despite my acceptance of basic Wiki-policy/guidelines, I can only see the book in a coatrack light, and one fueled by a supercharged POV, a wacko title, and in way of presentation, with little redeeming value for the readers. Can you imaging if it was submitted as a page in Wiki? Well, Horowitz and his minions have done it, and Wiki has accepted it. The question is how we handle that; I see it as notable, with little reliable as an RS. You indicate something similar, with your 'coatrack book' construction. Non-inclusion of 'a' list censors what was published, whether I agree with this bull or not. Are we only going to discuss his mistakes, and the few who rebutted?
I stay away from BLPs generally, but your mention 'to meet BLP' made me look, and I read through 'Rationale', which is a good place to start, as well as the 'nutshell'. I see some distinct differences, however, between the person's mention in the article in question, and the normal BLP and BLP page. This page is a book; it is not in the Living-people-category, it only mentions living people, most are not talked about. As such, their mention here is only input (or not) into their BLP; some might not mention it on their CV, but others might proudly put it in bold at the top. Whatever one may wonder about the subject's privacy, I believe that was all blown away with the book's publishing. Should we regurgitated that bunk, absolutely not; are there any back-links from this page back to people on the non-existent list? There shouldn't be, unless the references also note the author in question is full of pov'd shit has been proven unreliable.
Concerning your each entry would require its own source, and each source would have to meet BLP. I see it differently because this is not strictly a BLP; it is a book with its theoretical damage done. I would argue that the listed persons' blue link is reference enough, and very much indeed, meets BLP. I would argue that each link provides that person with a neutrally presented other-side-of-the-coin defense to refute what is above in this article: it is their relative CV against his words. (By extension, I would then argue, if persons are red-linked, they should be stricken from inclusion, because they have no defense on Wikipedia.) Horowitz has slammed them, let their RSd wiki-article defend them. This is a couple steps down the windy part of a generally straight BLP road.
I agree with your assessment of 'minor notability' for the book, as you may have surmised; my perspective is quite distant from that of Horowitz, but that doesn't matter. I believe the book was published for other value like propaganda, hasbara, long live the blogosphere, etc. You might look at the categories at the bottom of the author's page. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Iran coup[edit]

Since we seem to have hit a dead end in reaching consensus, I propose we seek mediation or arbitration of the article. What would the editors who are not satisfied with the lack of any mention of coldwar motivation of the coup (and the lack of any mention of anything that might be considered a criticism of Mosaddegh) in the article think of rewriting the article to our satisfaction on a separate page in preparation for mediation or arbitration of the article? I'm thinking of CasualObserver and Binksternet and maybe some editors who dropped out of the editing recently.

I've started such a rewrite on my talk page but it can be moved to another location if desired. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well Booga, I dunno. While being firmly in the NPOV-unhappy camp, I tried that route once before (against an expert wiki-gamer) and found it excessively time-consuming, frustrating, and an inefficient use of editorial effort. You have been at it for longer and appear more committed to the subject; I just blew in, made some valid RS'd edits and got blown off. If you go that way, the first question should be why other reliable sources are excluded for the page. I suggest you go for an RfC first; that gives all those involved a chance to perform a relative wiki sniff-test from a larger audience; it provides outside input and often valid points, which only those uninvolved can see. Although this route has a lower level of validity, if might be the best first step. The problem is in defining the right question neutrally, and I think the question of source exclusion is their weakest NPOV stand; the COI complaint was a ruse, and I was surprised that one editor swallowed it so vigorously. I took a brief look at your re-write, and it seems to be going in the right direction, by covering areas currently excluded, but I really don't like the phrase 'fear of communism'; 'concern of Soviet expansion', or something RS'd along those lines, characterizes the US government position better. I will keep an eye on things and see how Bink reacts and things develop, but at this point, my interest is waning, though I might make some edits to your re-write. I also suggest you modify the archive bot to slow the removal of open and valid discussions; it is a common tactic used by 'consensus', and comes due in about a week. The sections my edit started are a good synopsis of the problems on the page. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty busy right now but I will try and start a RfC as you suggest Monday. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
This is not an RfC but a proposal for a new lead that once trashed by Kurz and Sky will become the subject of RfC. See what you think. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
It certainly looks better; I’ll reply here with a few (not-so) quick comments:
Para2: Drop ‘his’ before ‘nationalist supporters’, they were nationalists in their own right and later broke with Mossy.
Sentence 2: This misses the notability of Abadan being the world’s largest refinery, and its worldwide economic/oil run-on. (See cryptic Lencz mention below)
Sentence 3: Lenczowski does not exactly support ‘the British government successfully enlisted the support of the United States in planning and executing the coup’; read what he writes about/says: After noting the US cut off military aid to Iran in Jan’52 (Truman?) (p34), he notes Truman was growing so exasperated with the British “rule or ruin’ policy in Iran that they were ready to cast aside cooperation and develop “an independent policy or run the gravest risk of having Iran disappear behind the Iron curtain…” (quoting Truman memoirs). But it was precisely this risk of Soviet absorption of Iran that prompted Acheson, despite his own criticism of Eden’s foot-dragging, to insist on synchronization of American and British policy. Any break with London could weaken NATO ‘and require joint action by major American oil companies—an alternative Acheson dreaded to envision because of known opposition of “police dogs” in the anti-trust division of the Department of Justice’. Lencz discusses Mossy’s diplomatic vacillations, a growing fever pitch in Teheran, and his brief departure and return, ‘this time demanding and obtaining near-dictatorial powers.’ Next para(LenczAmPres. p36)

At about this time the idea began to gain ground, in both Washington and London, that no solution to the conflict could be found so long as Mossadegh stayed in power. Ambassador Henderson was given instructions to explore, together with the British charge d’affaires, possible alternatives to the obstreperous Iranian premier. This trend of thought found strong support in London, where a belief prevailed that, in spite of his midsummer victory, Mossadegh was becoming politically weaker, a number of his early allies having deserted him in the course of 1952. In August Prime Minister Churchill proposed to President Truman a joint approach to Iran. By the fall the principal of combined British-American action was adopted in practice. Its implementation, however, was to be worked out by the new administration that came into office in January 1953.

I consider this may cover sentence 3 better: The American Truman Administration, which had tried to negotiate the dispute, now insisted, in light of the Cold War, on synchronization of American and British policy; by the summer of 1952, “the idea began to gain ground, in both Washington and London, that no solution to the conflict could be found so long as Mossadegh stayed in power.”(LenczAmPres. p36) In March 1953, after additional failed negotiations, the Eisenhower administration agreed with the British government to plan and execute the coup, fearing that Iran was in danger of falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire". Though I don’t particularly like the ‘empire’ link; it has too much chronological crystal ball. I will watch and see if legitimate responses develop. I’ve also done some work here, since it establishes some preexisting documentation. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I pasted all this on the coup talk page. Hope you do not object. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Any thought on my reply and rewriting? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Next step on coup article[edit]

What do you think of the new Kurdo/sky version of the lead? If you prefer the rewrite as of Feb 28 (that I thought people had agreed on), what would you prefer to do - start a Wikipedia:Requests for comment now? or sort out a rewrite of the huge abrahamian quote and ask for comments on both at the same time? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I am still considering whether the whole thing is worth my time; it is outside my general area of choice, concern, and expertise. Western Cold war concern of Soviet expansion is still not in the lede, even though Abrahamian mentions its significance; no notable mention of American involvement is included, after they tried to negotiate throughout, and only later changed their tactics; and Mossy's loss of domestic support because of the severe economic situation is also missing. The current lede has been imposed again by those who consider they own it; I do not believe their stated objections are wiki-valid. The condition of the article is more your concern than mine. I do not want to give the impression we are working together, and might work independently. Have you developed a simple neutral question on which to request comment? Without that, it may lead to an unanticipated result. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
1) my apologies for not giving a link to rewrite version that does include western cold war concern of Soviet expansion.
2) the general pattern for the 1953 coup article is for editors to come across the article, see how crappy is it, try to make some improvements and become worn down by the True Believers (i.e. those believing that the coup was a struggle of good versus evil, which have been Kurdo and Skywriter for the last year or so) and go on to something easiler to edit. So think of what I'm trying to do as not so much recruit you to my team but get a concensus for cold-war acknowledging version while making it easy for you to give input and not get worn down spending a lot of your time.
3) I'll try to work on including american negotiation and Mossy's loss of domestic support because of the severe economic situation in the lead. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
4) the brief, neutral statement for the WP:RfC I was thinking of would be simply "which version of the lead do you think is better?" as there are a number of differences between the two leads. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I have made my initial comments, where they are most relevant. That question seems to assume too much general knowledge on the part of those uninvolved to elicit a definable response. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I have made my initial comments, where they are most relevant. You mean your recent edits to the current article?
See what you think of the rewritten proposed lead. I'm trying to include your points while expanding the lead as little as possible, as it already is a bit hefty.
See if you think this section includes your concerns about the severe economic situation.
Will work on a RfC question not assuming as much general knowledge. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Your edit summary[edit]

Sorry, but could you please explain what you meant by "Changed (prose and) ref, to comply with admin abuse of filtering; better AGF if corrected by sourcing it yourself, than just placing just a fact tag)"? On first read, it appears quite unfair, but I'd like to hear more from you to get a better understanding of what you actually meant. Thanks in advance. --Ckatzchatspy 09:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

With such a very good AGF comment, I both should and will reply; but in the end it is only a matter of perspective and largely understandable, I think, because of differences between the valid good faith edit made and your abusefilter designation (job) to avoid such use (apparently including that particular site). First, for the minor '(prose and)' stuff. Other than the initial shock of a ref insertion being immediately reverted, the action forced me to find another source, as you noted in your edit summary (rm. for several reasons: not a reliable source; material can be sourced directly; ProCon site has been spammed, even hosted contest to promote). When one such was found, it resulted in what I considered an improvement of that expressed opinion, and caused a change of prose to characterize it.
The second is that I have no idea what such an abusefilter job might entail, although I am aware it is an official designation, as well as sysop. As I tried to explain in my accompanying post at talk, I was comparing the current version with an older version, which had had that mention specifically ref'd, but I didn't bother to look at the specifics of its removal, being nearly a year since the benchmark I used. I already knew it could be ref'd, so I just re-inserted the former one. Your note of 'not a reliable source'--abuse-filtered or not--was news to me and seemed very subjective, since you ended your comment with 'ProCon site has been spammed, even hosted contest to promote'. I will point out that you failed to complete any mention of what they had 'promoted'. I also questioned the passive voice usage of 'has been spammed'. Isn't the abuse filtering to avoid Wiki being spammed, rather than indicating that this site was an apparent victim of spam? I will also note from most variable pov perspectives, that even a mention of such pro-con possibility in juxtaposition is largely at odds with the historic roots of the article subject. In this light, my mention of [maintaining a] 'better AGF if [it was] corrected by sourcing it yourself, [rather] than just placing just a fact tag', might make more sense. I don't know what your abusefilter job is, do not want to make it more difficult, but I did want to note that by replacing the ref with one more acceptable (and as you note was available) would likely have avoided my likely overly pugnacious 'admin abuse of filtering' phrasing. Let me say that it was an uninformed, but good faith edit' which was reverted in a legitimate administrative way, which indicated minimal AGF. In a way, it killed the messenger, rather than dealing more properly with the message. Does that explain my comment and answer your question sufficiently? Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I get it, you're seeing the "abusefilter" bit as being connected to this. It isn't actually related at all; that simply means I'm able to create and edit software filters aimed at automatically weeding out problem edits. The removal of the PC link isn't related to the filtering system, but to that site's past history on Wikipedia regarding spammed links and a contest they instituted (complete with cash prize) in order to promote the creation of a Wikipedia article about themselves. (That's the part that seems to have been cut off in the edit summary.) Furthermore, discussions following those events led to the conclusion that - while useful as a starting point for research - the ProCon site itself should be avoided as a direct reference. Much of the material they host can, instead, be linked directly back to the same sites they got it from. Hope this helps clarify matters. --Ckatzchatspy 16:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Mediation at 1953 Iranian coup d'état[edit]

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning 1953 Iranian coup d'état has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/1953 Iranian coup d'état and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Binksternet (talk) Binksternet (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


Request for mediation not accepted[edit]

Exquisite-folder4.png A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/1953 Iranian coup d'état.
For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Thank you very much[edit]

Your comment is very much appreciated. fy, the page you were looking for is Template:The_Third_Opinion_Award :)--Work permit (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom notice: 1953 Iranian coup POV[edit]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#1953 Iranian coup POV and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Lobby articles[edit]

I did save the bestWP:RS (per past discussions) of the alert.googles on Jewish Lobby for about 2 years til fall 2009 and can email you the raw file if you want to go through it. I just don't have energy. They should provide evidence word is widely used as synonym of Israel lobby and of its other uses and be evidence to show very long section of allegations of antisemtism is WP:UNDUE.

Can't find the "email user" link I think most pages had before to ask you. Mine is through my web page, just google and you'll find this Carol fast enough :-0 CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Carol, good to hear from you; it has been quite a while. Although I recently edited a page, I am unsure if this message was intended for me, or for another editor with whom you were discussing things. If it was indeed for me, and not just a wrong button, let me know. I am of course interested, but tend to work more on history than relatively current events; in any case, keep the file saved. Best regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it was for you. When get a chance will figure out how to email it. Or email me via my carolmoore.net. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team wants You![edit]

Hi CasualObserver'48, I saw some of your contributions on an article that falls within the scope of Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The best place to start -Yes, I am very interested, intrigued even, and also somewhat flattered by the invitation. I spent the last day looking into the project's plans, scope, and methods, as well as what articles are presently included, and the many I see that are not. At the moment though, I am still assessing the level of involvement which I can commit to this significant project. Saying yes and acting on such productive things are not necessarily the same. I want to come in with all eyes open; I already know that much of this is new to me, and therefore requires even more time spent learning what to do and how to do it well. Thus far my involvement/commitment to Wiki Projects has been self-motivated; I edit/post what seems most productive within the realm I have chosen, and where that leads. I guess in part, it led to your invitation. May I ask which edited articles you saw, and what made you notice; the latter is self-generated project feedback.
I consider becoming involved to be mutually beneficial, to provide a broadening and more global approach to my edits and those of others, as well as to be an NPOV-learning experience. At the same time, I am not broadly a 'policy' guy; only general aspects of this project are currently intriguing from a knowledge base, and fit well into my edit history, but that could change. In my area of particular interest, I very much see the need for improvement, particularly in the areas of comprehensiveness and sourcing. As evidenced by the color, I also see some gaping holes in Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage; I know there are widely RS'd reasons for this, as well as its nonexistence being part and parcel of the real world, and mirrored in Wiki-experience.
Initially, I would like to add articles to the project, learn more about categories and formatting, and make some dry-runs at assessing compared to some existing assessments. Once I understand the process better, I'll feel better about delving in as part of something else. After the above questions are answered, maybe a few others, and a couple of days think-time, I will likely commit on the appropriate page, should my comments still allow compliance with your requirements. Warmest Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
hi CasualObserver'48, I am glad you are interested in the project. I have probably contacted about 15 Wikimedians so I'm not sure exactly which article led me to you. But looking back, it was probably related to foreign policy or middle east conflicts. I also looked at talk pages to find Wikimedians who tried to deescalate hot topics and truly reach consensus. The underdevelopment in your areas of interest is a problem for many articles within the scope of U.S. Public Policy and big reason why this subject area was selected for this project. As to tagging articles for the project: Have at it! I probably tagged about 20% of the 433 articles in the project. So I am really hoping for more people to tag articles, since that will help immensely with assessment to increase the potential sample size and improve the statistical analysis. The 433 articles currently in the project represent only a fraction of en.wikipedia articles related to U.S. public policy, so the more people tagging the better. As to the dry-runs at assessing, actually the first assessment I would like to do is a planned experiment with 10 or hopefully 20 assessors with multiple reviews of the same articles. This will give us some idea of the variability of the metric itself. The inconsistency of assessment particularly in lower class articles seems to be something many people have been wrestling with. Since part of this project is to "improve the quality of public policy articles" this gives us an opportunity to test the assessment metrics and get some statistical evidence of how well they work. I love the challenge of trying to get a quantitative measurement for something as qualitative as article quality.ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
ARoth, your reply was what I asked for and needed, and thanks for moving it here. Your reply also provided me a better understanding of the sequence of events, and my part in them; you follow the plan, I follow requests/instructions, and USPP is king. I will sign up shortly, but have one more round to say now; some will call it soap, I call it being honest. My mention of a dry-run was only as a personal qualifications and AGF self-test, unrelated to the project, because the invitation presents me with some moral and editorial dilemas; it is a complicating factor. For me, the invitation is similar to trying on a new hat in front of a mirror, which I am not disposed to do; is that new hat me, can I pull it off, is it too wierd or out of style, not bold enough, or is it just the spring collection available? And what about the articles I have edited, or would have; because my edits often fall within what the project is trying to do, what do I do now? I should not refrain from editing before the initial assessment and then go gangbusters after, because that might be stacking the deck; it will not happen anyway, because I am slow and steady all the time in my edits. Maybe I am making a mountain from a mole hill, but I decided early that the only way I can edit neutrally is to do it as that open book. I won't and can't change that; that is me, you wanted a different view, and you asked for me.
But I do have a transparency admission within possible project pervue, and it should be stated now. For many years earlier, and again since I started volunteering here, when not editing, I have been learning and researching to fill holes in completeness, re-balance my NPOV, and develop a neutral way to include new content, if that was possible. Many of these collected items are difficult to present in a proper Wiki-way and have stacked up in my journals because, while they widely exist RS'd and V'd, the equally necessary alternative refs are generally lacking because they exist largely as, or are considered to be 'conventional wisdom'. That term, which is nearly an immovable force, once established, is very hard to properly cite. Another twin consideration of mine since on Wikipedia, which I consider now-justified by the invitation, is the concept that a good edit history is an editor's best asset and, if adding/improving content is the prime motivation, it can only be accomplished productively if the environment remains lighted and not heated. Very often I have decided, before-the-fact, to avoid such hassles, despite the plain relevance and notability of the omission; maybe my involvement in this initiative will provide me more boldness to improve completeness and sourcing quality, and eventually neutrality. It certainly should, because 'be bold' is requested of an editor; it also likely will at some point, because the invitation has provided me with a far purer pov, with which to point with an expand-tag, or make those edits, and I certainly do feel better about that. Warmest regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi CasualObserver'48 - I just saw your response here, sorry for the delay. I am still trying to figure out how to manage my user account. I totally agree on not assessing articles that you have a role in editing, I'm sure it goes against Wikipedia policies and well, it's bad science. So I totally agree, if you (or any of the article reviewers) draw an article that you actively edited, beyond correcting spelling or a punctuation error, then we should select a different article for your assessment. I really want to start editing more on my personal time as well, I am just in a pretty crazy transitional period right now (pregnant, moving to SF, new job... and the list actually goes on). As soon as I can start working on editing articles, my plan for approaching it is similar to yours: find sources, make it is about my learning, try to be neutral without being bland, don't take things too personally, and let the editing speak for itself. I am really interested in creating articles about historical women who for some reason have been overlooked, there is very little in HIStory about some of the women who made important contributions. Many of them don't even have stubs in Wikipedia. (Sorry I completely just went on a tangential soap box.) Anyway thanks for being willing to try on the article assessment hat. I look forward to working with you. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for joining the PPI Assessment Team. There is a request for you to review some articles and a description of assessment logistics on the WP:USPP Assessment Page. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi CasualObserver'48, thank you for assessing articles in the Wikiproject: United States Public Policy. This project is probably different than other assessment drives you have worked on, it involves more assessment of lower ranked articles, it has input and staff from the foundation, and specific goals to improve and measure content of public policy articles. It also involves collaboration from some university classes, we are using an experimental assessment rubric, and most articles will be assessed by multiple reviewers to get a range of scores for each article. I have learned a lot from many of the assessors comments and am really excited about the insight from this group of Wikipedians. I hope you are finding some benefits to involvement in this project. 1) your assessments are part of research that is attempting to increase credibility of Wikipedia in academic circles, 2) there is a great group of assessors involved in discussion of what is article quality and how to measure it, 3) WP:USPP is also piloting the Article Feedback tool, so if interested, those involved in assessment on the project will be asked to help improve and rate this tool as well, and 4) subject matter experts are assessing articles alongside Wikipedians and comparisons of results will provide some insight as to the rigor of Wikipedia quality rating.
To give you an update on assessment, about half of the assessments are complete for the first part of this first assessment. I had some trouble finding public policy experts to join us in assessing, but finally managed to recruit a group last week, hopefully some of them will join the discussion on the assessment talk page. Next week, I should have some preliminary results to share with you, I will also post the second assessment request very soon. The discussion on the talk page is very exciting, and I hope if you are interested, you will provide input on the Article Feedback Tool which is being piloted on articles in WP:USPP. Please let me know if there is anything I and the project team can do to make working on this project a more positive experience. Thanks again, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Assessing articles is a whole new world for me, and a different way of looking at Wiki-content, but still completely dependent on what one knows, or doesn't know, about a particular subject; the difference happens to be experience- and/or interest-driven, and likely highly variable between assessors. No problem there; that is what makes up the world. I have kept up with the discussion and will ammend my methods some, based on those discussions and a differently considered approach to the rubric. I do understand the effect of variance in data on the deliverable. Just drop the next assignment on my page, and I'll start when I see it. Regards,CasualObserver'48 (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

PPI Assessment Update[edit]

Thanks for contributing to WP:USPP, your assessments are a part of a deeper look at assessing article quality in Wikipedia. The quality and rationality behind the assessment scores by the Wikpedians on this project is really impressive, it is an insightful and knowledgeable group. There is some information about preliminary results of assessment data on the project assessment talk page, I hope you check it out and add your thoughts. There is also an additional article assessment request for you. This assessment set will wrap up the first experiment which analyzes the consistency of the quantitative metric and compares subject matter expert assessment to Wikipedian assessment.

The second experiment will start in November and you will be asked to assess articles and also provide feedback on the Article Feedback Tool. The results of that experiment will compare your idea of article quality to the ranking from the Article Feedback Tool and your input will help improve that tool. I hope you enjoy being a part of this research, I am pretty excited about the results so far, and am looking forward to continuing to work with you on assessment. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

CasualObserver'48, thank you for contributing to article assessment for WP:USPP. Your assessments are very appreciated. There will be weekly updates about the research for this project posted here, look for the first one tomorrow. The next assessment request will come in early November. There is a lot of expertise and discussion about article quality happening in the project, so stay tuned. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

American exceptionalism[edit]

Thanks for your input on the talk page. Please 'be bold' and rewrite parts of the lead if you feel that way. Most of us seem to agree with your views, so it won't be reverted. Oh, and your userpage self-introduction is the best I've read on WP. :) ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 07:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Next WP:USPP assessment[edit]

Hi CasualObserver'48! Since Amy Roth's out on maternity leave, I'm pushing out the next round of assessments she needs. This time, we're comparing your assessment to readers' assessments. And instead of us assigning you articles, we're letting you pick! The full list of topics is on a subpage of the Assessment tab on our WikiProject. Please choose 10 of the articles to assess. Use the link in the section title to go to the appropriate version of the article.

Also, as a thank you for all your help, I'd like to send you a small package of Wikipedia swag. Please email me your address.

Please let me know if you have any questions! --Ldavis (Public Policy) (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

cats[edit]

Hey, can you move these cats for me?

Its uncontroversial, just a (-)

  • Category:Airports in Israeli occupied territories to Category:Airports in Israeli-occupied territories
  • Category:Ski areas and resorts in Israeli occupied territories to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Israeli-occupied territories
  • Category:Mountains of Israeli occupied territories to Category:Mountains of Israeli-occupied territories
  • Category:Nature reserves in Israeli occupied territories to Category:Nature reserves in Israeli-occupied territories
  • Category:Visitor attractions in Israeli occupied territories to Category:Visitor attractions in Israeli-occupied territories

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Mistook you for Good Olfactory. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Third WP:USPP Assessment[edit]

Hi CasualObserver'48! Thanks so much for your help on the Public Policy Initiative assessments. I really appreciate all your help -- we'll be in great shape when Amy gets back, thanks to all of your efforts! The next round of assessments is ready for you to review. Like the previous round, please pick 10 of the articles to review from the list, and it's especially critical that you use the version I've linked to for these.

This round measures the baseline quality of articles before our students started working on them. Many of these articles have undergone drastic revision already, so it may not be useful to leave comments about them on the talk pages. We'll be asking you to review the same set of articles once students have finished them too, so please be sure you're using the links provided so you're getting the versions immediately prior to when the students made their first edits. Ideally, these assessments should be completed by December 1.

I anticipate this taking a lot less time than previous rounds, as many of these articles are quite short. If you have extra time and want to help, please go back to round two and do a few more assessments -- especially on any articles that have only one or two assessments completed. I need a minimum of three assessments for each article, and some of the articles farther down the list still need attention.

Once again, thanks so much for your help and let me know if I can clarify anything at all! --Ldavis (Public Policy) (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It is good to hear there has been some movement from the student/academic side, I had not particularly seen any on the ones I already assessed. Initially, I questioned the lack of individual comments in R2, because R1's were interesting to see how others worked/thought; I did see them however, as a good place to start toward quality improvement. The project's stated technical decision to drop them from the assess-page/s avoids the unknowable consequence of them self-inflating project results; good decision.
For necessary, as well as personal/inquisitive reasons, I have none-the-less continued note-taking, because a method developed; it provides me the stated base at which I first saw the article. Generally, I don't know diddle about the subjects, other than 'conventional wisdom' or maybe had heard about them in connection with life or some specific experience or time. While their form is similar, R2 notes tend to be more at the top and at the bottom, rather than on the specifically assessed line items. The top includes what I see (or more often, don't see) about the subject as I read through it, and the bottom includes chased links, phrases, refs, thoughts, people, and chronological context of those subjects/times that I found, as I learn enough to make a more knowledgeable assessment. I suspect I am also interested to learn if others see and don't see what I apparently saw and documented; it may provide me an opportunity to better self-define my pov, re-balance it if necessary, or identify it as free-basing and out of whack. I dunno, but am interested to learn what happens and thus, where it stands; it is a personal project being conducted as part of Wikipedia's.
Are the students identifiable with parentheses like you, or do we have to make an experienced guess? Also, I ran across one assessed article that wasn't yet USPP-tagged, so I tagged it recently; articles should be back-checked for the project tag, if that is being used as a key. It is good to see some short articles again, longer ones take considerably more time, but as a result, I've edited a number of other thread-related articles on subjects I would not have otherwise encountered/edited. That seems an unintended consequence of the project, even while staying away from the USPP-specific articles. For example, I edited here, as a result of assessing this article version for the project.
Just a thought, but if Amy wants more data to play with, and since other assessors have mentioned similar actions, maybe students might also do such 'outside' edits; if so, this certainly presents more possibilities for Amy's number-crunching, and likely some number-shuffling to boot. Assuming these other articles are directly project-related, and my noted set certainly is, they should/can be tagged for later project inclusion. This would better incorporate a larger number of relevant articles into the project, but it also might provide a degree of different measure concerning (say) how much of the experiment is generated by the specific academic assignment (do this), and how much follow-on 'wiki' that experience produced elsewhere (corrections, improved context related to their work, more links, good links for orphans). Theoretically, only the pre-set chronological permalink baseline would have to be added by a bot; the quality improvement data should already be there for someone (else) to assess, but how much the numbers of included articles have changed over time might have to be considered. I will start Round 3 soon. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi CasualObserver'48, thanks for all the excellent feedback! We actually specifically chose articles students weren't working on for the first two assessments so we could track the general progression of Wikipedia public policy article quality over time -- that will allow us to compare it to the progression made on the students' articles to give us an overall picture of whether we moved the needle or not. The students got to choose their user names -- only staff have the (Public Policy) user names.
It's also great to hear how the assessments are inspiring your own edits -- that's great feedback we can bring into consideration as well. I've heard similar stories from other assessors, and I'm always glad to hear them, so do let me know any thoughts you have! We're encouraging students to do some cross-editing as well, although some classes are more involved in Wikipedia than others, so some have the bandwidth to address things like that too. Thanks again for all your help, this has all been incredibly useful and I really, really appreciate all you're doing to help us out! --Ldavis (Public Policy) (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For your amazing, gracious help with the WP:USPP assessment -- you've helped make our project a success! Ldavis (Public Policy) (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

happy holidays from PPI[edit]

Thanks CasualObserver'48, for all your work assessing articles with WP:USPP over the past few months. I will have some results to report to the assessment team in January. The next semester should be pretty exciting there are over 25 university classes signed up with the project. Your input is helping to gauge how successful the project is, not just at improving the quality of public policy articles, but at incorporating Wikipedia as a teaching tool and recruiting and retaining college students as editors. We still need you in 2011, but it will mostly be assessments of student articles. Currently, there is another round of assessments to look at the improvements students made to their articles. If possible please assess by 5 January 2011; these results will be presented at an international conference later in January! Have a wonderful holiday season, all the best, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

PPI Research Update[edit]

First, thanks Casual, I am in awe of the work the assessment team did for this project. The results from the quantitative metric assessments were amazing, really. Check out what your work shows about Wikipedia article quality - I think it’s exciting, but you’ve probably figured out by now that I’m a bit of a nerd. A summary is posted on the Assessment page and a report will be on the Outreach wiki.
I seem to remember you were a bit hesitant about joining, but I wanted to tell you it seemed to me (while I was doing data entry for hours and hours in purgatory) that your scores were always right in the middle of the other scores for the same article, which to me means your assessments were pretty much right on the money, so I'm glad you joined the project. :) Also, I wanted to ask if you haven’t done many assessments on the Student post articles, to please do a couple; articles toward the bottom have only 1 or none assessments. I know some of the material is pretty dry, but this assessment is the most important one for the fall semester and this assessment will be the primary method of showing article quality to the project grant funder. So please do a couple if you possibly can. HUGE Thanks - ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 07:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Food for thought, American textbooks, et al[edit]

thanks for this hint. i'd like to give you back something, and have to warn you concerning the cartoons/images, as the person did that introduced the article to me ([14]) "Islamo"-/Arabophobia must be much deeper than Rodney Blackhirst, Islam, its origins and impact on western thought see also: Gil Anidjar unfortunately there isn't much on fast checks, but I am searching.

This triggered my search for stereotypes: "Perhaps the first insight to recall in gazing at today’s Egypt is the great Le Bon’s remark: “A member of a mob is a person in a very low state of civilization.”LeaNder (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate comments on my edits, and looked through the links you provided, I am still at a loss to determine specifically what the hint was for which you are thankful. Determining that would provide me more nourishing sustenance for thought. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Public Policy Initiative Recruiting Assessors for Spring[edit]

Hi CasualObserver'48, Your work assessing article quality is really valuable and generated some excellent results from fall semester. The assessment process has been streamlined and dates are clearly posted for the upcoming assessment rounds. The Initiative has a lot more classes signed up for spring, so I would like to recruit some more Wikipedian assessors, and I was hoping you could help with that. I think community members would be more likely to participate if they are recruited by Wikipedians like yourself who have a good reputation. The strategy that worked last semester was to leave an individual message on the talk pages of non-adversarial Wikipedians. I looked for people by contributions to public policy related articles and those active on the 1.0 Editorial Team. I usually mentioned in the message what specifically about their work history made me think they would be a good assessment team participant. This is super time consuming to contact like 50 people, but only doing a few is not so bad. Also, I am looking for feedback about assessing with PPI, so please check out the discussion on the assessment tab, and let me know there if you have a chance to recruit some other assessors. I hope you are looking forward to another great semester working on this project. BTW, did you get a chance to check out the articles by the Georgetown grad students in the Middle East Studies class? Most of them produced some really high quality articles. One of the students wrote the article National Democratic Party (Egypt) and it was pretty cool to see the page views go through the roof and know that there was some really good information on Wikipedia at such a critical time. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Requesting assistance on a new RFC/U for Mathematics in medieval Islam[edit]

Hello, nice to speak to you.

Thank you for your participation in the RFC regarding the stubbing of the Mathematics in medieval Islam article, and speaking out against this outrageous behavior. The issues surrounding this RFC are complex. I believe it is important they be dealt with in a way that provides support for further actions in the near future. This problem goes beyond the Mathematics in medieval Islam article, but it needs to be dealt with one step at a time in order to avoid confusion and build a comprehensive foundation for further action.

I need your help in order to move forward. The next step I hope hope to take is opening a separate RFC/U (user) to deal with inappropriate behavior in the original incident involving Pjoef, Ruud Koot and WMC (William M Connelley). The proposed RFC would deal with the sequence of events that led up to the intial stubbing, as well as the repeated re-stubbing of the article when I have attempted to revert it.

The subject matter must be narrowly limited to that appropriate for an RFC/U (user behavior) action. It covers the provocation of Pjoef by RK, the insults and attempted intimidation of Pjoef by RK and others, the lack of discussion on the talk page before the stubbing occurred, the lack of proof of problems with the article, the agreement of RK and WMC between themselves to stub the article, the way the article was initially moved rather than being stubbed (causing the temporary loss of article history), and their refusal to subsequently revert the article.

  • Remedies should include reverting the article to its pre-stubbed state, and I also firmly believe Pjoef deserves an apology.
  • In addition, I also suggest these two users should withdraw from the editing of Islamic articles and JAG-related issues.

In order to proceed, I need at least one other user to agree to certify the RFC/U (the more the better). This is done by placing specific language on talk pages at the right time, after the RFC/U has been prepared and we agree on its contents. I cannot proceed to RFC/U by myself. I also need suggestions on how the RFC/U should be worded and what should be included. I can write the RFC/U and drive the process, but I need you support.

Please reply on my talk page to let me know if you are interested in helping me recover this article and correct this injustice. If you know anyone else who would like to participate, please invite them to reply to my talk page as well.

Thank you very much,

Aquib (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

A hopefully helpful circumspect reply[edit]

Welcome to my page, Aquib, I'll reply here. This location affords us an off-article page where we may be able to hash-out the points you have introduced, and I may be able to assist in making your endeavor more efficient and fruitful. But I must say, while we may agree broadly in what constitutes a neutral end result in Wikipedia, our methods and approach are quite different, coming from different knowledge, perspectives and times, and we edit at totally different speeds and over a different longevity.

The first case in point are your words of my "speaking out against this outrageous behavior." I did not do that, and do not agree that my bulleted "See also" post can or should be characterized as such. While it does support your view of a stable-article end, I posted to provide the wider editorial community available at an RfC, some relevant context of both an on-going Wiki-dynamic (of which I had just become aware) as well as notable, reliable sources to point toward that neutral understanding on Wikipedia. I did not post to support you, I posted to support reliably sourced material presented in NPOV on Wikipedia; you should be careful in your understanding of those two quite different concepts.

A second case in point are big differences between our apparent understandings of "inappropriate behavior in the original incident", to use your words. In all honesty and from my perspective, it starts not where you indicate, but where a previous editor's contributions fell from AGF grace over a jagged edge, and caused an official Wiki-clean-up effort. I see different points here for you. The first, while still assuming remnant good faith, I can see the likelihood of an acceptable period of edits, a period identified as unacceptable (and all questionable) requiring clean-up and, since the editor still exists, a third and more tempered period; I suggest that he would be more helpful to you than I. Yes, I worry that Wiki's NPOV may suffer from a bathwater condition in that effort; I used "overboard", being unaware of that link at the time, but described it as "well motivated and intentioned". Second and generally, you will do much better if you more tightly phrase your comments toward content, rather than toward editors associated with it. I have the highest respect for one that I have collaborated with in a different ballpark; I remain respectful to others with admin credentials and edit-count gravitas, but will note that some of their responses are too biting and absolute, possibly insufficiently uninvolved. Third, although I have not looked in depth, your replies seem to have remained within Wiki-etiquette; I strongly advise that you remain there. To do so, you might want to take a deep breath to allow a new look at more important things to move ahead more appropriately.

Your third paragraph indicates you have a plan, but bluntly, I can not and will not support your plan as stated. That is not to say however, that I disagree with your content-sentiment buried deep within it somewhere, and some specifics. I have many reasons for this; the first is that your plan specifically targets other editors, rather than targeting (in this jagged case, correcting and) adding missing relevant, notable content, RS'd, V'd and neutrally stated. Isn't that why you are here? Don't get mad, get even; add valid content.

Frankly, I consider your plan a loser and not winnable. It seems wrongly motivated; it seems like fighting "this injustice", as you put it, many times over and from the bottom up to boot. That makes your path and that of others a much steeper uphill battle than it already is. In addition and in American vernacular, I see your plan including too much 'pissin' n moanin', with the former aimed squarely against a heavy administrative headwind; that is both 'barking up the wrong tree' and with an attendant messy result for all concerned, including Wikipedia itself. You will not get very far that way or favorably engage many editors that really count. Another reason is that I know little detail about the era's specific science, math, metaphysics, etc., and don't plan to learn it to be of help that way. I am looking at a bigger top down context that can be RS'd and likely deal with many birds using few stones.

Despite my position on your plan, I do want to get it straight. Are you proposing to RfC/U new editors, based on their edits following an administrative decision emanating from a previous jagged RfC/U, about which you have strenuous objections? Why don't you just state your objections there (with less attitude and more refs); it seems much simpler, more to the point and less messy. To my mind, your plan adds too much dirt to a valid bathwater injustice, based on my refs; don't take a questionable decision and spread it around. Work to fix it there; that is where it seems to have started.

For some additional advice toward a better approach, again in a vernacular. Pick another tree (or available pillars); stand (for and) behind them to shelter you from the adverse winds; in that position, make an about face, and relieve yourself of only your ref'd contents, keeping personal judgments and commentary to a minimum. Done that way, it will relieve you as well from many of the endemic frustrations and those, likely to some degree, of your own making.

I hope this is of some assistance to you; I spent much time on it, rather than editing, which I prefer to do. If you have questions or don't understand my couched comments, feel free to post again. Remember, there are many ways to skin a cat, so to speak. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

A much improved perspective[edit]

Dear CasualObserver'48:

I sincerely thank you for your hospitality, your candor and your advice. In particular, I thank you for the thoughtful way you have chosen your words, and the intent with which they were delivered. If it might help in some way to repay you for your troubles, I can assure you your words have, each and every one, been taken to heart.

I apologize, first of all, for presuming to know your intentions in joining our discussion. In addition, I apologize for the carelessness with which I posted this invitation. It was wrong of me. I confess I have been known to focus on tactics without first being certain those around me are equally apprised of the facts, circumstances and underlying strategy. I will not trouble you, nor should you be concerned, with these matters. To use another American phrase, I would say you have bigger fish to fry; and I am most pleased to hear this news.

I will consider the advice I have been given, by you and by others, in my search for the best way to move past this unfortunate episode.

Best regards, Aquib (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I am gladdened by your response. While I remained hopeful, I was unsure if my choice of prose would be of help or hindrance in explaining it. I wish you the best in adjusting focus and perspective; it is not easy, but greatly lowers the level of frustration and yields a better editor. I will try to keep an eye out for things to pop up, as they so often do. Please excuse me if I take this opportunity to point to another related item of mine, elsewhere; I consider this fact-tag a very basic, foundational and important hole to fill in the general RS'd scheme of things in a related context. It requires more familiarity than I possess, and one you more likely do. I'd appreciate your help to fix it, and it will provide other things to consider.
This second suggestion toward changing perspective is totally, absolutely of a different sort, subjects and context, on a whole different plane, if you are amenable to it; it does require your committed, scheduled volunteer time reading Wikipedia articles and providing simple consistent structured assessments of them. You are thus 'virtually' editing other things for a totally different reason and purpose, for Wikipedia's betterment, courtesy of WikiMedia. Talk about providing a different perspective! I can't begin to tell you how it has improved my NPOV, but also assisted and eased my pov, when doing the edits I choose to do to improve content. This may seem somewhat out of the blue and on the fly, but not that much, considering I was recently asked, it sure helped change mine, and because you walked in going one way and are departing considering another. Please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy, read about it, and consider what assessing could do for you. Questions I had, as I was deciding to do it, are higher on this page; you might be broadly familiar with some. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Again your words give cause for reflection. I have been editing for a year now; often working on controversial subjects, and always under the shadow of this RFC/U. At some point, I must find a way to move beyond this initial experience and towards a more sustainable long term approach. But for the moment, I have unfinished business. Thanks and Regards -Aquib (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Assessment with WP:USPP is the ultimate![edit]

hi CasualOBserver'48,
A new assessment round is posted. This round is mostly starts and stubs, so evaluation should be really quick. WP:USPP Assessment 2.1
The Public Policy Initiative is super exciting this term. The topics are really interesting this term and the student's are producing some really good quality content. Recent numbers indicate that our project is actually contributing a significant amount of content to Wikipedia. There is a group of about 20 subject matter experts who are assessing, but the Wikipedians are so consistent, that I really need your scores to measure article quality.
On another note, are you going to Wikimania? I am looking for people to co-present with, so let me know if you are! Best, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

New Assessment for article improvements with PPI[edit]

hi Casual,
Another assessment round is posted. This round is the follow-up to the previous assessment, so it should reflect some big improvements to the articles. WP:USPP Post Assessment 2.1
There is a group of about 25 subject matter experts who are assessing, and last week I sent them a tutorial video on how to leave comments on talk pages. So if you see any newcomers on the discussion pages, please help me welcome them.
You are doing a really amazing job, in fact, here at WMF, we are using your ratings as the “gold standard” to test the Article Feedback Tool and see how well it works. I will be presenting lots of research in the coming months. Thank You! Best, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


Brownie Neumüller Ferdinand cropped.jpg
ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) has given you a brownie! Brownies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a brownie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Hi Casual, thanks so much for all your help with assessment on WP:USPP. There will only be 2 more assessments for spring term. talk to you soon, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:USPP Spring Assessment 3[edit]

hi CasualObserver'48,

Thanks for helping with assessment! There is a new assessment posted here. There are 25 articles in both this assessment and the next/final assessment. There was a huge amount of content that got added this term, hopefully the randomly selected articles will show it to be high quality. You should see some results form the assessments in the coming months. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of War over Water for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article War over Water is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at its deletion discussion page until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

{{you've got mail} — Preceding unsigned comment added by UOJComm (talkcontribs) 22:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Last PPI assessment[edit]

hi CasualObserver'48,

We finally made it, this is the last assessment request for the Public Policy Initiative! I was really impressed with the content the students developed this term, I hope you enjoyed it too. The last set of articles is at Student Post 2.2. I will keep you updated on results and publications. Thanks ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank You! CasualObserver'48, your assessments made a big contribution toward quality evaluation. I will keep you posted on the research and results that come out in the coming months. All the best, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Choco-Nut Bake with Meringue Top cropped.jpg
ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) has given you a cupcake! Cupcakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cupcake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Caliraya Dam[edit]

Hello,

Thanks for you recent edits on Caliraya Dam. I am not really a writer and everything looked fine by me after working so many hours on it, but your edits showed me that it needed more. The article reads much better. Thanks, again. - Briarfallen (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated reply, Briarfallen, I was on vacation so the real world set my schedule in the interim. You should be congratulated on the work you have been able to accomplish and the considerable time involved, especially given the distance between you and most of your article subjects. I will admit that my edits come from experience in the subject generally, as well as that location specifically. Together these can greatly improve the accuracy of the words and their understanding, but in such cases one must be careful to add only what can be referenced from reliable sources. Experience and familiarity are very helpful but are no substitute for Wiki-acceptable reliable sources; I have run into this problem before on other subjects, but must stick with sources rather than accuracy. Wordsmithing does help minimizing these inaccuracies, however. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

PPI Assessment research in FastCompany[edit]

hi CasualObserver'48, As i mentioned in my email, here is the link by FactCompany.com about our research. They noticed all of our hard work on article quality assessment! And, I presented some preliminary results of the Public Policy Initiative today at the Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit; it was very well received by academics. They were very impressed with the rigor of the research and that is due in large part to your efforts. So yet again, Thank YOU! I will keep you posted as I continue to get the results out there. Also, if you would like a token of appreciation (aka Wikipedia swag) send me an email with your address and I will get a package out to you later this month. all the best, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Summit Research Summary[edit]

Hi Casual,

Here is a brief summary of the results that I presented at the Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit. Unless you request otherwise, I will keep you posted as the research results come out. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Amy, in keeping with the wide interest in project results, as well as my specific inquisitiveness regarding others' interpretations of them, I will indeed more positively request any results that may be made privy.
Based on my experience in generating one set in one side of the numbers, the overall quality improvement results presented by Wikimedia are indeed impressive. On the same basis their further reporting, with the included parameter specifics and their importance, should be made widely available to the various involved communities, and all others who might be interested or might benefit. I state this firstly as kudos for all involved, and secondly because the hard-numbered specifics summarized can and should auto-generate various avenues to pursue regarding continued and future improvements.
All for now, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Casual Observer[edit]

You wrote a very patronising comment on my page. You have to explain your edits. There is a problem in plagiarising a long POV paragraph, randomly selected from Johnson, and randoming putting right at the beginning of one of our best wikipedia articles (the reason the article is effective now is because we're compiling only facts here). It's a completely unsourced paragraph in Johnson's text by the way. . Have you read the book? Johnson is reliable enough to use to support facts in the article. But his analysis is a bizarre justification, it's not serious history but a kind of cheerleading and biblical story - in the paragraph you chose he randomly links together completely different events, which seem to have no relation to each other. As if the reason the Rothschild's base themselves in different countries, is to avoid the Hep-Hep riots and retain "legal property"? It's speculation, if not disinformation.(Who's interest did events like the 'hep-hep riots' serve?). I've been working on this article for years and trying to compile as many objective facts as possible. If you want randomly plagiarise a paragraph from Johnson and put it at the beginning of our article, you could take much more notable paragraphs like the following "Yet the Rothschilds are elusive. There is no book about them that is revealing or accurate. Libraries of nonsense have been written about them. A woman who planned to write a book entitled Lies about the Rothschilds abandoned it, saying: "It was relatively easy to spot the lies, but it proved impossible to find out the truth". The family is highly secretive... They kept no more documentation than was necessary. They systematically destroyed their papers." etc. Aside from that, if you've ever studied any critical methods in history, you would know Johnson is completely biased and not to be taken seriously. Read the introduction to the book, he admits he is biased and wants to tell a biblical story. 82.26.0.138 (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

My comment followed the style of the two previous warnings you have received so far this month: I included your WP:3RR, which is now up to 6RR, by my count. I explain my edits. What you have done wrong is to explain your deletions of RS'd content with your own personal and inconsequential opinions; you need a ref that says such. But once you found my ref, you proceeded to transcribe another of your own choosing, but only inserted one side of what it said in Wikipedia; that is not neutral editing and doesn't seem to come from a NPOV on your part. You repeatedly have deleted use of the ref over the last several days but suddenly decide it was OK to use, your part anyway. Since you picked the page, I have run with it, first at the Talk page[15], and then by valid edits. The first edit, starts a new section to include your edit material, but it also includes the ref's on-the-other-hand material, (starting with 'He also notes...') which you don't seem to favor or consider notable; I do, it then becomes balanced, neutral.
The second edit, right from the ref's next paragraph, provides a succinct overview with "All the same, the salient facts about the Rothschilds are clear enough", as it says. The following sentences are history-, context- and link-rich and certainly deserve mention early in the article. We shall see what happens; it might well be an instance of unexpected consequences on your part, but that page was your choice and I thank you for it. Yes I have the book and have read it; have you read it, rather than just forming an opinion on it? There is an old truism which might do you well to understand in Wiki-terms concerning all editors' opinions; it says 'opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.' RS'd ones are acceptable for use if properly phrased, though still objectionable to some sometimes, and therefore counter-sourced. A possible follow-on, 'and everyone else's stinks' is obviously non-neutral, given the stated truth. Please better learn to edit within policy. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Rivers and Harbors[edit]

Great editing on the Rivers and Harbors Act!

My original intent in creating this article was disambiguation for the various RHA. There was one merge suggestion at some point (on either the various RHA or FCA) on which I nonconcurred because each RHA and FCA stand on their own; I just didn't have the time to complete the individual articles. You made this better because it summarizes the whole RHA ideas in the upper body of the article.

My edits yesterday were an attempt to continue the disambig intention by providing a simple list. I left in redlinks where there was information that could be migrated into and become the genesis for a full article; my intention was then leaving only the bluelinks within the list since the info was available elsewhere. At most, I would recommend one liners instead of paragraphs for each RHA. For example, for River and Harbor Act of 1936, I would only reference that it was actually the Flood Control Act of 1936 as the statute overwhelmingly contains flood control projects (great observation, BTW). FCA 1936 was the culmination of congressmen whittling away at the annual RHA restrictions on flood control. See page 21 of The Evolution of the 1936 Flood Control Act. The bill's intro summary paragraph mimicks the RHA (see page 59) but otherwise deals with flood control. (I guess one of us should update FCA 1936, eh?)

Anyway by going this route, we provide the explanatory data in the sections above the list but do not overwhelm the disambiguation.

Whaddya think? Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, Don't, I dunno, exactly; but obviously we are both intent on improving content properly ref'd, have crossed paths on several articles, and seem to work well toward that end. I have been appreciative of the RHA DAB page, because it's existence has provided the proper place to start putting related things together, some 6 months ago. At the same time I was also aware that by doing so, I was pushing a DAB's standard form and content beyond its normal understanding. At this point, it is admittedly much abused as a DAB. Your addition of the 'List of Acts' section provided a good way forward to 'not overwhelm the disambiguation' sense. I have followed that pretty much and will continue to do so above and below that line to the extent that sources provide.
My general thought, based on its growing content and list of references, is that this RHA page is now more of a {{Main}} article page than a DAB page and its sense of limited content. While I work within the system, I am poorly knowledgeable of the formato-techno-admino considerations such a change might entail, and simply not too interested to become so. Should you agree or question that thought, are you interested/knowledgeable in that aspect? I should also add some other thoughts. First, there is a specific and unambiguous RHA story that has continued for almost 200 years; a minor page move to 'River and Harbor Acts' might provide another perspective and location from which to view contents and/or levels of content. That title would be revisionist in a pre-1882 sense however, since that was when the naming system changed and that specific name became used, based on the Miller ref; I see no problem, that could be worked around easily, based on other refs. I guess we are building a more complete story and we are unfolding it by abusing what was once a DAB. RHA of 19xx has come a long way since "An Act to Improve the Navigation of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers" in 1824 and $75K, "to remove sand bars on the Ohio and planers, sawyers, and snags on the Mississippi". Like I said, I dunno. Actually my editing here is a necessary yak shaving exercise to do something related elsewhere; it is hopefully done it its 'apparent' sense, not in its 'absolute' sense. Take a look at my edits over the last 6 mo or so, there are some common threads, and occasional divergences. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
First, I love the term, "yak shaving"! I could easily use it in the other sense in my day-to-day efforts at home and at work. My wife would accuse me of it daily! In your case, it appears that Wikipedia is giving you a good way to organize an outline/pattern of something useful for you. Glad it works.
I hadn't thought of it in terms of a {{Main}} page. I, too, am not a wiki techno guy. And after reading WP:DAB, I'm inclined to think you are more on the right track than was I. Essentially the RHA "story" gives context to the individual RHA, so it works much better than a disambig. I guess that I would say that I'm more of a random drive-by editor with a shotgun rather than a rifle. For example, I was doing yak shaving on the various FCA -- which consisted mainly of boiling down the Congressional acts -- when I came across The Evolution of the 1936 Flood Control Act. I did a very quick search to find the right context for a reference I needed but didn't read the full pamphlet. Yesterday, your edits caused me to actually read a substantial proportion of it. I came away understanding that it contains the substantial pre-FCA 1965 story that can be included in the various other FCA as explanation for the significance and notability of each. Gotta wait until I retire to do that, though! LOL
I do have a few pages I watch strictly from a NPOV standpoint as they are frequented by people with an axe to grind who would take them over for their own purposes if they could.
Cheers.Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Nixon[edit]

I will probably modify it to incorporate it into text. We really don't discuss the end of the gold standard, but I'll throw in a couple of lines about it, the article is long but I think it won't kill things, and working on the Gilded Age gives you an appreciation for the gold standard. I am uncertain that we need the link to energy crisis as there is a link in the article to 1973 oil crisis. Your input welcome, and I will not act in haste. I'm too busy with other stuff, frankly. Maybe by Thanksgiving weekend I'll be caught up.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

In the morning I looked for following edits, before I checked the new msg notice, so I was aware of the reconsideration given, thank you. After checking your vast hard-earned honors, my 2nd edit was heavily considered to initiate that briefly and collaboratively; after noticing the FA at Nixon, I understood an overarching consideration more fully and will not disrupt it. While that is not to say I agree completely, it was my first ever edit there and I will try to note such articles before I edit. Whatever my lower-class assessment experience in a minor league of significant value has been, it has developed into a general perspective on Wikipedia articles broadly. I have noted that many of our articles are short on comprehensiveness and sourcing, and broadly lack R and N context and history of their times, which if added, by RS and V'able, provide a more comprehensive understanding for the readers; other articles just have some gaping holes in content. My two added links for Nixon are examples of the former, while my edits, particularly here and the previous para, might be considered recent examples of the latter. I welcome your concern of my edits and will defend them collaboratively, as you have done; if my perspectives would be of value to an FA, I am willing to assist, but such a perspective never shortens articles.
We have some consensus concerning upping the shock link coverage, so I will start there. Without the link, the content's current coverage remains strictly domestic policy and economic by style and presentation, with it, that content is provided with foreign policy and international economic policy implications, which globalizes it for both domestic and foreign reader. Its follow-on reverberated globally for a couple years, spreading our inflationary pressure elsewhere and not really relieving it domestically; that is currently covered and we can leave that for Jerry and Jimmy who followed. Concerning my second suggested link, you are correct by that same reasoning, and I will continue with my differences concerning the current presentation of the existing '73 crisis link, now in foreign policy, particularly Middle East. It is fortunate, in my view, that the two are juxtaposed, for they should flow well together.
Generally, there is no problem there with the words included there, but I see problems with how they are poorly attached to each other, and I likely should do some editing, but will generally wait. For now, I will stand with the better treatment of specifics presented here, its previous section and note that the end of Bretton Woods is already there. To wrap this up quickly, suffice it to say that this section content includes another very specific domestic political decision (with reference on the page) with one foreign policy decision causing domestic economic turmoil as well as foreign policy disruptions with our other and major allies. The Suez mention also should be on-topic rephrased to note he was VP at the time.
Obviously, your gilded age mention came from your perusal of edits, but those and many earlier ones are necessary yak shaving edits to make other things easier. I actually arrived on an energy thread, part of a domestic internal improvements, water resource, transportation, and power suit, or suite, I have had to pursue to improve this one.

Highest regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 09:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your praise. Nixon was limited by the fact that it is about the maximum length that FAC will allow. Certainly, articles have gone on a diet to get through FAC and then gone out to the buffet afterwards, but that's gotten some nasty comments by FAC delegates and I don't care to go that road. Right now, we are in maintenance/happy to consider improvements - mode. I am reluctant to add too much more even though I agree coverage is light in some areas because we don't have much room to manoever and there are things we can't cut, that people expect to see and will raise hell if they don't in an article viewed 8,000 times a day. What I would suggest doing is copying the article to a sandbox and playing with it there and showing me the results, and we'll have the discussion. And yes, I will admit I saw "Nixon Shock", assumed it was a negative POV term, and pushed a button or two. However, I think the article Nixon Shock needs improvement if the main template is to keep its place or if it is to be a see also. The two current See Alsos are both FAs.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I said Gilded Age because I'm presently working on Mark Hanna and have done a lot of reading on the gold standard and bimetallism recently.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Dinsdoc - thanks[edit]

Thanks for noticing the 'dinsdoc' problem, and for getting attention. The yak shaving paid off :-) I think it's all sorted out now; see [16] and [17]. Give me a shout if there's any more problems; thanks again.  Chzz  ►  08:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Potomac Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Constitutional Convention (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

New quality assessments for the education program[edit]

I'm leaving this message because you were one of the editors who assessed articles for the Public Policy Initiative last year. The Education Program is running a new set of assessments to evaluate the impact of the current set of courses on Wikipedia. If you would like to contribute assessments, please take a look at Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Research/Article quality and do as many assessments as you have time for. Please also let anyone else know who you think might be interested in being an assessor. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For your stylistic improvements of the article Water privatization in Metro Manila. Thank you! Mschiffler (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Second Bank and citation[edit]

Dear CO48 - I edited a bit of your very useful information from Minicucci; but would you mind providing an exact page number from the source? This would make your contribution consistent with the other footnotes I've provided (rather than just the range of pages in the essay). Best. 36hourblock (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

With regret, I am unable to supply a specific Journal page number; the electronic copy I accessed did not indicate them, but I improved the ref, so the paper version could be located easier. Sorry to mess with your consistency. If you are looking for interesting content to include, may I suggest this venerable source, starting at item I.110.12 — [Bank Controversies] III. 1816-36. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I noticed that Mschiffler had bestowed a Barnstar on you, with the caveat (at his user page "Tips") to "make citations as complete as possible, including page numbers”. (my emphasis)

The "consistency" with which I provided sources and page numbers is an antidote to the typically unsourced material found at Wikipedia articles relating to US history. The practice of omitting sources and page numbers undermines that credibility of this online encyclopedia. It's not a matter of "well, if you think it's important, feel free to examine my source and locate the page number". I think you understand that; others may not.

The "venerable" source you provided did not address the history of the BUS directly. Most of the sources I've provided for the article are from mainstream historians offering a substantial treatment of the subject. (See References)

I found your Bonus Bill of 1817 to be a tremendous improvement over the previous offering. I look forward to reading your contributions and collaborating with you in the future. 36hourblock (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

36, I agree with your valid concerns that insufficiently sourced content (including page#) undermines Wiki's credibility; I also appreciate Wiki's wish for citations from mainstream historians offering substantial subject treatment, as well as peer-reviewed journals and RS'd blue-links.
For me, without such mainstream texts or a library, these sources become unassailable, but also unhelpful, since they can not be V'd electronically; I leave such content with the AGF editing process and edit for non-disruption. But since I often add new content, piecing it into the article and rephrasing for flow often becomes necessary. Actually, I have no idea whether the historic contextual thread on which I search for RSs, is unmentioned in those mainstream sources, or whether it is just not yet included by involved editors. When such relevant content is added, it is an improvement on what the mainstream provides and to Wikipedia's credit and creditability.
I appreciate your bonus finding, and also look forward to collaborating, where my yak shaving takes me into areas of mutual interest. Just out of curiosity, what do your sources mention about my research term; is it mentioned in relation to the 2ndBUS or the good feeling? Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

CO48 - I'd have to look at my sources. I was pleased that you had inserted the information on the Bonus Bill (in Dallas Tariff as well) because I don't recall that the subject was sufficiently addressed in my sources. Regards. 36hourblock (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to William Willcocks may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[India]] – 28 July 1932, [[Cairo|Cairo, Egypt]]) was a British civil engineer, during the [[British Empire#Britain's imperial century (1815–1914)|high point of the British Empire. He is

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, ty2 CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Egyptian Public Works, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barrage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Land of Israel[edit]

Hi, in 2008 you introduced some material into Land of Israel that is now being challenged. Here is the diff. Do you have those sources, or did you copy the material from somewhere else? Zerotalk 23:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, and looking so far back to find where it came from. It was likely challenged then too, but if it has remained since, I expect it is RS'd and likely V'able. I have many problems with the article generally, concerning an imbalance between its religious and historic content, versus the revisionist political land issue complicating the recognized state. I will look at it. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Land of Israel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page City of God (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to First Zionist Congress may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • to Uganda - Background Text Herzl and the Zionist Movement: From Basle to Uganda - Background Text]],[[Jewish Agency for Israel|JAFI]], 2002</ref> The Congress took place in the concert hall of the '
  • the reference to the 50 years, can be found at Jewish Agency for Israel, Jewish Zionist Education > Compelling Content > Israel and Zionism > The First 120 Years > [http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/Jewish%2BEducation/Compelling%2BContent/Eye%2Bon%

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Land of Israel may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • for Palestine were minted on the Mandate coins and early stamps (pictured) in English, Hebrew "(פלשתינה (א״י" (''Palestina E"Y'') and Arabic "( فلسطين"). Consequently, in 20th century political usage,

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)