User talk:PalestineRemembered

Most suspicious and likely improper way to Block an editor from Wikipedia

The process of blocking me [1] would appear to be most suspicious and likely improper.

The imposition of a one month ban, on a first offence, with minimal warning, after just 18 13 minutes of administrators "discussion" looks very much like prima-facie evidence of an abuse of power.

In those 18 minutes there were 3 hostile and accusatory contributors. (Complaint posted 23:09, 26 Nov, blocking 18 13 minutes later at 23:2722, 26 Nov).

Two "defenders" didn't appear until over 24 hours later (28th Nov), long after an exceptionally harsh (one month) first blocking had been implemented, when protest was clearly useless. (Both these people then suffered Not Good Faith attacks, their objection that other editors were the same or worse were dismissed with "This section is about PalestineRemembered, not about other editors with whom you have content disagreements").

I believe many other people would have come to my "defense" (or at least opened up the debate to include what one editor called "ludicrously POV changes and PalestineRemembered disputing them") if time had been allowed.

I'd also like to protest at the fact that my WP e-mail was never actioned, making it impossible for me to be contacted (advised/warned/helped) by other users with whom I might have had things in common. 7 weeks and over 500 edits is more than adequate to count an editor as a "genuine participant" in the project.

Wear it as a badge of honour

The fact that you were blocked for a month shows the extent to which they fear the truth and exposes the limits of the "neutrality" of wikipedia. The Zionists would like us to waste all your time editing wikipedia, having endless argumenst with them about semantics. Here they can keep an eye on us and revert all our edits. So get off your computer and onto the streets. Organize the people around you. The Zionists can censor anything you write here. But they can not close they eyes of those who you have taught to see what is really happening around them. And the battle between the oppressors and the oppressed will not be decided online, but offline. Zionists may ounumber us in Wikipedia. But on the ground in the Middle East we outnumber them by a long long way. Abu ali 10:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Other examples of administrator misbehaviour and/or abuse of power

I think I have some striking examples of this kind of thing - but rather than posting them here, I'd like you to contact me with your evidence. andy.dyer9@tiscali.co.uk

I think a good case could be made for stripping some of these people of their privileges. The principles of Wikipedia, the building of consensus, are entirely sound - but that doesn't mean the project cannot be hi-jacked, as would appear to have happened by one particular special interest case.

Would I ever have been a good editor?

There is no way of knowing - I carried out 540 edits and found the process extremely frustrating. I can understand why some of my edits were reverted, but it rapidly became clear that there was a lot of good information out there that would never be allowed into the encyclopedia.

In my short time in Wikipedia I only started one article [2]. See my attempt to build a consensus and avoid edit-warring at [3]. As best I can tell, I have a genuine 100% Reliable Source for the claim I need to insert (that the book was banned in Israel and the US). I know the claim is dubious, I'm seeking to present it in in a balanced fashion. Note how the objections, from far more experienced authors than me, look exactly like banned Original Research.

Later, see [4] and ask yourself whether the encyclopedia is following Biographies of Living People policy, or whether rampant point of view editting is going on, with other good editors being driven from the project by personal attack. The living person in the article is being pointlessly linked to white supremacists (no reliable source here) - when he's dark-skinned himself!

I'm protesting on the behalf of people who are/would be good editors, but are being driven from the project by rampant POV obstruction (rising to privileged abuse) from certain quarters. I can identify several of these just in my short time here - can you?

Do I want to come back? Should I appeal my one month Blocking?

I have a great deal more to contribute - but it would be pointless to be re-admitted and find the process as frustrating as it's been up until this point. Stamp out the abuse of power, and many of the serious frustrations suffered by good editors would melt away.

PalestineRemembered 20:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• There used to be a regular UserTalk page at this location. I've taken a copy of everything that was on it, and will faithfully put this material into "Archive 1" when I'm free to do so again.

• My first contributions can be found at [5] I'm pretty sure they're all polite and thoughtful. Even as I got frustrated [6], I'm not aware of lashing out in ways that I've regularily seen others do.

Who is dominating these pages with POV?

I value the contributions of PalestineRemembered. This article needs balance. As it stands it seems very pro-Jew and anti-Palestinian. 160.39.240.81

I agree, Palestineremembered is not "vandalising" these pages. His is a valid viewpoint that represents the MAJORITY of the population in the middle east.

Is the veracity of something determined by a majority vote? Even if most Arabs believe Jews are devilish creatures plotting to take over the world, that doesn't make it true, or even worth discussing. PR can't seem to bring any evidence for his bold claims, and that's what matters here. okedem 16:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to explain what is WP:RS. Otherwise it's as if anything that challenges Zionists cannot be accepted. And Administrators will deny WP:RS as well

I've reverted that edit, for the reason that the source doesn't support the claim. The source only quotes what some Arabs said - it doesn't say it was actually so. And saying "serious allegations" doesn't solve that.

Saying "the natives and the immigrants" is used to push an agenda. There were quite a few Jews living in Palestine before the first Aliyah, and were just as "native" as the Arabs (and some were there from before the Arab conquests).

"with serious allegations of discrimination..." - What discrimination? By who? The zionists were but a small minority, living under the rule of the Ottoman empire.

okedem 21:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Your objection looks exceedingly thin. You're right in one sense, Morris only quotes that particular piece of evidence, he doesn't further comment on it. However, it's only part of a catalogue about which he says there is "little room for doubt".

And of course there's nothing wrong with speaking of "the natives and the immigrants", on two counts. The number of Jews living in Palestine before 1880 seems to have been tiny - and the Zionists caused them lots of grief too.

PalestineRemembered 20:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The edit was non-neutral and seriously misrepresented its source. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what evidence you'd allow to stand in this article about the violent ways of Zionists, right from their first arrival. Little has survived from the very earliest days, other than letters from the new arrivals - but they were very clear, the aim was to seize the land and expel the natives. And Jabotinsky wasn't talking about self-defense in 1923 when he spoke of colonising and the vital importance of being able to shoot.

Note - you could bring some balance by providing evidence that other Zionists were far less aggressive - but their kind was far smaller in numbers and presently disappeared.

PalestineRemembered 20:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

By 1923 the Arabs proved to very aggressive (attacking the Zionists that lawfully purchased land and came to work it), which is why the Haganah was formed in 1921. Jabotinsky said that unless the Jews defended themselves with strength, the Arabs would continue to try to kill them, and drive them off. He also spoke of living side by side, peacefully, as two peoples in the land of Palestine. But you conveniently ignore that, right? You only quote the parts you wanted for your own agenda. And by the way, he didn't say "colonize", but "settle" (if one wishes to correctly translate from the Hebrew source).

You continually claim that Zionists "seized" land from the Arabs - but bring absolutely no proof for that claim. Try sticking to the facts. Even your source doesn't say Zionists "stole" land. They just buy it. The value of that source seems clear when it brings up the silly claim of "taking all the commerce into their hands" - It's a free market. I guess the Jews gave better value to the buyer.

These arguments are getting old. Try bringing actual sources, not obscure claims, that prove nothing (and don't even claim that much). okedem 22:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The Zionists arrived determined to seize the land (letters from them prove it, the alarm of Palestinians prove it was no great secret). It's nonsense to accuse the Palestinians of racist aggression, when the fault for which they're being so terribly punished is failing to act together to stop the immigrants.

Lots of excellent sources to prove it, but every attempt to introduce them will be summararily reverted.

"One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." - Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994 at the funeral of mass murderer Baruch Goldstein. [Source: N.Y. Times, Feb. 28, 1994, p. 1]

PalestineRemembered 22:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I see you have no intention of bringing sources or any evidence for your claims.

The Jews purchased land from the Arabs, and came to live on it. Your claims of "seize" are baseless.

"nonsense to accuse the Palestinians of racist aggression"? The other part of your sentence doesn't refute the first part. The Arabs attacked Jews, plenty of times (like the 1929 Hebron riots).

And your usage of a quote from some extreme right wing nut is appalling. I can bring you thousands of such quotes from Arabs, and not just extremist fanatics, but leaders. I guess that's what one does when they can't support their claims rationally. okedem 08:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have excellent references and sources - ...... For decades the Zionists tried to camouflage their real aspirations, for fear of angering the authorities and the Arabs. They were, however, certain of their aims and of the means needed to achieve them. Internal correspondence amongst the olim from the very beginning of the Zionist enterprise leaves little room for doubt. ..... There are now only five hundred [thousand] Arabs, who are not very strong, and from whom we shall easily take away the country if only we do it through stratagems [and] without drawing upon us their hostility before we become the strong and populous ones." The Jews will yet arise and, arms in hand (if need be), declare that they are the masters of their ancient homeland.""The thing we must do now is to become as strong as we can, to conquer the country, covertly, bit by bit .... We can only do this covertly, quietly ... We will not set up committees so that the Arabs will know what we are after, we shall act like silent spies, we shall buy, buy, buy"

PalestineRemembered 22:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me make this clear, so we can end this. Buying land EQUALS a legal, legitimate practice. Buying land NOT EQUAL to seizing land, NOT EQUAL to taking land by force. Unless you want to claim (and prove) that the Zionists took land by means other than lawful purchase, this discussion is over. okedem 07:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)