User talk:HG1

• I will try to check Wikipedia periodically. Please assume that I do not use Wikipedia on Friday evenings and Saturday. Thanks.

Welcome to HG's talk page. You are invited to comment here or simply say hello.
Please don't delete old comments, though you can strikeout your own text and add to it.
It's best to keep comments in order, leaving me to re-arrange or archive.
Please sign & date your entry by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic here. Thanks!

Bookmarks

• ‎Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-03 Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture
• ‎Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-03 Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture
• Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture

Welcome! Hello, HG1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! IZAK 07:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Bruchim Habaim

Hello HG, welcome to Wikipedia. You may want to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism. Feel free to call on me. IZAK 07:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! :)

Thank you for your beautiful words and warm wishes on my birthday, dear HG! I took a well-deserved one-day wikibreak and spent it with my family and my friends... and actually had a beer after months of forced abstinence! :) Of course, there's no way I'd forget about you, so I saved a great, tasty piece of chocolate cake just for you - but sorry, no beer left! Again, thank you so much for taking the time to wish me well, and have a wonderful day, my friend! Love, Phaedriel - 19:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC) While I don't recall us ever interacting, the fact that you've taken the time to dedicate me your kind words is very special in my eyes, dear HG. From this day on, let me tell you you'll always be welcome to visit me, and I'll make sure to visit you often... that's what friends do! :) xxx, Sharon

Allegations of Chinese apartheid

Hi HG,

Thanks for the friendly heads up. I posted my thoughts on the issue in the AfD page.

Thanks again,

--xDanielx^Talk 02:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I added my (rather confused) comments to your proposal. :) I did as you suggested and changed "Keep" to "Keep and rename." --xDanielx^Talk 04:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I think you deserve one of these for your very amicable behavior. :-) xDanielxTalk 08:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I like this kind of appreciation. HG | Talk

Hi HG,

I think your efforts to find compromise were very good. On the Chinese apartheid AfD, I guess there were just too many users involved in the heated debate to notice a small voice suggesting compromise, but it seems to be working out on the Israeli apartheid article. I still think it's best to settle naming disputes on the talk page, since they tend to make AfDs messy and ambiguous (e.g., I voted "keep and rename" - if my naming proposal doesn't get consensus but "keep" might, should my vote count towards "keep"? "Delete"? Neither?). But I guess the advantage is that it draws in lots of attention so that a more accurate consensus can be taken.

Best,

xDanielx^Talk 16:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem

I respect you greatly. --Ideogram 03:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey

I thought you were going to bed? For God's sake, don't lose sleep over this. --Ideogram 04:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Help needed

HG, your help is desperately needed atTalk:Battle_of_Jenin#Western_media_accept_.22massacre.22. Palestine remembered posted some quotes which obviously and glaringly dispute the claims of what he himself is saying. We are actually having a dispute over the basic meaning of his text, whcih e seems to have problems with. any help would be appreciated. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 17:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Really PR? Is this frowned upon? I didn't know that requesting the help of someone who has repeatedly and consistently served neutrally as a mediator only, was frowned upon at Wikipedia. --Steve, Sm8900 18:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who User:HG is or what his interests are, though I must say my impression of his good sense have spiralled upwards since I first started speaking to him directly.

In the meantime, you appeared to solicit a partisan intrusion from HG - if this matter escalates (and I'd not be surprised, given some of the bizarre behaviour we've seen), then this canvassing might be considered to reflect on your attitude to cooperative and NPOV editing of articles. PalestineRemembered 21:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Canaanite claims

Hi HG. The more reading I have done, the more it has become clear to me that there is some evidence for a Canaanite descent for modern-day Palestinians and that this is not a fringe opinion in anthropological, historical, genetic, and even archaeological circles. For example, [this article http://nidal.com/anaccash/THE_EMPIRE_OF_THE_AMORITES_REVISITED.html] presented an the International Symposium on Syria and the Near East explains that:

The "Formative Period", ca. 1,000 BC to 1,000 AD, is the period during which the characteristic social morphology of the area was formed. The specificity, or cultural and civilizational "flavor" of the North-Western Mashriq [Syria and Palestine] was established during the "Foundation Period", but it is during the "Formative Period" that, through various processes and under many different influences, the peoples of the area organized themselves in the "multiconfessional societies" typical of the "Modern Period." At the start of the "Formative Period" it is as if we could see three "ethnic" super-groups emerging from the "Amoritic" nebulae that characterized the previous period. We could provisionally designate these super-groups as the "Arameans", the "Cananeans" and the "Arabs" (including all their various kingdoms and/or emirates). These groups then mix and mingle in various ways, and also variously interact with the successive dominant military powers until they are nearly linguistically and socially homogenized by the end of the period, but organized in the characteristic mosaic of religious communities.

I think the article needs to be more clear on the fact that the issue is largely one of semantics caused by the shifting use of self-identifying terms by people in the region. In any case, I do appreciate you feedback and will be using some of it in future edits. Tiamat 22:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Kermit the frog singing, "It's not easy being green" popped into my head for some reason after your comments which didn't dampen my enthusiasm, though I think I heard what you're saying. Summarizing dense scholarly materials in an easy-to-read format is a little challenging though, particularly on a subject that people are quite emotionally sensitive about and are apt at finding ways to disqualify as invalid paraphrasing - thus, the tendency toward quotation. Nevermind though, I'm up for the challenge as always. Tiamat 23:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi HG. You are entitled to your skepticism. My opinion on the subject is not informed by only this source (which as you correctly point out is not explicit in the claims it makes). My point is that the idea that there was continuity in the population resident in Palestine over the years is not a fringe opinion. Logically, it followed that explicit claims of descendency from earlier populations like the Canaanites, while often shied away from by scholars, are not so far out of left field within this context. It is important I think to highlight the semantic differences in the population's conception of self, as raised in the article I provided you above, but there is a general consensus that continuity of residency, mixing and intermingling was the norm, rather than the exception among the various groups who passed through Palestine. Tiamat 10:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement HG. I have searched for literature reviews, but the pickings are slim. I think part of the problem is the hesitancy of scholars to take up this debate due to its political implications. For example, this study on Palestinian DNA and its relationship to Canaanite and other earlier populations in Palestine was pulled from publication (an unprecendented occurrence) after complaints surrounding the political terminology employed by its authors. There are some secondary sources on this issue, which may also prove valuable to the article and the reader's understanding of how these issues relate to Palestinian identity and the conflict with Zionism over Palestine's patrimony. Tiamat 10:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

workshop

What a work ! Good job !
I will see what I can do. If I understand English good but my writing is not very good.
Regards,Alithien 09:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my contribution is near from zero...

Would you mind adding a pov-tag in the article Allegations of apartheid

I added one twice justifying me in the talk page but it was reverted without discussion and I would not want to start an edit war about that.

Thank you, Alithien 14:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin issue simple indeed.

I'm restating the point I made at Battle of Jenin, making it as simple as possible.

The sources collected by "windsofchange.com" (#1) state that their version of events (#2) is a "Minor View" (#3) (eg "reports that a massacre did not occur have received scant attention in the Western news media.") Our "Battle of Jenin" article is written around this "Minor View" (#4), in total opposition to Wikipedia policy (#5).

Which of those 5 elements are you disputing?

Alternatively, are you suggesting the debate is about something different? I'm afraid that "P1" (underlying bias in English speaking media) bore no relation to what I'd said and "P2" (basic reliability of English-speaking media) is not in dispute. PalestineRemembered 09:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi PR. I'm trying to stay clear of Jenin, so to speak, but I will reply to your note on my Talk. You characterize the wingsofchg sources as sources demonstrating the Minor View and Major View. But I think that they claim to demonstrate something slightly yet significantly different: the Minority Knowledgeable View and the Majority Less-knowledgeable View. See? As a result: Since Wikipedia depends on knowledge, not just a majority, the article needs to focus on Knowledgeable Views per reliable sources. Even if you don't agree with me, do you understand how I am distinguishing our viewpoints? (Well, that sounds a bit silly but I think mutual understanding is an important step....) Best, HG | Talk 14:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If we concentrate on "Truth" rather than "Verifiability", then the deniers are in an even worse situation. They don't appear to have anything to back their assertion "100s did not die" other than an unlikely verbal statement by one Palestinian, contradicted by the statement of the PA to the UN. The circumstantial evidence points to 100s of dead, some in collapsed houses, some buried in gardens. (No badly wounded found suggests 3 times more deaths than were found in the hospital).

And it gets still worse for them - under "Truth not Verifiability" we'd have to include mention of three refrigerated trailers (it's admitted they were in the camp while observers were excluded), and the trench with 30+ bodies (mentiond by some, including the only forensic expert to go in). Under "Truth not Verifiability" we'd have to give those claims precedence over the denials of those who blocked entry to the camp.

Defenders of Israel have sources to back parts of their claims eg there is no evidence for a "Machine-gunned against the wall" Nazi-style massacre - but absence of proof is not proof of absence. (In fact we have a report of one such massacre, small, confirmed by Major-General Giora Eiland, Head of the IDF Plans and Policy Directorate).

Without lots of study on your part, you'd obviously be unable to comment on the above factoids - but I'd still appreciate your telling me which of my 5 points are problematic. You've already discovered people in this article who won't answer questions ... I'm sure you don't want to join their number! You've had careful answers to your questions from me! PalestineRemembered 16:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: your reply on my Talk. You again ask which of your 5 points I find problematic. My answer is given above (pertaining to #3 and #4 if I grok your numbering). I don't understand what's not clear in your mind here. However, I wonder if your reply regarding the mortality figures (whether True or Verified) rather misses my concerns. Why? Because it still sounds like you are using these sources only to deal with the discourse using 'massacre' language, not with the mortality count. In reply to my original comment at Talk:Battle of Jenin, you said you didn't know quite what editing changes you'd make based on your cited wingsofchange sources and your inferences. (I added a reply there too, which you might look at.) Good luck. HG | Talk 18:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem - my argument breaks down into 5 very simple points/assertions. The sources collected by "windsofchange.com" (#1) state that their version of events (#2) is a "Minor View" (#3) (eg "reports that a massacre did not occur have received scant attention in the Western news media.") Our "Battle of Jenin" article is written around this "Minor View" (#4), in total opposition to Wikipedia policy (#5). Which one of these 5 points do you think is faulty? PalestineRemembered 19:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As stated above: #3 and #4, because (as stated above) the sources would be more accurately characterized or inferred (using what I perceive to be your method) as discussing the Minority Knowledgeable View and the Majority Less-knowledgeable View. (FYI better style to put ## before the text.) Also, if you don't mind my saying so, when you write that your argument is "very simple" then your words imply that I am too dense to get it. Of course, I know you're being perfectly gentlemanly here. So I don't think you're insulting, but you are not sufficiently putting yourself in the shoes of those (Steve, me, Kyaa, others?) who question your approach. For what it's worth -- my recommendation is (i) you and I take a 24 hr break from this thread, (ii) maybe folks shouldn't fuel the heat of discussion at Talk:BoJ, and (iii) you might work on a few sentences and footnotes that rely on the wingsofchange sources. These could be new or edited sentences. It's my sense that the BoJ Talk is started to be more exhausting than editorially constructive. Thanks for staying in touch. HG | Talk 19:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies - I didn't recognise "#3 and #4" as relating to my own numbering (perhaps because I was irritated by the two halves of the discussion being in two different places until I re-united them). I still don't understand what you're saying - windsofchange.com believe that there was no massacre. But they make little attempt to demonstrate it (having, I think, only a single, likely distorted quote from one Palestinian) - concentrating on abusing the media that disagrees with them. These other media sources (they concentrate on the British papers, but I suspect they had very similar problems with US media) were becoming even more loud in their condemnation of the IDF once they've been allowed into the camp and see for themselves what has happened. Their attempt top be the "Minority but Knowledgeable View" falls flat on it's face (even if it wasn't nonsense as regards WP:NPOV).

Coming to this affair in order to write an article for the encyclopedia and with no preconceptions, we have a problem initially deciding which view is the "Major" and which is the "Minor". However, it must be rapidly obvious that the "No Massacre" people are angry, likely badly informed - and admit that they're in a minority. The article needs to be written from the "Atrocity & possible Massacre" angle, because that's clearly the "Major View". Even the "Minority View" people tell us this is the case!

The Battle of Jenin TalkPages are sad memorials to sensible, "academic" people being driven up the wall by people who refuse to engage in any form of sensible discussion. That's not what is happening here - but the Minority Knowledgeable View and the Majority Less-knowledgeable View are unrecognisable in WP policy. You'd not even make that claim if you'd looked at the sources, since the windsofchange.com are angry and badly informed, whereas their targets are reporting what they'd actually been to see. PalestineRemembered 20:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You needn't apologize. Just to clarify on your last sentence -- I'm not claiming that the sources are Knowledgeable vs. Less-Knowledgeable, it's what you call the Minor View that distinguishes itself as more Knowledgeable. Get it? When you try to use Their View to prove a point, you are ignoring that their view subsumes a Knowledge evaluation. Anyway, let's give it a rest. HG | Talk 20:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still baffled. Commentaries/Op-Eds/Blogs are always written as if they were "Knowledgable". Most of them are written as if they were "Majority Knowledgable", it's (highly?) unusual to see them claiming to be "Minority Knowledgable" - but also very significant! We'd not accept their arguments and write our articles around their view anyway - and we'd certainly not write articles around those arguments if they admit they're "Minority"!

If you think I'm wearing you down by simple dogged bone-headedness, then you'd be tasting the medicine handed out to a considerable group who've previously been forced from Battle of Jenin by tactics much more tiresome than mine. Those people were "thoughtful and academic" contributors (much like you, in fact) and they've been driven off by the "No Massacre" crowd. The biggest difference between them and you may be that they assiduously tried to answer all questions before they gave up in frustration. PalestineRemembered 21:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I fear all your good work, attempting to make better use of references at Battle of Jenin has come to less than nought. See the nonsense that's going on there now. This on top of what was going on before - it's almost as if your wise words have made the problem worse. PalestineRemembered 16:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for addressing me in a complimentary manner. You thereby expose yourself to more unsolicited advice ;--) Having glanced at this talk page, I'm no mentor, but I suggest you find yourself a diversion, a way to chill out, or a haven for uncontroversial editing, until this settles down. You won't do yourself (or what you care about) much good while this is so heated up. Calmly and respectfully yours, HG | Talk 17:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How can I make sure that this article doesn't lose the "Totally disputed" tag while it's in this shocking state? PalestineRemembered 17:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

PR, for all I know, maybe you can't make sure of that. I don't know the exact state of the Talk over the tag. But I don't need to know. The tag is not so vital you can't revisit it in a few days, a week, etc. If the tag is under current discussion, you can just leave a deliberately courteous note, about how you beg to differ and will check back later on when the discussion is less heated. I admit I might have trouble following this advice myself, but there you have it. (Hey, partly thanks to you, I've been putting my energy into drafting material on special user pages, before placing them on the Talk pages. I want to let things cool off and I don't want to exacerbate Nagle's concern that I'm feeding trollism. So maybe I'm taking the advice. Maybe you could work on a careful exposition on a user page.) 2 cents, plus or minus a half cent. HG | Talk 18:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled - the Holocaust Deniers were eventually pushed into the darkest corners of society (and/or put in prison) and I'd (perhaps naively) supposed it was honorable and determined opposition to their arguments that did it. (Not that anyone seems to have learned much - a local organiser of the ADL was sacked recently for daring to suggest there was a genocide of the Armenians). Is it only possible to stop denial with the weapon of $millions? PalestineRemembered 18:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC

Of course

An explanatory note would definitely solve the problem. I was just playing devil's advocate. I read your argument for why discussion of the title remains important and think it was considerate of you to go the trouble to do it. I agree that policy-based discussion can continue as well. Tiamut 11:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Should we delete this list

Some people are selective they would like to see only lists of their own domination, what do u think does this list warrant deletion or should we let it stay?[1]--יודל 13:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Inserted from User's Talk page

WP:CANVASS ...

... is an important guidelines for you to read. "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to influence a community discussion.[1] Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive." etc etc. Anyway, I'm busy and already have access to this info. HG | Talk 16:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention i only left u that note because i see that u have some history in this issue, with the same person user IZAK about his other attempt to delete a similer page, [3] please do express your opinion regarding the issue i alerted u its our shared interest, or i may be mistaken, then be so kind and disregard the message. Have a good day--יודל 17:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Your prompt reply is responsive, provided you stop canvassing. Did you stop? HG | Talk 17:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

yes. i found that i was guilty of the paragraph votesocking i did not know it sorry i will op it thanks for alerting me on this.--יודל 17:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Cherry-picking statements.

Please have a look at this - what do you think of quotations from Benny Morris in a section entitled "The "Arab leaders' endorsement of flight" Theory" and a subsection called "Claims by scholars that support the theory that the flight was instigated by Arab leaders"? Elsewhere we know that Morris puts the "Endorsement of Flight" (or EoF) theory as accounting for around 5% of the exodus, with the 'Transfer principle' theory basically accounting for the rest. (This problem seems to have been written into the article with the deceptive titles of sections, something I've noticed before).

I'm very concerned by statements such as "all evidence for EoF or any other cause given by any reliable historian is acceptable without qualification", suggesting that this kind of cherry-picking is perfectly acceptable, when such a policy is bound to distort the words of reputable historians (while of course having no such effect on polemicists). And the statement suggests there are editors who have veto power over what appears in articles. It may be true, but I don't see it in WP:Policy anywhere - is there a list of these infallible editors somewhere? PalestineRemembered 06:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

PR, I don't have time now to deal with that article. If you don't mind, I will nevertheless express what you may collegially assume is "tough love" or "kind but tough" talk:

• You might consider the following plausible perspectives, (1) Morris has multiple writings and they may not be perfectly consistent, (2) it looks like the quotes use Morris for evidence (e.g., Arab leaders' orders), not merely for a conclusion about EoF percentage-wise, (3) does the 1st quote itself qualifies the EoF view ("reinforces the accusation against the Zionist side").
• Even if you're right, your language is heated and a bit uncharitable, i.e. not assuming good faith. For instance, in the user's words "all evidence for EoF or any other cause given by any reliable historian is acceptable without qualification" you interpret "without qualification" (italics added) to mean that the user is giving the "evidence" without qualification (which Morris does himself, #3 above). However, it is more charitable and more grammatical to assume that "without qualification" refers to the preceding noun phrase "reliable historian", i.e. Morris is acceptable as a reliable source of evidence in every article section. But you jump quickly to a cherry-picking charge, rather than ask your interlocutor questions. It's better to clarify, or at least reflect back how you read the person, before attacking them.
• You also appear not AGF when you tell me "the statement suggests there are editors who have veto power over what appears in articles." This seems like a personalizing and escalating attack. As I recently told Itzse about reductionist characterizations of Tiamut, even if you jump to these kind of conclusions about another editor (and even if it's "True"!), the etiquette here is to keep those thoughts to yourself. You should assume, and appeal to, the best qualities and motivations of fellow editors.
• Finally, why are you sending me an unsolicited request to intervene on a substantive question for an article I've never edited? I noticed that you recently accused Steve of a WP:CANVASS violation. Maybe valid, beats me. But don't look like you're calling a kettle. Of course, I don't mind your message -- indeed, I welcome it, knowing that you'll chew any straight dope I toss back at you -- but are you sure my welcome would nullify a Canvass accusation? (If so, did you check whether the other users welcomed Steve's msgs?)
• Anyway, it was smart of you to test your reactions with me, rather than on that Talk page w/GHCool. This is an appropriate use of our relationship and I hope you'll continue to enrich it. (Maybe more self-reflective if, rather than asking me questions about content, you preface by asking for advice about your own reactions.)

Unpredictably yet nevertheless, your truly, HG | Talk 07:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you're not well up on this particular topic and I was not (I'm pretty sure) inviting you to put on your hob-nail boots and come over to Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. I was looking to you to express your views on WP:Policy. I was particularily interested in your views on 1) the practice of "cherry-picking" quotations, something that would render worthless the writings of any and every serious historian on any topic. 2) the practice of hi-jacking discussions with mis-leading section titles (Battle of Jenin suffers badly from this effect, "massacre" is the only discussion allowed on the table, even before we get "No Massacre" rammed down our throats).

Incidentally, AGF is permanently violated in this case, since this editor quotes me in ways intended to disparage my contributions 4 times on his own UserPage. I do not believe this was due to any personalising behaviour on my part.

Over and above your comments on the two Policy matters above, perhaps you'd comment on whether it would be right for me to use my UserPage to highlight this other editor's claim - eg "all evidence for EoF or any other cause given by any reliable historian is acceptable without qualification." PalestineRemembered 08:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, my boots are in storage and I wear ballet slippers in WP. You'd save me clicks if you added a Talk-link to your signature, btw. Your #1 q about cherry-picking is answered w/my 1st bullet. That is, it doesn't look like necessarily like an inappropriate quote selection (cherry-picking) from Morris. So don't lead the witness (me). But instead of trying to figure out a Policy violation to pin on your battle-partner co-editor, I really do think, PR, you could just propose in Talk an edit that would reframe the quote with a sufficient yet neutral (not over-the-top, let's make a point) qualifier, as you feel is justified by the Morris' writings. Your #2 q. To what misleading section title do you refer? Also, (another kettle critique by me, when you it's "the only discussion allowed on the table," doesn't it sound like you're trying Own or have veto pwr over the page? ;->

I'm not trying to lead you as a witness, since I'm not asking you to get involved in that article. It would be unethical to do so, it'd be unfair on you (complex new? topic) and I'd shoot myself in the foot, because it's by no means obvious you agree with every word of mine and would follow me round like a lamb.

1) I believe the clip from Morris has been abused to make it seem (to the reasonable reader) that Morris supports the EoF theory. This rather obviously degrades the integrity of articles. The article is laid out in a "Pro/Con" format (adversarial system - no problem with that part), but to confuse the identity of contributors makes a careful reading and understanding of it impossible. It's like presenting a prosecution witness to the jury as a defence witness.

2) Not only is it confusing in this one article to cherry-pick references, but it damages writing of other articles. It'll tend to drive out good references to be replaced with bad. Morris is valuable and well respected precisely because his treatment of the topic is nuanced and he has no qualms about producing both sides of the case.

3) I have big problems with the way some/many of these articles have been laid out, and the aggressive way that any changes are reverted. Battle of Jenin and Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus suffer from the same effect, they could never deal with the subjects properly, even if it were not for all the other problems. PalestineRemembered 13:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Now you've made me curious about User:GHcool's accusations and rebuttals. In what we do you feel disparaged? He doesn't directly characterize you, as a User, in a way that strikes me as his assuming your bad faith. If you stand by your quotes, then what is your concern? Perhaps you are concerned that your quotes reflect poorly on you. (Indeed, I admit I think so.) If you regret your quotes in part, then maybe you'd like the situation remedied or ameliorated. If so, I would offer to serve as an intermediary in approaching GHcool. HG | Talk 11:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello HG - you've asked people to strike out all personal attacks, incivility and so forth on the Talk:Battle of Jenin page - an excellent idea. I'm not sure I'm guilty of any. The nearest to a dodgy one is this, which I suppose I could strike through to show good will. Another one is here - but I see no reason to strike any of this out (particularily when shortly afterwards we discovered this editor was running abusive socks). I do get involved in angry exchanges - see this, but I'm calmly squashing angry and highly POV attacks on me and my contributions (watch the subsequent exchange with Isarig, the final contribution is this from me). Here's another edit that likely upset people - but it's totally non-personal and proper. Also this one, [2], [3], [4] .... I needn't go on, you can search the TalkPage yourself.

Why am I moaning to you like this? Well, it would be a shame if you came to this mediation suspecting me of personal attacks and so forth, and that I'm one of the problems with this article. I don't believe I am. PalestineRemembered 09:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Very glad to hear from you about user conduct in Talk. I'd still ask you to strikeout as appropriate, esp from recent sections. You can revise to kinder wording when a point really needs to be there. (maybe mark revisions with // x y z // ) You or I can note on the Talk page that you've started/done this. Even if others decline to do so, I can't think of any real disadvantages for you. HG | Talk 13:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If you aren't sure what people find troubling, you can say that you've started and that you're open to further changes of unkind wording that others have felt. Exceedingly politely yours, HG | Talk 13:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I trust some of the people who claimed to be so very, very interested in this article are not now going to tell you/me/us "Gee, I'll pass on the invitation to present any evidence to the mediator because I'm no good at writing coherently - but I demand you still treat me as a genuine participant in the project" If this arises, may I break my tight self-imposed restraint and blow them a raspberry?

(Please inform me when you've read this response, because I'll have to come back and strike it through in case anyone snooping on your TalkPage is offended by it). PalestineRemembered 13:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi PR. LOL, can't you blow a raspberry off-line?! Anyway, consider it struck, ta da! (FYI If you referred to me as "the mediator" let me note that I'm only serving as a temporary facilitator now.) Next question: Now that I've had a positive, coincidental interaction w/GHcool, it may be easier for me to deal with those disparaging use of your quotes. Why wouldn't you want to take me up on this? See your around, HG | Talk 11:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

La positive attitude

Do you know there has been a famous joke about that in France 5-6 years ago. A famous singer wrote a song named "positive attitude" and at a meeting the French Prime Minister asked to population to adopt this "positive attitude" so that the country move forward.
In political matters, there is no positive attitude ;-)
I cannot deal with the content of Israeli apartheid. I don't know enough about that. I just say it will not be a neutral work with the current choices.
But if you want to involve your own "positive attitude" as mediators in Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus or the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, you are welcome. That is I think what lacks to them so that contributors can move forward with these subjects.
Kind Regards, Alithien 14:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus

Note: HG recently made suggestions and follow-up comment(s) at Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, owing to references to said page by both Alithien and PalestineRemembered

There is a problem at the article Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus because we're not allowed to point out that at least 90% (and probably 95% or even 98.5%) of the exodus was directly or indirectly caused by the Yishuv's soldiers with guns. We're not even allowed to put this cause at the top of a list of possibilities! PalestineRemembered 14:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

PR, According to Pappé (you remember him, he is the scholar who claims the whole mess was pure ethnic cleaning and Plan Daleth the proof), 70,000 refugees of the first wave left voluntary in December 1947 and January 1948. It is already roughly 10% of the total of refugees. :wind, wind, wind... Alithien 08:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Gentlefolks, how about this idea? You are welcome to continue discussing content disputes here, provided you remain kind and let me strikeout perceived user conduct missteps (which the author can then revise). Assuming you've got some confidence in me already, I've done an example above. If thread gets too long, I may ask you to move it to a user subpage or even at the appropriate Talk. Good luck and thanks. HG | Talk 10:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Moed Acharonim Va'ad Harabonim of Lakewood List of Hasidic dynasties Chief Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky Chofetz Chaim Heritage Foundation Slabodka yeshiva Yaakov Chaim Sofer Ellen Spertus Isaac Klein Hebrew Union College Brit shalom Middle East Quarterly Land ethic Holocaust theology Moshe Hirsch William E. Kaufman Rabbis for Human Rights

Cleanup Iatrogenesis Situational ethics Elazar Shach Merge Jewish population Etiquette Essenes Add Sources Responsa Tallit Moral example Wikify Teleological ethics Great Assembly Sargon II Expand Chavurah Atheist Jew Venture capital

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Your input?

Hi HG. As you can see I have been unblocked. Unfortunately, my first edit to Palestinian people was reverted by Itzse (talk · contribs) who is once again claiming that Palestinians are not a nation. I would appreciate your input there. Tiamut 19:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No Tiamut; your first edit was to revert my edits of the previous two days; and to avoid explaining yourself, you gave an umbrella explanation of "reorganization". I then painstakingly redid my edits in no less then six edits with clear explanations in the edit summaries, so that you can/should respond to each one individually; and you call me the reverter? It's not nice to lie. Itzse 16:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut and Itzse, ... (N.B. copied to their Talk pages. Drafted before Itzse's comment above.)

My input here is prompted by your various comments on my Talk page and then on Talk:Palestinian people. I'm rather honored and pleased that you're both interested in my opinion. I think both of you are motivated and working to make positive contributions. You're also both trying to stay calm and work collaboratively, and you're certainly welcome to rely on my Talk (and occasionally me) if that's helpful. That said, you've both gotten under each other's skin and lost your temper at times. So it's hard for somebody (like me) to sort out what's going on. Without further investigation, which I'm not inclined to do, here are a few comments:

1. It seems like Tiamut realized that she thought it reasonable to add "nation" to the opening paragraph. Tiamut added "nation" around Sept 5/6. (Or is it much earlier?) Here's a relevant diff. Edit summary was helpful: "new material for introduction - after seeing the Armenian page, I realized the intro here needed some work - comments are welcome"
2. Itzse objected to addition of "nation." I think you reverted w/edit summary "Nation" is POV". (Summaries are helpful, thank to both of you!) Sept 6th
3. From then on, it looks like edit warring. Tiamut restores ("restoring "nation" and "endonymic" use") and Itzse again, etc. Sept 7th. Afterwards, note that you both try to communicate through the edit summaries.
4. Also Sept 7th, Itzse posts "POV pushing" section on Tiamut's talk. Personally, I think User Talk pages can be helpful for ironing out inter-personal conduct issues.

Tiamut: You asked for my input, for better or worse. Well, you've done many things well in handling this situation. You try to stay on substance and you appeal to third parties (e.g., me and the RfC). Your initial comments on talk ("Reverting") were \ measured and substantive. You also tried to compromise, from what I can see in the edit summaries. I can empathize with your more heated reaction to Itzse, e.g. you say he's baiting you, though I believe that was unnecessary. More importantly, Tiamut, I'm surprised you didn't go to the Talk page earlier. You know introductions are touchy. Indeed, you had already struggled with the "people" language in the opening just recently. I myself tried to be helpful there. So, I wonder if part of this conflict could have been avoided, or w/less personally enmity, if you had proposed your idea on Talk first. In addition, why not stick to Talk once you saw that Itzse disagreed with the "nation" edit?

Itzse: You've been trying to maintain what you believe to be the right NPOV balance for the article. If you don't mind my saying so, though, you start the conversation with Tiamut on a very negative note, Itzse, with the "POV pushing" heading. Personally, I think Tiamut is fairly self-aware (maybe not perfectly, but who is?) of her POV and Tiamut makes a sincere effort to not impose her POV when editing the article(s). In any case, it's not helpful -- and a bad reflection on you -- to escalate with the POV pusher accusation. It's disruptive -- for instance, it has prompted me to spend more time on this than should be necessary. Plus, it throws your interlocutors off-balance, which isn't proper. Anyway, while I'm trying not to judge the substantive merits, you seem unnecessarily combative about "nation" given the content of the rest of the article. As written now, doesn't the article show both "pro-Palestinian" and "pro-Israel" sources accepting Palestinian nationalist identity? Even if you're correct, "nation" seems a plausible term for somebody to add to the intro. So why not just contest it in Talk? (Also, you were challenged by Nadav to cite sources to back up your disapproval of "people" in a Talk section last week. So you can assume that your concerns with "nation" also need to be reliably sourced. Right?)

Well, it's my hope that you both appreciate the effort I've made here. Please don't bite the messenger! If you feel I'm off base, just let me down gently. (I reserve the option of correcting my errors above.) Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 17:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a very diplomatic summary HG. You are correct in noting I could have gone to the talk page earlier. That does not change the fact however that nation to the refer to Palestinians is controversial only to those who reject what the sources in the article say, and what Wikipedia policy itself says on the matter; i.e. collectives are generally self-defined - a point you raised in the discussion page on the naming of the Israeli apartheid article. Nonetheless, your efforts and the criticisms you raised are duly noted and appreciated. Enjoy your part-time wikibreak. Tiamut 17:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's really very difficult to let you down gently, because I find myself accused by you of edit warring which I totally reject. I understand that you might be doing it to pacify Tiamut but it’s unfair to do it at my expense. If I should speak softly then the above wrong image of me might stick in someone’s mind, which is unfair to me. This version that you are reading is a toned down version of the original. If I still hurt you (HG), then I apologize, as my intention is only to clear a wrong image of me in your mind and by extension in the mind of others.

I'm sorry to say, but you're totally off base. I'll take it that you haven't followed the sequence of events and are totally unaware of who edited what. If you would have checked out the exact sequence of events you couldn't have come to such conclusions and made such comments.

Frankly, I am very disappointed in you trying to equate us. While my reputation is unblemished and everyone who has followed me here knows that I'm here to add my knowledge on Jewish subjects for which I have barely scratched the surface, and although I am bold, I go out of my way to be fair and uphold the neutrality of Wikipedia. Tiamut on the other hand has one agenda, and one agenda only; to push a Palestinian POV. I'm sorry to say, but your trying to put her in a good light rings hollow. Please check out what many other editors have said about her and then tell me if you still think so. Sorry I cannot sit back and watch you trying to equate us. By equating us you are actually smearing my character and exonerating her which is really not fair. It seems to me that she cannot do any bad and I cannot do very much good; that's the impression I get from your comments.

Here are some things you say which I find incorrect or disturbing. The reason I am calm is because I have given up on her, given up on the mediators, and almost given up on Wikipedia. Only people who think that they can win or accomplish something are passionate in what they do. I'll talk straight and pull no punches. I made my comment on your page only to show you that Tiamut is lying, in the belief that maybe you’ll open your eyes. Tiamut hasn't gotten under my skin at all; I know what she is up to and want to stop it; but if you (not you necessarily) will try to stop me instead of her, then I'll bid all of you good bye and let you have what you deserve. I have no softer way of putting it, that I just can't take this crap that Tiamut thought it reasonable to add "nation" to the opening paragraph. No, she knows exactly what she is doing and such comments are what lets her get away with it. While Tiamut has lost her temper many times; I haven't lost my temper even once; disappointed, yes; lost temper, no. You say that you're surprised that Tiamut didn't go to the talk page earlier; I wonder why you're surprised; don't you see that she first tries to get away with whatever she can, then she'll engage in talk with no intention of compromising but to get part of her pushing accepted and put off the rest for another round. You say that I started my conversation with a negative touch by its heading of POV pushing. My purpose is not anymore to set her straight, which I have already given up. My purpose is to point out her POV pushing to all of you. Actually I think that I'm treating her with kid gloves compared to how administrators would have dealt with her, if they only wanted to. Lastly I completely object to your equating us both as edit warring. When one side explains, but the other side says one thing on the talk page and does something else on the article; then the explainer shouldn't be labeled an edit warier simply to be able to play the equation game. Please get it straight; I am an honest editor and she is a POV pusher, and the twain doesn't meet. She needs to be admonished not mediated; you cannot mediate with someone who will only play the game of mediation with no intention of good faith editing.

Her response to you is a game which allows her to do what she wants while she is engages in dilly-dallying and in false placation. Tiamut has learned to play a game with all of you. She pretends to engage in discussion but in reality does what she wants and then has the audacity to reverse the sequence of events to make it look as if she thought she was doing the right thing. Now watch her threaten that she will report me; that's also part of her game, and if she succeeds then Wikipedia doesn’t deserve any better.

It's time to call a spade a spade; because otherwise Wikipedia will lose its valuable editors and stay with the crap. I’m really fed up with Wikipedia, and ready to bid everyone farewell. Itzse 21:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, not sure what do say, Itzse. I do appreciate your frankness. Let me focus on your clearest, most factual claim. You say, "I made my comment on your page only to show you that Tiamut is lying..." In the comment to which you refer (top of this section), you said that Tiamut's "first edit" .... "gave an umbrella explanation of 'reorganization'" and that "it's not nice to lie" when she claimed that you were reverting. However, as linked in my first (#1) point, above, there is a diff showing that Tiamut made a significantly earlier edit to add 'nation' to the intro. Therefore, it looks to me like you (Itzse) have not given me her "first edit" but rather a second edit. Furthermore, her second edit summary does not merely say "reorganization" as you state, but rather also clearly shows that she is "restoring nation" (cf. see my #3 point). If I've misunderstood what you call "the exact sequence of events", I apologize, but right now it looks to me like you've incorrectly presented the information. I assume you haven't been intentionally misleading or lying about Tiamut's "first" edit, you just make a mistake. (Or else I have, it happens to the best of us!) Otherwise, it's hard to discuss your message. Maybe Tiamut is as uncompromising and game-playing as you say -- I sincerely doubt it, based on my limited, positive interactions with her, but I can keep an open (i.e. suspicious) mind about her. On the other hand, you are explicitly stating a refusal to assume good faith with her. Itzse, I imagine you have much to contribute on Wikipedia. However, besides making yourself look intransigent and uncooperative, doesn't this explicit refusal to AGF effectively disqualify you from collaborating on any article Tiamut is editing, if not Wikipedia overall? In sum, I'm not convinced that she is lying given the edit history, and I am concerned that the static position you've adopted undermines your credibility in what is essentially a gigantic collaborative project. Even if you still think I'm off base, I hope you can understand I've tried to be responsive to your specific concerns. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 00:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Picking up from there, I have to say that I'm at a loss at how to proceed. Itzse's comments on the talk page [5] seem to revolve solely around attacks to my character, rather than a discussion of the content issue (which I cannot even identify now). In the first paragraph, he rejects my explanation for the edit, accusing me of "dishonesty" and reverting changes that don't "fit with my agenda". In the next paragraph, he explains his edit summary using the words "Gruesome details" as being his way of pointing out that the reason I want to include mention of the 1948 Palestinian exodus in the intro "to paint a picture of the Palestinians as victims; which again is your agenda, and to us Wikipedians is called 'POV pushing'." And so on and so forth ...

When I used the words "very diplomatic" to describe you summary HG, it was my way of intimating that you might not have gone far enough in condemning Itzse's behaviour as totally out of line with Wiki policies and guidelines. As he says above, he didn't like being treated as though he were like me, when in fact, I have not stooped to his level and my edits are totally in line with Wiki policies and guidelines. I don't mean to come down on you HG, because I think the diplomatic approach is important when dealing with a content dispute. But this has gone beyond being a content dispute. The content's not even being discussed. The only things Itzse is writing now have to do with attacks on my character. I don't accuse Itzse of POV pushing based on his religion or background, whereas I think his problem with me is centered around my being Palestinian, and not being shy about having opinions - opinions which I do try to keep at bay while editing article space (and nobody's free of bias and I'm sure it does come into play sometimes) but I try to keep it in check. And I'm pretty damn proud of my efforts. And I'm really sick and tried of listening to Itzse smear me all over this encyclopedia. So how can I get it to stop? Tiamut 01:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tiamut. Not sure why you are asking me. As you know or can guess, I'm less interested in mediating conduct than content disputes, at least for the time being. Yes, I suppose once somebody has exhausted efforts to discuss user conduct disputes through ordinary means, it is appropriate to move to other grievance procedures. (If you're asking me what argument or evidence would convince Itzse to stop saying that you are a POV pusher etc., I don't quite know. I did feel that Itzse was responsive in our earlier exchange, I'm not sure what will happen now.) Are you asking my opinion about whether further ordinary Talk discussion would be useful, or which grievance procedure to use? Presumably you can get better advice elsewhere on pursuing a user conduct grievance. This doesn't mean I'm trying to close the conversation, as I hope you'll appreciate. Thanks. HG | Talk 02:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Shucks, I forgot my point. If you do move to a grievance procedure, it would be courteous to take into account that Itzse may be incommunicado Wed - Sunday due to Rosh Hashanah. HG | Talk 02:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi HG. Well, I have to say that I am a little disappointed with your response. The diff] I gave you in which he accuses me of "dishonesty", "misleading reasons", "POV pushing", "having an agenda" and so forth, on the article talk for Palestinian people came after your discussion with him. While it's your right of course, not to get involved in user conduct issues so as to focus on content, offering your positive assessment on Itzse's potential for responsiveness above, while ignoring the content in that diff is getting involved. It's ignoring that what he said there is just a series of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith and incivility - and basically excuses such statements. I'm not going to take this to dispute resolution now since, as you have pointed out, Itzse probably won't be around during Rosh Hashanah. But it's a little disturbing to me that while you have not yet hesitated in the past to point out where I could improve my tone with other editors to lessen the potential for dispute, in this case, you don't see anything wrong with Itzse continuing to slander me without providing any evidence. The onus is not on me to provide him with an "argument or evidence" so that he stops making such claims. The onus is on him to stop making them. Period. It violates Wiki policy and does nothing to promoting a collegial atmosphere in which productive editing can take place. I feel it's reached the point of harassment actually. If it continues when he comes back, I'd like to know where I can go to get help to get it to stop. Thanks for listening. Tiamut 11:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, thanks for expressing your reaction. Sorry, but now I feel misunderstood. Perhaps I was too indirect? In my reply to Itzse above ("Hmmm..."), I tried to show him that he had made severe mistakes in accusing you of lying and in persistently characterizing you as a "POV pusher". I then say, in effect, that such behavior disqualifies him from Wikipedia. So, I feel that you're missing something when you say ("you don't see anything wrong with Itzse" etc). In addition, I have not offered a "positive assessment" on his potential. You didn't realize, and I wasn't clear enough, that I was referring to our earlier exchange here. At that juncture, Itzse was responsive. Now, as I told you, "I'm not sure what will happen." This is not a positive assessment. But what are you asking of me? To rebuke him more forcefully? I'm willing to give it another shot. (Who knows? Rosh Hashanah is a time of teshuvah, so it would be appropriate for Itzse to return, apologize and agree to stay civil.) Anyway, that's why I broached the idea of going to a grievance procedure. It's up to you to decide about that. I had assumed you don't need my advice on Resolving disputes, but perhaps a Wikiquette alert would be the next step in the sequence. Thanks again for such open communication. HG | Talk 14:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. I already have a much different working relationship with you than with Itzse, so you shouldn't expect me to treat you both the same way. Since you tend to be responsive, and at least welcoming, I feel more comfortable commenting on your tone. (Along these lines, as you write about your dispute, I'd advise sticking to WP policy jargon and not terms like "slander" or "smear.") Take care. HG | Talk

Thanks for clarifying your comments and position HG. I'm sorry if I sounded harsh. Have a happy Rosh Hashanah yourself, if I don't get to speak to you again before then. Ramadan starts today or tomorrow and while not Muslim myself, my husband's family is (my husband's an agnostic like myself), so we'll be commemorating our own holidays too. When we break bread, I'll think of you and yours and maybe even Itzse. :) Tiamut 15:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi HG; I'll only address your first point to show you that my accusation wasn't baseless. You're saying that since it was the second time that she placed the word nation in the article so therefore she is right that I (Itzse) who removed the word nation was the reverter and not she when she added it the second time; therefore I made an honest mistake.

I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt but in reality it is as I said. Here is the exact sequence of events. On Aug. 5 she added the word "nation" among other things and gave the reason as "(new material for introduction - after seeing the Armenian page, I realized the intro here needed some work - comments are welcome)"; that's what you call her first edit where she didn't actually explain why the new material like the word "nation" is ok. On Aug 7, I noticed that the word "nation" had been added, I didn't need to check by whom and why it was done as it was clear who did it and why she did it (which is to push her "fact" that there is a Palestinian nation). So I removed that word and explained that "nation" in the intro is POV; that's my first edit. I also made some other edits and explained each one individually. So far so good. Now along she comes and the first thing after being unblocked she reverts this edit and all the other ones with an explanation of "(reorganization - moving PLO definition into etymology section, rearranging paragraphs in intro - restoring "nation" and "endonymic" use)". Tell me, is “restoring nation" good enough for an explanation without addressing my reason for its removal which I gave that "nation" is POV. It could be that you agree with her that "nation" is correct but others, including to his credit Steve don't. Therefore "restoring nation" without explaining why, is a revert of my edit, not an honest second edit on her part. Now taken as a whole that she reverted all my edits in one shot with the blanket explanation of "reorganizing"; that's why I accused her of POV pushing.

Look, I think if I remember correctly; you're a lawyer; but if not, then you have the qualifications of one. A lawyer can and will rationalize anything and could even prove the opposite to be true if he must do so to free his client. I do not blame you for trying to vindicate her as you're trying very hard to be nice to both of us; but it comes across that if you need to lose one of us; you'd rather lose me. Why? I don't know; maybe because your political beliefs are more in sync with her then with mine, or for some other unknown reason, which I just don't know. Either way, it is clear to me that you will not side with me, which is your prerogative.

I do think that I made a major mistake in thinking that Wikipedia has a self correcting mechanism to eventually get everything right. As part of the mechanism I thought that arguing on the talk page is part of it. Little did I know that not only isn't WP full proof but actually every editor is open to the whim, prejudices, alignments, power and capabilities of those arguing different then you; and if you are left alone to fight you will actually get overwhelmed at what's up against you. I made a mistake by taking the course I took. While Wikipedia:Assume good faith makes it clear that if there is strong evidence that someone is not editing in good faith, you don't have to assume good faith. Also WP:AGF makes it clear that "playing games with policies" is also considered "bad faith editing"; so I was right to accuse her of bad faith editing. But what I didn't foresee is that most editors who agree with me will take the silent route, and that arguing on the talk page will get me nowhere, and the only way left to stop her would be the "brass knuckle" approach. The minute I realized that I cannot accomplish anything with reasoning on the talk page, because I don't have a fair partner(s) for that; I should have given up, instead of trying to expose her motives.

If an honest Wikipedian see's strong evidence of someone not editing in good faith; then the "assumption" of good faith is forfeited and there is no obligation anymore to assume good faith; we even have an obligation to adomonish them, as all the talk pages of WP will testify. So my position on her is correct, responsible and within Wikipedia's guidelines. Therefore originally I had thought of compiling clear evidence of her POV pushing, her utilizing WP's mechanisms and rules to play games and outsmart her opponents, and showing that she is editing in bad faith. I am actually capable of doing that, but to do that it would take me at least a day of tedious and nitty-gritty work, establishing the before and after and even during; with clear markers on when he said, when she said, when others said; and in the end we'll argue similar to the above on who had the first edit and who was actually the reverter, and was it vandalism or an honest mistake. The bottom line is that we'll need to waste days if not weeks trying to prove positive, and without a shadow of a doubt that someone deliberately, not honestly, with bad intentions, decided to edit in bad faith. Therefore if anyone is ready to pay me by the hour what I earn an hour in real life; to compile all the evidence; I'm willing to go ahead with it; otherwise it's a waste of my time, your time and everybody else's time to even get started. Suffice it to say that you can check out the record of many editors who have accused her of the same, you can start with Jayjg then move on to all the rest of the editors she was involved in edit warring. Believe me; those who are involved in these types of pages and who came face to face with her maneuvers, shenanigans and machinations, are well aware of what I'm saying. Lastly I don't feel that I will accomplish anything as she will surely get a lot of help to wiggle out of it, and at least remove the "shadow" of a doubt; so from my perspective it doesn't pay to get started?

As I don't feel that I have with whom to work with; I basically give up. I'm taking leave of that page for now and handing that page over to Tiamut on a silver platter to do as she wishes. I will watch from the outside to see what happens. To me this page is the barometer of Wikipedia. If this page can become neutral without Itzse then it will show that WP indeed has a built in self correcting mechanism and I'm in; but if this page stays as a Palestinian propaganda POV page; that will tell me that the great experiment called Wikipedia has failed and I'm out.

I don't mean it as a threat; I actually feel that if Wikipedia cannot be what it was designed to be, then it's a big waste of time to be part of it. Itzse 20:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Itzse, one thing I love about Talmudic discourse is the high premium placed on the ability to see the other side, and (as you say above) "even prove the opposite to be true" as needed. Let's accept your sequence and why you referred to her "first" edit. Fine. I've stated my concerns with her actions above and on her Talk. Again, this shouldn't be about taking sides on persons/personalities, and it's not about "whose side are you on" for me. I didn't think I was showing a preference on whom to lose from Wikipedia. But here are some comparative factors. Only you've talked about leaving, repeatedly. It's not a helpful way to build relationships with a community. You also haven't consistently spoken to me kindly. Tiamut, on the other hand, doesn't say she's leaving (though she gets quite frustrated). She has been friendly and conversational with me, despite (or due to) our obvious differences of opinion. Furthermore, you've taken a firm stand (i.e., to insist the she is acting in bad faith, to call her a liar -- lashon hora, btw) and publicized it in a manner that is contrary to my advice to you and, far more importantly, a violation of Wikipedia policy. Isn't your stance itself a step toward resignation? Conversely, Tiamut has been responsive to my suggestions and, more importantly, she affirms Wikipedia policy when confronted with wrong conduct. (Granted, she could be like the sinner in mYoma who says, I will do teshuvah and then sin again. I myself don't see a pattern of misconduct, so I'd grant her there benefit of doubt, as I did you.) Both of you could be valuable contributors -- it'd be a loss if either of you depart for greener pastures. I appreciate your farewell to me here, if you do leave, and I welcome your staying, esp. if you find a way to be more forgiving and less accusatory to those with an antithetical point-of-view from your own. Maybe the yamim nora'im will be useful in this regard; in any case, I wish you well. Shanah tovah. HG | Talk 21:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

N.B. Jayjg an administrator did take the "brass knuckles" approach with her and eventually gave up and now he's gone, it seems, because of her. The question is who is next? Itzse 21:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I just don't have the time to answer, and maybe its better that way so I'll make it short and (sweet?).

First let me start off by saying that you're a good man and maybe even too good of a man. The reason I use sharp language is because IMO it is the only way to get across some points, and the reason for sometimes using unkind language is admittedly because I sometimes feel that you stick too much up for the wrong side at my expense; and it hurts. Tiamut isn't threatening of leaving as why should she? She is actually doing a good job in getting her POV embalmed on Wikpedia. Yes occasionally someone comes along and stops her in her tracks but ultimately she always wins and if she was hired for the job; she deserves a raise. You say that she is nice to you; true, but because she has a lot to gain by doing so. She is a veteran here and has learned to smile to everyone and praise everyone but when push comes to shove she does what she wants. There are many examples where she votes outright against the arguments of those she smiled to, and with a smile does the opposite. You keep on saying that I've taken a firm stand on her. That is correct and I've explained it many times why. I am going based on my experience with her and as already explained I'm within Wikipedias rules on this and I have a right to believe what I believe. You want to believe otherwise, that's fine; but you can't tell me that I shouldn't believe what I know and can prove. On the other hand I have had a debate in myself if I should be editing Wikipedia altogether. Unlike others who find it fun; I mostly do it to share my knowledge, and just for your knowledge, I happen to be an expert on some subjects where very few have trodden. I shy away from those subjects for now as then I would be easily identifiable, and for now I prefer to be anonymous. I am actually very close toward resignation from Wikipedia altogether, as I have said, this article can prove to me that WP can be worthwhile or not; I happen to be pessimistic on that; therefore I am actually a step away from resignation. I think I'm done with this subject and I thank you for trying. I wish you a Shanah Tovah and who knows what the next year has in store for us. Itzse 22:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

HG - innovative attitude to mediation

I know you're becoming unsure about the mediation attempt at Battle of Jenin. I think if you'd seen this you'd have been convinced it was impossible! (Start reading from the 5th contribution, first outdent).

This flat refusal to discuss the operation of WP:Policy with an administrator, or accept any contribution from the non-involved is just 3 days before you offered to mediate on the other article. It's little wonder that both articles are so diabolical with WP:Policy being operated in such innovative ways. PalestineRemembered 09:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

HG - think about your reputation!

I'm concerned that exchanges like the following section on a TalkPage seen at Battle of Jenin could cause lasting damage to your reputation!

Hi HG. It is with reluctance I treat you as a mediator since our previous dealings have been dominated by disagreement. It's a bit unlikely we'd start agreeing now over this article!

However, I've complied with your suggestions (and requests) as if you were the mediator and I will not be abusing you over your arguments, views, comments or anything personal I might have picked about you.

You may have forgotten this, but you were actually called to this article in the apparent hope and expectation you'd be partisan against me (based on the argument we were having on your TalkPage). It is bizarre indeed that I'm the one prepared to work (and actually working) with you, while the parties that wanted your assistance are now accusing you of being "far to buddy-buddy"(sic) with me and your "mediation" page a "witchhunty kangaroo court".

It's taken 11 months, but I've suddenly started to wonder why people like you treating me in a collegiate fashion seems to enrage so many other editors. What can it be that brings down the red mist about Yours Sincerely PalestineRemembered 07:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)?

• This is a fantastic example of appeal to fear. Kyaa the Catlord 09:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears that you've accused User:HG of bias towards me purely and simply because he was collegiate in his dealings with me. It *cannot* have been because you knew anything about his edits or opinions, since they're (all?) diametrically opposed to mine (as he was already aware). The question is - why do you have a problem with him treating me as a regular editor?

And, of course, you've immediately set about breaking up the threading of this section - a practice that I've reported another editor to ArbCom for doing, as you know. Why are you attempting to make this section impossible to read? PalestineRemembered 14:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Folks, I posted a reply on the article Talk page. You are welcome to continue your personal dispute here, if you'd like. Content issues are best discussed in an orderly, rational and depersonalized/non-accusatory manner on article Talk. I still don't know Kyaa very well, so not sure what to say to you. For PR, I appreciate your concern but I don't feel that my reputation is at stake, nor do I assume that Kyaa is making any serious accusation(s) against me. Also, PR, I really like how you've accepted/assumed that I'll try to be open-minded and fair-minded. I don't find it bizarre, since it happens often in my life, and I'm glad to treat you as a regular editor. Nonetheless, you've been getting bent out of shape, in my opinion, more than is wise for your own good. I think I've said as much before and hope you take it in a friendly way. Perhaps you find it hard to assume good faith due to Kyaa's style, so you're welcome to bounce your impressions off me (e.g., before responding to Kyaa). In any case, hope things can settle down. Be well. HG | Talk 16:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Mentoring

PR, greetings. As you may know, I commented here about Jenin, which you mention above. For what it's worth, I wouldn't necessary "run a mile" away from the idea of mentoring you. I enjoy our repartee and your good humor in dealing with me. Plus, it's a fine challenge to develop a relationship with somebody with whom I likely have many substantive disagreements. We seem to be able to assume good faith with each other and we seem to be fairly straightforward with each other. That said, if you would like to explore the idea of me as a possible mentor, I probably would ask for some conditions or procedures that you might not like, though I believe that they'd benefit us in the long run. For instance, if only to make the process feasible in terms of my time, it would help if we agreed on ways to limit the scope or frequency of your edits. (I thought I had advised that you back off in some ways, but perhaps I spoke too obliquely.) Since you might find this frustrating, perhaps we'd set up a user page for me to review your various proposed edits (and you can always keep your proposed changes in an off-line document). As you say kindly above, you've been quite receptive to some of my suggestions, so maybe mentoring would work. But I tend to err as a micromanaging supervisor, so there is a risk you'd feel unduly constrained. Philosophically, too, as you probably know by now, I am very conservative about deploying official grievance procedures to raise concerns ("accusations") about user conduct. Given your current situation, though, perhaps you could live with my quirks. Let me know what you think. In any case, no hard feelings. Good luck. HG | Talk 18:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I would have no difficulty living with your quirks. I particularly like the idea of having a "share-page", because there are dozens of good, well referenced and relevant edits I'd like to make. I don't do them because there's no point in doing so unless I'm prepared to battle for weeks over it, making good new "contacts", only to see those people personally attacked and often driven off too. I should warn you though, I've been round this exact route very recently - not only will you suffer the kind of absurd personal attacks that you've already seen, the other tactic is to tell people lies about me. That's what happened here, where another potential mentor is trapped into accusing me of edit-warring, something I've never done. I'm afraid I let fly a bit on that occasion ..... PalestineRemembered 19:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. The warning is fair and I'll talk to Avi (or others) about handling any side-effects, but generally these should not be your worry. So, it sounds like you'd like me to propose some conditions/procedures for mentoring, is that right? If so, let's start by you posting me the diff that contains the decision requiring your mentorship. I'd like to read that. Meanwhile, I'll throw some ideas your way now. As soon as you find some condition of mine that you don't think you can stomach, and that I don't seem to adequately adjust or compromise, then we can call off this exploration, ok? Thanks. HG | Talk 19:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are some questions:

1. Would you consider us trying mentorship on a renewable, short-term basis? For instance, maybe we agree to try it out for 3-5 days. Then we both renew it for another cycle.
2. Presumably, the mentoring would cover all edits of any type in Wikipedia. If so, then I would review (or have a prior option to review) all article and article-talk edits, and whatever you might want to write on various Wikipedia process pages (e.g., AfD, ArbCom, AN/I, etc). Plus, Talk pages of any users with whom you are conflicting. The only exception would be that, in my absence, you could respond to process pages in which your own misconduct is alleged. Ok, this would be tough. Hence the 3-5 days basis. Does this sound too broad?
3. As you might imagine, I may ask you to strikeout or delete certain statements you've made. This would be limited and kept reasonable, but you may not like it. How this so far? HG | Talk 19:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is my worry - I owed the person trapped on that occasion some quite serious favours over a long period ...... and yet he still fell for what he'd heard! What do I owe you? Here's the diff you asked for - remember what I told you, this occasion was the very first time accusations against me even came with any evidence. Many people clearly and genuinely found what I'd said offensive - but only because of the culture they came from, people from civilised nations don't give a toss. I don't know if I can make sense of your proposed ground-rules - do I have to run it past you first before I ask if someone has a COI? I can't see a problem with striking out anything you think is out of order. PalestineRemembered 20:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that the level of mentoring oversight would depend on the type of edit. Let's say, for instance, you'd be encouraged to engage in exchanging messages on the Talk pages of your friends and allies. Likewise, I'm willing to assume that I can review a posteriori (after the fact) your substantive edits of articles that we agree are non-controversial. On the other hand, I am suggesting that you share with me in advance, and discuss with me as needed, your edits in more controversial or problematic settings. I suppose we should agree on the goals of mentorship -- such as improving collaborative interactions, anticipating and satisfying the objections of other editors, and strengthening the use and critique of reliable sources. I would expect that you'd spend more time preparing and patiently analyzing proposed edits, and less time making and arguing over edits. While I would try to be as gracious and as fair-minded as I can be, my conditions would be pretty tough, at least at the outset. This arrangement would mean that our goal is to modify some of your editing behaviors, which I gather is the point of the required mentorship. I'm not saying it would be easy for you -- indeed, I think it could be exasperating -- so that's why I suggest trying it out in short 3-5 day efforts. Take care. HG | Talk 00:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There are three major problems with what you're trying to achieve. One is that any "friend or ally" (or even exchanger of collegiate posts in between complete disagreemnt, like yourself) is going to be harrassed with accusations aimed at their integrity (or more serious attacks, such as sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry, as you and others have discovered). Secondly, with illiteracy and edit-warring rife in some of the articles that most need attention, careful editing is often a complete waste of time. Good edits will be turned into garbage, even if they're not edit-warred out immediately. (I think I just caught one of the editors I'm thinking of demanding to be free to edit on topics they'd just told us they knew nothing about!).

And there's a third problem - because despite what you might think, I spend very little time arguing over edits (I refuse to edit-war, as I'm forever telling people). I put most of my effort into attempting to either act to WP:Policy or asking (demanding) people tell me what they think policy is. I find an article quoting "an historian" who says things such as :"Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands." That is gross indeed on two unambiguous levels, making the guy utterly unsuitable to be used. Note, I've done nothing to interfere with the article, I'm only pointing it out in Talk, resulting in a small explosion of anger. (This "historian" also wrote a book called ""Israel Explores Deir Yassin Blood Libel, 1969" - I've no idea what's in there, but I think I can guess!). You were canvassed to go to the Battle of Jenin article in order to stop me pointing out that 'The minority view sources we're offered themselves tell us that their claims were ignored in the western media' - I wasn't editing, just pointing out something very obvious, and "demanding" the article be edited to the "Major View", not some trivial "Minor View". (Another editor has told me that "the world bought the Palestinian propaganda" on this subject - and blusters when I point out that the article most certainly doesn't match what he's just claimed to be "The World View"!).

In other words, each of your aims "improving collaborative interactions, anticipating and satisfying the objections of other editors, and strengthening the use and critique of reliable sources" is unobtainable. It strikes me that editors of good-will such as yourself don't much suffer from problems of the kind I get, so you imagine there must be something wrong with what I'm doing (even though nobody can put a finger on it with diffs in all the CSNs, ANI, etc etc). You recognise that I have information and some forms of "logic" behind what I seem to be trying to do, but you keep me at arms length because I'm having lots of problems that you manage to avoid. You believe you can "help", and I'm almost embarrassingly eager to accept ..... until you tell me what you see as the problems. It's then immediately obvious (to me, at least) that we'll not get anywhere.

However, I've said I'm agreeable, and I am. If you are open to a suggestion from me, it would be that you open a sandbox page (either your space or mine). I suggest this space has a top half (edits nearly ready to be entered into articles, waiting your approval or further suggestions) and a bottom half (issues with articles that are not ready to be dealt with as yet). Shall I voluntarily limit myself to 50 issues at any one time? PalestineRemembered 08:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi PR. In terms of a mutual agreement about mentorship, is your suggestion (sandbox page) that you first write down your edits in the sandbox, perhaps revise and discuss them with me, and only implement them after my approval? If so, then at least we may be close to agreement on how the supervisory procedure could work. This means that if I do not approve an edit, you agree to not make the edit (at least during the mentorship period, however short or long). Ok? It sounds like it needs to cover edits anywhere, whether "friend or foe" users, whether article content, article talk, or WP: pages. Right? Let's revisit goals once (or if) we agree on this basic procedure. Thanks. HG | Talk 08:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

For the goals or expected outcomes of mentorship, what is it that you would like to learn? This might be a combination of what the CSN requires and how you might sincerely like to improve. My 3 suggestions are based on my sense that the CSN focused partly on the use of sources and partly on your interactions w/other editors. If you are willing to do the required mentorship in good faith, then wouldn't this mean that you are agreeing to try to modify your conduct on Wikipedia in some way? (But pls first answer q's above about procedure!) HG | Talk 09:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sort of - but there clearly aren't problems with all my edits (it must be debatable whether there are real problems with any of them, otherwise the air would be blue with diffs). Worthwhile mentorship is about lifting the standard of those parts of my editing that have the potential for improving articles, not about preventing me from responding in off the cuff ways to people that I treat in a collegiate fashion. These off-the-cuff responses are the very things that persuaded you that cooperation between the two of us could be productive!

What do you want me to do, write edits, transfer them to the sand-box and enter "This space bagged by PR for the edit at [this link] - some material may be chit-chat intended to ease your discomfort at correspondence with an editor who appears to self-identify with a hugely unpopular and suffering minority"? (Please note - I'm not being awkward, but we are writing the manual for something that is not part of WP:Policy and never will be if we mess up).

I'm a bit disappointed that you've ignored my identification of three areas where "improvement" is meaningless, since they're problems that have nothing to do with me. I thought you put yourself forward to drain the swamp, not to muzzle the very most cooperative and friendly alligator! PalestineRemembered 09:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes -- with what you said about writing the edits into the sandbox, providing the link (so I know the point of intended insertion of the edit), and a heading like your quote (but less glib).

Well, it would help if you could evaluate yourself in a more critical and self-reflective way. Above, you had said the goals were unobtainable, not "meaningless." Anyway, you seem to ignore this key dynamic --> "lifting the standard" of your edits, for the sake of "improving articles," is thoroughly related to one's ability to engage in chit-chat i.e. Talk that other users will find collegial and constructive. It's not just what we say, it's how we say it, that makes for good collaboration. By the way, if I recall correctly, what persuaded me about cooperation is quite the opposite of what you've said above. I was faced with off-the-cuff comments that appeared inappropriate -- but once I assumed good faith and got into it in more depth with you, I found that you were much more reasonable and thoughtful than your off-the-cuff responses suggest. Sorry, maybe you just don't realize the effect of what you sometimes write. (And many WP users don't realize it about themselves, either!) This is partly why I would like to see you more sensitive in anticipating other folks' reactions. (The other part is about their reactions on your content/policy ideas.) I hope this is blunt yet useful, ok? HG | Talk 09:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've hinted before that some significant part of this is about culture-clash - all you've managed to do is persuade yourself that this is the *major* part of an otherwise unbelievably woolly "problem" that others are supposed to have identified. That's what you're saying now, and you're not seriously expecting me to re-edjicate my brain and change my native use of English to a non-standard version. If you don't understand what I say, but discover I'm talking sense (or at least, saying something logical) when I'm challenged and express myself again in bite-sized words, then that is your problem, not mine. (PR)

A communication problem isn't owned by only one side. Assuming both parties want to understand each other, doesn't a misfired communication result in a problem for both? HG | Talk 13:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've gone over each of the other possibilities with you, and have credibly asserted that they're endemic problems - if I have problems with them, it's because any determined editor will have problems with them. (PR)

Which "possibilities" are you referring to here? There were my 3 numbered "questions", then your three major problems, then my 3 suggested goals or outcomes for mentoring.HG | Talk 13:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Think about it - you just embarked on two simultaneous projects. The first of these was welcomed by me with open arms and excellent cooperation, it was then torpedoed below the waterline by the most outrageous cries of "foul" aimed at yourself. The second of these projects involved putting my behaviour under a microscope, and coming up with near-conclusive evidence that, whatever my real faults, they're not the cause of anything even hinted at in the CSN. (PR)

As I've said before, the gripes against my intervention in Jenin were hardly "the most outrageous cries of foul" and barely merited a response. I've not been a victim. In any case, what project or effort of mine has been torpedoed? If you mean Jenin, my efforts haven't been torpedoed. Jaakobou picked up on the idea and some folks have identified issues for mediation. Some of their Talk has focused on such specific issues. I'd also note that there wasn't agreement to mediate before my suggestions, either. Regarding the second project (mentorship), I don't quite grok your intent. Are you saying that I am proposing to demonstrate (via "evidence") that the CSN misjudged you and focused on a false reading of your faults? HG | Talk 13:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In other words, your editing doesn't have the same kind of problems I have (at least partly) because you're not actually a "determined" editor, taking on real problems that can be identified. Your recipe for a congenial life involves taking the path of least resistance - and bullying a cooperative and thoughtful editor is 5x times easier than ironing POV out of articles. (There's yet another very serious problem described in the section immediately below this one, and it concerns the same article you planned to mediate. This is on top of all the problems I identified at your soap-box page, none of which have been touched). (PR)

You're criticizing me for not being "determined," in general? Ok, I cry foul! :) Anyway, for the umpteenth time, PR, I did not "plan to mediate" the Battle of Jenin. You have projected this onto me. HG | Talk 13:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest you go back to your pay-masters and tell them that you don't understand this particular problem. I'll tell the same people you should have a pay-rise because of the skill and determination you've applied to this affair and the wisdom with which you've decided there is no problem to be found. PalestineRemembered 11:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, PR, you've sorta lost me on this last point. But perhaps I don't need to: Overall, it sounds as if you're saying that your difficulties are due primarily to a culture clash, not a bona fide problem ("woolly... others are supposed to have identified") that requires mentorship. In other words, you don't agree that the CSN has identified any problem(s) that you would like to be mentored on? Is that right? HG | Talk 13:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC) PS you can skip the interjected q's above, the main question is here at the end. Thanks very much.

The cultural differences between my society and yours are huge, and we've just exposed another one. You apparently consider it perfectly proper to demand I confess to various (presumably serious but so far example-free) faults and answer questions until I slip up and apparently defy my CSN "In other words, you don't agree that the CSN has identified any problem(s)". (Very much like what happened at the CSN itself, in fact). It may be "due process" in your system (shades of Presidential impeachment), but it'd never pass for due process in civilised nations - where the accused must be told what he's charged with.

Having been tripped up once already, I'm not going to open my big mouth and tell you what problem(s) I agree that the CSN identified. That'd be what's called "a fishing exercise". This fish refuses to bite.

There are a host of serious problems, the ones I'm telling you about, the one(s) that have personally affected your participation, and the ones that others are telling you about. The CSN arose because I believed I had detected a serious problem in the editing of Battle of Jenin - the CSN proceeded as if Conflict of Interest was perfectly proper. This long discussion, in the context of this particular article, makes it look exactly as if the monstrously POV editing of this article is perfectly proper too.

I think you should open the "Mentoring" page we both want (and I think we agree with how it is to be used) and I'll get on with filling it up. PalestineRemembered 16:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Mentoring II

(outdent) I've gotta say, PR, can't remember the last time I so enjoyed talking with somebody even while we seem to talk past each other! Yes, I am glad you noticed what I wrote and you didn't defy the CSN. However, you don't quite say how you plan to comply either. I'm less sanguine than you that I should set up the mentoring page because "we agree with how it is to be used." I still are requesting guidance, and presumably buy-in from you, on what I would try to achieve as your mentor. After all, the CSN arrangement sounds like the kind of mandatory training that people get nowadays (e.g., due to driving violations). I really do expect you to open your mouth and tell me what you think I would be trying to mentor or train you in. Once we agree on the goal, and my various stringent conditions, then I'd like to run this by Avi and see if it's kind of arrangement he has in mind. (Do you know how long the mentoring is supposed to last?) Anyway, to be responsive to you, I'll set up the mentoring page with an intro, which we can then argue negotiate over. But I'm not agreeing to mentoring, yet. Sound ok? HG | Talk 16:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC) PS I will be out-of-touch from Wednesday pm to Sat night. If we agree before then, this could be our first trial period. Take care.

I'm very much inclined to reject your idea of being a Mentor over the coming weekend when you're away (and I'm not sure you've got your heart in it). Don't take it personally, I'm sure we'll work productively together in the future, but it's almost as if I'm my own worst enemy being so cooperative, and I'm asking to be trampled underfoot. Your mediation on Battle of Jenin could have been really useful (even though I recognise I'd probably still be quite unhappy with the result). Prove to me that you can make a good hand of that, let me see you operate "due process" (as has been most startlingly not present up until now) and I'm sure I'll consider taking you up on the other thing. PalestineRemembered 20:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for your encouragement on Jenin, though I'm not sure that I'll do much more there. Also, I won't be away, just indisposed for Rosh Hashanah. Anyway, let me know if you change your mind. See ya. HG | Talk 20:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding whether and how to mentor with a "P.S." note after your edits (rather than a prior screening by the mentor), see my comment here. Thanks! HG | Talk 20:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see you just added potential edits onto the User:HG/workshop/Mentoring page. I find this confusing, since above you apparently decline the mentoring arrangement. Right? Placing edits for review would imply tacit acceptance of the conditions. So, please PR, only add potential edits on that page if you intend to follow all the guidelines there. If you reject or are dissatisfied with the proposed guidelines, please discuss them before placing edits for me to review. Thanks! HG | Talk 21:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Placing edits for review is simply an invitation for you (or perhaps others) to introduce factual confirmation or refutation of what I believe should be entered into articles. If you have any interest in or knowledge of this affair (and I'm not sure that you do?) you might remind me of any mistakes, alternatively you might just view the presentation and tell me whether it's readable or not. It might be that you've seen the same thing at your "Clarify Jenin" page, but then you'd not have wanted to express any opinion/add any material there. The presentation there is obviously based on other one, but it's stripped down considerably, in a day or two I'll look at it myself and figure whether the 'lite' version is the most useful. The work of improving the encyclopedia goes on whether or not other arrangements hold good. PalestineRemembered 22:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

PR, thanks for explaining why you added material there. As a matter of courtesy, since that user page is set up to follow the stated guidelines, I'd appreciate your removing the material from that page. Perhaps you can set up your own user page to prepare your edits and invite folks to review in advance. Sound good? Also, let me know where you've moved the material in case I take you up on the invitation. Thanks very much. HG | Talk 22:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You know me, I'm forever bending over backwards to meet people's demands on me, and I'll comply if you insist. But I find it astonishing you don't want to see the edits I'm considering making. Why did you offer to "mentor" the edits I do or might do if you've no interest in looking at any? Even if you had never intended to offer your services to me again (which is not your declared intention), I presume this is a task within WP that is interesting to you and that you hope to do well for others - my contributions to this page help you get a handle on what kind of things you might face in the future from other editors. (PR)

With all due respect to you and Menachem Begin :--) , Israeli-Palestinian issues are but a tertiary interest and area of expertise for me. So, and I assume you'll take this graciously, I'm not so invested in your (or others') substantive interventions. I am motivated to improve/use my facilitation skills, with mentoring to contribute research & writing pedagogy to WP (where training would help, in general), and overall to make WP a much more collaborative and congenial working arena.HG | Talk 12:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The more I look at this, the odder it becomes - there's been clear abuse of your clarify Jenin page. I did some work on it, very properly as far as I can tell, and my work is diminished by the nonsense. So why is it you're demanding that a single purpose page (concerning nobody but me) be cleared of carefully prepared content, yet you've not lifted a finger to defend a general purpose page, proven to be of interest, against defacement? This is deeply puzzling now! (PR)

First, I've already stated clearly why the mentorship page needs to be cleared until/unless we reach an agreement. Second, the clarify Jenin page hasn't been "abused" in my view, not at all. That's hyperbole. (I.e., the "nonsense" section did not interrupt or detract from your more constructive use of the page.) But, look PR, even if it had, I don't have the authority or time, (or desire), to try policing all the "nonsense" associated with Jenin. That's why I asked for self-monitoring of civility. As you should register from my exchange below, Kyaa also has the impression I should come down harder on people. (See also Tiamut and Itzse above.) Yes, I would do so if asked, and if authorized as a mediator or mentor, but mostly I'm seeking to modulate the "nonsense" by modeling better user conduct and by suggesting ways to structure discussion (e.g., clarify page). Does this make my motivation and approach less puzzling? HG | Talk 12:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And the mystery goes still deeper - some (all?) of the edits I propose refer to what would appear to be quite serious faults in articles - does it not concern you that some observers (eg me) consider the encyclopedia to have faults? The faults I detect appear to be quite serious, and my objections (to some of them, anyway) appear to be quite detailed and credible and well referenced. Does accuracy in articles not concern you? (PR)

Yes. I work with my primary/secondary expertise differently than w/Isr-Pal stuff. Again, I'd like to improve accuracy here mostly via facilitation and mentoring. Notice, too, that I put "use and critique of reliable sources" as a mentoring goal. (Again, note that both you and Kyaa apparently expect me to intervene directly on Jenin re: sources. Unrealistic, sorry.) Further: you are welcome to distrust me in your mind, but Wikietiquette expects you to not openly imply that I'm not acting in good faith with regard to WP's accuracy. HG | Talk 12:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And some of the topics concern what might appear to be really serious abuses of entire families (likely ongoing) - did you really intend I whitewash away evidence of the suffering of other families, even while you prepare to go away with yours? (PR)

It's hyperbole and not AGF to imply that I would collude with the "whitewashing" of evidence. HG | Talk 12:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that some of these questions may appear to be rhetorical, but I think you should make some attempt to answer. I've bared my soul as regards what drives me - and you've now left me very, very puzzled about what drives you! PalestineRemembered 08:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, PR, I've sought to explain what drives me, my motivations and approach etc., in interspersed comments above. Hopefully, I will still remain a Mysterious Other for you! But kindly go ahead and remove your material from the mentorship page, soon, before I need to break for Rosh Hashanah (Wed pm to Sat pm). Thanks again. HG | Talk 12:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

HRW

Armon and Kyaa insist that only "Palestinian sources" have described the Israelis use of force as indiscriminate. The Human Rights Watch report states unequivocally that "Palestinians were used as human shields and the IDF employed indiscriminate and excessive use of force." The report describes the Israeli use of force as "indiscriminate" some ten or fifteen times. There is a 8-page chapter in the HRW report on ""Disproportionate and Indiscriminate Use of Force Without Military Necessity by the IDF," and a subsection within it on ""Indiscriminate Helicopter Fire." Of the overall situation they say "the destruction in other areas of the camp was indiscriminate in its effect on the civilian population, and disproportionate to the military objective obtained." They reiterate and indeed strengthen all these findings in their annual report, and put them in the context of Operation Defensive Shield, of which they say: "Israeli soldiers repeatedly used indiscriminate and excessive force, killed civilians willfully and unlawfully, and used Palestinian civilians as humans shields." Faced with this, Kyaa and Armon are now claiming that these don't represent HRW's conclusions, but rather "Palestinian sources" because HRW collected their data in a Palestinian refugee camp. This is what I'm referring to as outright dishonesty, and no I don't mean it rhetorically. At that point it's chicanery in the form of a shell-game with the word "sources," engineered to discredit the claims. But there's yet another dimension: while they well-poison this finding of HRW's, edit-warring to ensure that it's described as a Palestinian claim, they want to present as definitive another of HRW's findings – in the same damn report – the finding of "no evidence of massacre." And remember, the whole damn article has been structured to present this second finding – the one they've selected a la carte to be burnished – as debunking, of all things, "Palestinian sources," the very thing they've just finished insisting the HRW report by definition represents. It's Kafkaesque, and frankly I've had enough of it. I don't want a pro-Palestinian article. I want a straightforward, encyclopedic account of Jenin, in all its dimensions – the way the sealing of the camp affected the perceptions of the outside world, the debates about the ethical dilemmas of urban warfare, the allegations of war crimes on the one hand, and media manipulation on the other, etc. And trying to collaborate with editors who want a pro-Israel propaganda piece, one that focuses exclusively on this media-manipulation "fake massacre Pallywood" blah-blah angle and promotes it, and are willing to shut their eyes and put wax in their ears and go through the sources a la carte for only what they want – I'm finding it just about impossible.--G-Dett 04:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

My comment on Palestinian

Actually, it wasn't tongue in cheek - it was quite serious. Perhaps unWikian, as I pointed out, but serious nonetheless.

When I made this suggestion, I was thinking primarily of Wikipedian readers. I see many articles that are simply bad, because editors of dramatically different POVs make a mishmash trying to come up with a version that is acceptable to both sides. I think that in many cases readers would be much better served if, instead of reading one obfuscated version presuming to be NPOV, they could read two perfectly clear versions, each representing an explicit POV. Like advocacy journalism, only advocacy encyclopedianism.

In the case at hand, my personal opinion is that the article on the Palestinian Nation is a good one, and pretty balanced. But Itze's POV, noxious though it is to me, is one that is not a fringe opinion in many circles. Moreover, it is an opinion that has been supported by scholarship for a number of years. If Itze is serious, he could certainly write a well-documented article about Palestinian Arabs which, while presenting both sides of the debate, would leave the reader with the clear impression that there is no Palestinian nation.

I worked as a journalist (Associated Press foreign correspondent) for 10 years, and in that time I learned that neutrality is a myth. When writing on controversial subjects, a writer better serves his readers by making his point of view explicit, and trying his best to be fair to all sides.

I allow myself to make this suggestion because the Wikipedia is the world's most successful experiment in pluralism. The Wikipedia is not a mere encyclopedia in the way that EB or Worldbook is. The range of topics and the way that Wikipedians approach them is in many cases fundamentally different. It is a place where minds are open, discussion is free, and experiments like this are possible.

Having said all that, I certainly don't plan to pursue this idea beyond the single post that I made. I am much more interested in writing my own little pieces about things so esoteric that no one would ever dream of arguing about them (Ignaz Schuppanzigh and Walter Willson Cobbett for example) rather than engaging in Wikipedian politics. --Ravpapa 05:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry

Your header could have been more clear. Feel free to revert the changes. It's only a sandbox (and, most importantly, it's your sandbox!). -- 146.115.58.152 05:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

How about: NOTE: THIS PAGE IS ONLY A WORKING DRAFT FOR A POSSIBLE RE-ORGANIZATION. You are welcome to cut and paste existing text, and rename, create or remove sections. However, please do not add new text or remove existing text. -- 146.115.58.152 00:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm trying your suggestion. HG | Talk 07:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin

Hi again. Sorry I've been busy or slow on the uptake. Belated q's. Let me ask you about this comment: "Perhaps if HG corrected PR's mistakes as I posted out above, I'd have more willingness to deal with him. But he hasn't and my lack of faith in his neutrality stem from him not adequately policing the rules he's proscribed. Perhaps it would be best for us not to fight amoungst ourselves and let HG speak for himself and maybe convince me that this, like all the efforts previously, is not a lost cause or even worse, a sympathetic ear to one side of the debate. Kyaa the Catlord 01:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)" If you remember, I can't tell from the thread what were "PR's mistakes" that you would have wanted me to deal with. In any case, I'm also wondering, do you think you might have given me a bit of a catch-22? On the one hand, as you and I know at least, I may have been trying to facilitate a bit but I was not in the role of mediating the dispute. On the other hand, you seem to have expected me to proscribe rules and police them, which is rather a tall order for a non-mediator. Is that realistic? Meanwhile, I do appreciate your hesitancy about me, and your concern about not wanting sympathetic ear attuned too far to one side. Ironically, I have some trouble teasing apart the multiple sides of the Jenin talk, which is why I thought it might help if folks clarified their respective concerns/disagreements. Given that I have no particular incantation to convince you of my good will (nor magic to ward off lost causes), and assuming that you also have no litmus test with which to be convinced, I'm curious about whether you think I might play a constructive role. If so, what? Thanks for hearing me out. Good luck with the Jenin article regardless. HG | Talk 07:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You might be able to play a constructive role if you ever get past the "collegiate talk" bullshit and actually try to direct PR past his attempts to insert his POV, his poorly sourced claims, his desire to include emotional commentary rather than calculated and encyclopedic content. It is nice to talk kindly to people and I admire your patience with him when he tries to lure you onto his side, but I don't see you making any effort to rebuke him and a good mentor would not shy away from correcting his "pupil". Hell, I've only been editting Jenin for a couple weeks, my edits to the article have been mostly copy editting and sourcing. My input in the discussion has been focused on suggesting that we include what RS sources say. And I've been attacked and called a racist for it. Kyaa the Catlord 08:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Kyaa, thanks very much for taking the time to respond. If I may point this out, you seem perhaps too preoccupied with my role vis-a-vis PR. There are whole unproductive discussion sections in which PR is not involved. For instance, the weasel words in lead section involving among others G-Dett, who had asked for mediation. Anyway, in terms of PR. I agree that a mentor should be more forceful, but I am not his mentor (though I'm willing to try). I don't think a facilitator can simply barge into a Talk and start rebuking folks whenever the facilitator-type sees POV or other problems. Believe me, I'd be rebuking all day, and not just PR! (Hey, didn't you get tired of just cleaning up your own chit chat? ;-->) Well, let me back up, if you honestly think you guys want a facilitator to police the tone, and everyone agrees, I might consider doing some of that. (E.g., to stop you from being insulted) But it's a distracting and time-consuming effort, much better that people catch themselves -- or diplomatically point out problematic statements via each other's Talk pages. If you want to find a view-from-nowhere judge to decide who is pushing POV harder than others, that also might be unrealistic. Don't you think? Even if all agreed, wouldn't Ploni withdraw agreement if he felt I sided against him too often? Anyway, a mediator could help w/ POV and source disputes if you all could sustain a narrow, focused discussion. That's why I was suggesting that you all identify some points of dispute that you could then focus on. But maybe you'd like the discussants to find another mechanism for dampening distractions, be they POV or tone? Sorry if I rambled. Let me know what you think, thanks. HG | Talk 15:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I've avoided the talk page on Jenin for a few days to allow myself some time to chill out. I started responding in a "mirror" fashion, but eventually the constant incivil tones of G-Dett, Eleland and PR caused me to become pissed off. On the subject of G-Dett's international sources issue, labelling the sources "international sources" is just as bad as leaving it as "some international sources" it still does not identify who these sources are and she's fought tooth and nail against us when we've tried to point out exactly who these are. Kyaa the Catlord 17:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Who these are exactly is HRW and Amnesty, the same sources (writing in the exact same reports) described as "outside observers" for the findings of "no evidence of massacre."--G-Dett 17:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the "I can't be correcting him yet, I'm not the mentor or mediator", when you created the subpage and placed rules on it, you assumed some authority over it. (And I don't mean the mentor page, the proto-mediation one.) PR went and broke these rules and you should have corrected him at the very least let him know his statements needed to follow the rules you placed. (Which is part of the reason why i completely ignored the rules when I posted there....) Kyaa the Catlord 17:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Kyaa, kudos to you for chilling out. You seem like a good humored person so maybe you'll appreciate this -- maybe you and PR can bond over your complaints about me! You and PR both assume that I should exercise more authority over the Clarify subpage. Here's my response to PR (above) which I'm inclined to say to you, too:

"... the clarify Jenin page hasn't been "abused" in my view, not at all. That's hyperbole. ... But, look PR, even if it had, I don't have the authority or time, (or desire), to try policing all the "nonsense" associated with Jenin. That's why I asked for self-monitoring of civility. As you should register from my exchange below, Kyaa also has the impression I should come down harder on people. (See also Tiamut and Itzse above.) Yes, I would do so if asked, and if authorized as a mediator or mentor, but mostly I'm seeking to modulate the "nonsense" by modeling better user conduct and by suggesting ways to structure discussion (e.g., clarify page)."

Partly it's a matter of my time and attention, which I don't want overly-devoted to chasing down incivility and rule-breaking. Still, I believe I did correct PR once about the page's guidelines (he then changed his "reverts" subsection). If everybody suddenly wants to invest me with more authority, maybe I could efficiently wipe out incivilities, but I don't agree with your assumption that, merely by creating the Clarify page I can now tell folks what to do or edit their efforts (engendering another cycle of discussion), esp when I'm inviting folks to visit it and explore the potential for mediation.

Hmmm. But let's say that both you and PR are right, and I'm wrong. Can you and PR discuss (jointly or individually) what kind of authority you'd like to hand over to me? I'm open to experimenting with you. The experiment has to be narrowly defined -- I decline to tackle the whole article/Talk, but I would consider changing my approach to the Clarify subpage, or a well-demarcated Jenin Talk section, or the like. By "authority", do you want me to rebuke, to delete/edit "abuses" and enforce rules, to firmly refactor discussion, to set up tightly-structured input (e.g., like Clarify), what? I'm willing to risk messing up, making misjudgments or over-reactions etc, if you all want to define what types of authority you believe I could exercise responsibly. I'll taking your ideas seriously, so pls give it some thought. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Cause offense to Palestinians?

HG -> would you cast your beady eye over the following and tell me if it's reasonable of me to stir the pot with this futher proposed edit? This is a portion of the discussion at [6].

User:Burgas00, there might be a cultural difference here. the reason palestinians use the term martyrs capital is because it's a sign of pride and respect among what they call resistance. if you consider the resistance terrorism, then you also consider "martyrs" to be suicide bombers and terrorists... however, if you subscribe to the culture that calls their activity "resistance" and "jihad" m then martyrdom has only good connotation and nothing bad with it... do you think posters of suicide bombers are in children's bedrooms because they consider "martyrdom" a bad word? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

p.s. we're here to report the facts, not judge which culture is better/worse and who's language bears what POV with other people. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If we're to insert translated material of dubious provenance that Palestinians (apparently) find offensive, I wonder what other material we should be inserting into articles. Some youtube videos of settlers are so shocking I'm reluctant to write the key-words to help people find them. PalestineRemembered 10:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

read my comment again, your reply here doesn't make any sense. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You really don't know what Israeli settlers are shown saying on video about Jesus and their part in his death? I'm quite sure you'd object very loudly if anyone put material so offensive into the lead of articles! No duplicitous translation, it's all in English. Offensive material against Palestinians in Jenin has no place either. PalestineRemembered 12:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, my beady eye (an insult in some cultures, PR!) infers that your proposed edit is to strike the "martyrs' capital" clause. Before you "stir the pot", were I mentoring I'd ask you to (#1) demonstrate that you understand Jaakobou's reasoning, and (#2) you have good counter-arguments. To save time, here's my thinking about what you've actually written:

• Your first response is too oblique. You haven't specified the dubious provenance concern. Plus, it sounds like you're making a "I-don't-like-it" or "it's offensive" claim (a fairly weak, deprecated claim in this context) buttressed by a rather snide, "I could retaliate with stuff you don't like" kind of support. Plus, the retaliation idea may distract Jaakobou, which may contribute to his inability to quite parse your reply as logically responsive to his argument.
• Your second response does not address his statement about not understanding you. (Granted, he might have said more nicely, "I can't make sense of your reply", but his wording isn't so bad.) Instead, you basically repeat your same points -- it's offensive and I could retaliate (and w/"translation" you more obliquely repeat objection to the source) -- but now you're wording is more rhetorical and heated (what Kyaa above calls "emotional").

Do you see how I've analyzed your responses?

If you don't mind my saying so, your dialogue might be contrasted with Burgas00, who follows. He begins by conceding to Jkb the use of info, but disputing its relevance to the intro. A much more narrow objection than yours. He then acknowledges Jkb's cultural argument, which he deems irrelevant, w/explanation. He then states why the contested term is a biased POV phrasing, at least in English. Finally, he uses the preceding points to argue against Jkb based on "poisoning the well", a logical objection with much import for Wikipedian neutrality. In sum, he proves that he's understood Jaakabou, he counters specific points, and leads up to a strong WP-based arguments. He is calm and measured. (Except his parting shot.) See also how he narrows his claim to the lede and, later, sounds reasonable about the sources ("Ok maybe I'm being hasty. I'll look into the source...") After Burgas leaves, the discussion considers the sources but then gradually devolves and get distracted by folks on both "sides," so the chat ends up focusing again on user conduct rather than content. (P.S. Personally, I suspect that Burgas could eventually persuade Jaakabou to at least move the phrase, if not omit it entirely, because I intuit that the source aspect won't compensate for the neutrality problem. But will the thread ever get back there? Will Jaakabou feel so attacked as to dig in his heels?)

Anyway, this is what I might try to accomplish in mentoring. Understand arguments, counter-arguments, demonstrate listening, how/why to be calming when arguing, avoid distractions, responsively satisfy plausible objections to one's own argument, analyze a thread and enter it effectively, and identify the most relevant policy/style considerations for a given editing question. Plus, for controversial pages, the more one can do in advance, on the Talk page, anticipating objections, the more likely one can edit without raising eyebrows. We're not just here to stir the pot, we're trying to get a collaborative and efficient outcome. PR, you strike me as someone with a good eye for POV problems and other nuances, but you'll need the right tone and argumentation to put your insights into effect. Thanks for hearing me out on this. HG | Talk 14:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me wish you a good break. In my hurry to see how you'd judge things, I think I've sent you to look at a confusing case (and maybe one I knew I wasn't handling very well, which I'd simply have dropped if I'd not got you to turn to). Although it's been stated elsewhere that describing Jenin as "martyrs capital" in the lead is insulting to Palestinians, Jaakobou doesn't see the problem. He's defended his position on it and part of what he's said is tolerably sensitive. On reflection, I'm not even sure I think "martyrs capital" is insulting, though I do feel it's unencyclopedic to have it in the lead. (Note, I've never discussed this particular part in Talk, I've not really thought it through atall).

The point I'm making about the settlers is that it would be very, very easy to stigmatise them on the basis of what a few (many?) claim for themselves, just as it is so easy to stigmatise Palestinians. In the settler case it really would be deeply, deeply unpleasant! Do you not know of the English-language YouTube video I'm refering to? PalestineRemembered 16:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi PR. Thanks for your well wishes. On that phrase, I encourage you to think about just why it's "unencyclopedic" -- if not for reasons already mentioned by Burgas et alia. On the video, well, frankly, the last thing I need personally before entering the next few holy days is to watch offensive YouTube stuff. (And as I said above, it's not germane to the current topic.) Be well. HG | Talk 16:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

request comment

i request you go over the material and state your observation on this subsection in regards to removing one of the concerns regarding the totally disputed tag issues raised. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are you asking HG to look at this stuff, when he laid out a special "Clarify Jenin" page to help us sort out the factual stuff (at least), and you've refused (or failed, anyway) to take part in it? The "Totally Disputed" tag is there because the article is, well, "Totally Disputed" (and the death toll is only one part "totally disputed").

As you well know, the nearest we have to an official estimate appears to be "around 375". (That's for the whole West Bank, the other major attack was at Nablus, with 80 Palestinians and 3 soldiers dead). That figure was given to the UN on 7th May. International observers testified that the camp stank of rotting bodies, more of which were being found under the rubble until at least early August. Israel targetted the infrastructure of the whole region, imprisoned all the men-folk they could get their hands on, kept out the bomb-squad, shot up the residents even in short breaks in the curfews and made two other incursions in the weeks after this event. It's not surprising it was impossible ever to do a proper count. (There is another figure of 56 alleged to have come from the PA, it's included in the article - despite coming only from two sources that cannot possibly be acceptable to the encyclopedia).

I think I've entered the figure of 375 into the article twice. It's been edit-warred out of the article, as with so much other good material. The figure we're showing is 52, which was never accepted (the UN says something along the lines of "at least 52 and probably not as much as 500").

Many other serious faults with the Battle of Jenin article are listed on this page, no attempt has been made to challenge them - and the page is defaced with attacks laced with allegations against HGs good faith!

Three other items (of many) that belong in the article are as follows:

• A small massacre is reported (Nov 2002, perhaps once it was clear that Israel would not investigate, despite admitting the incident) by Amnesty International (also the Independent newspaper 21st April) allege that three unarmed and unresisting men were gunned down in an alleyway and guarded for an hour while they died. (One survived, hence the evidence and the names of two of the soldiers).
• Sharon says (early March) "Palestinians must be hit and it must be very painful ... We must cause them losses, victims, so that they feel a heavy price." Even the apologist Time Magazine is telling us that the incursions were intended to be punitive ("communal punishment" anyone?).
• Zalmon Shoval (adviser to Sharon) tells the BBC that the United Nations special envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen "has no business whatsoever to tell us what is right or wrong" (18th April).
• Why would we accept any denial of wrongdoing by Israel, or any of their figures, when they failed to completely cover up what they'd done, and their attitude is so blatant? PalestineRemembered 17:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm, gee whiz PR, if you've noticed my reply to Jaakobou, I haven't yet said that I would comment and, if I do look into this further, I wouldn't want my Talk page to be a place to debate the substantive issues. Sorry. And PR -- look, I do appreciate your cooperation with my proffered page to Clarify the issues. However, I've borne personal attacks in my life, and I don't see one on the Clarify page. Here's why (a David Letterman list?):

1. It is not an attack to reject somebody as a potential mediator.
2. Kyaa did assert that I am far "too buddy buddy in tone with PR," which hopefully neither you nor I interpret as an insult! Plus, G-Dett speaks kindly there on my behalf, so it's actually a pleasure to read that page.
3. I'm starting to feel miffed that you've declared on various pages that I've been attacked. Since I disagree, it sounds like you deem me too dense to notice when I'm attacked. Well, I'm not. Call off your full-court defense!
4. For me, this is a season of forgiveness. So why not join in and chill out about Kyaa or whomever else you think has attacked me.

It'd be great if you'd delete/revise wherever you've said I've been attacked. Regardless, please stop treating me like a target on some battleground. Thanks, I'm confident that you're doing this for good-hearted reasons and the gesture itself is duly noted! Take care, HG | Talk 21:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Only just seen this request from you ..... I see an accusation, and it doesn't concern a mistake you might have made, it concerns your Good Faith. I'm not sure where I've used the word "attack", but each time I see it, what say you I replace it with "allegations concerning HG's Good Faith" - how about that?

Hmmmmm - first I find from me is the following (above): "any "friend or ally" (or even exchanger of collegiate posts in between complete disagreemnt, like yourself) is going to be harrassed with accusations aimed at their integrity (or more serious attacks, such as sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry, as you and others have discovered)" - I've no idea what I can do with that! PalestineRemembered 07:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

PR, please start by rephrasing your claim above "the page is defaced with attacks on HG." I'm open to your suggested "allegations concerning HG's Good Faith" -- if you provide a supporting diff or quote. As stated in WP:TALK, "Don't misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means: Be precise in quoting others. (etc.)" Likewise, please delete or edit the following recent statement from Talk:Battle of Jenin:

The other problem I see is that your earlier suggestions and work were simply ignored, with accusations against your good faith. I don't see how that can be acceptable - if there are real objections to your contribution, someone has to put together a reasoned case for it. Drive-by assassinations will need to be treated as serious disruption of the project, and acted against. PalestineRemembered 07:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I disagree that Kyaa (or anyone) needs to make a "reasoned case" against accepting a specific mediator. I do think it would be helpful if Kyaa or Jaakobou (et al) would respond to Eleland's question about the need for mediation. But until they respond, you don't need to rub their face in it IMO. Thanks! HG | Talk 17:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Shanah tovah

Thanks for your good offices once again. I'm going to be off wiki for a couple of days too, and will be be so mild, so cool, so cucumber-ish, you're going to miss the old G-Dett.--G-Dett 01:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

AoIA

Did I goof and edit what I should not have edited, here? If I did, could you pardon me, alert me, and revert me, in no particular order? Thank you. Jd2718 00:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

AoLA LOL

Don't worry HG. That was an addendum to a conversation 6SJ7 and I had way back, in which I was explaining the crisp distinction in my mind between supporting an article about an apartheid analogy (on notability grounds) and supporting the analogy itself on moral or empirical grounds. Obviously, many of the "allegations" article's I've moved to delete focused on countries with vastly worse human-rights records than Israel (Saudi Arabia, China). Lebanon is a sui generis case which sheds even more light on the relevant distinctions. It has the most liberal institutions of the Arab countries, but its treatment of the Palestinians, in my opinion, could fairly be described as apartheid-like. As that analogy however isn't advanced or debated hardly anywhere, it doesn't constitute a notable discussion. I said to 6SJ7 that I'd emit friendly barks at any such comparison in the public sphere, but would snarl rabidly and/or bite children if anyone created a Wikipedia article trying to conjure the mirage of notability around it in order to make a point.--G-Dett 15:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Impressed

I am impressed by the good work you are doing at the allegations of apartheid and the way you have managed to navigate the perilous waters of this dispute. If at any time you would be interested in serving the community as an admin, please let me know and I will be glad to nominate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I would co-nominate. I think a co-nomination of this sort would say a great deal. Not many can, to borrow Jossi's apt phrase, navigate these waters.--G-Dett 20:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be fantastic, G-Dett. HG: your call. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't participate, as a rule, in RFA's. If the two of you co-nominate, I will [participate in the RFA and support you]. Jd2718 23:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the above comment (in brackets). Given that I do not normally participate in RfAs, I do not think a nomination from me would be appropriate. But when Jossi and G-Dett, two intelligent editors who edit from strongly opposed viewpoints indicate that they believe you are a good nominee, and the little interaction I've had with you seems to support that, well, that would be enough to draw me to the RfA. Jd2718 23:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, per Jossi's suggestion, I've asked for an Editor review. HG | Talk 04:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It is time to work for the Lord

[This] may give you the basis for my PROD tag on that subject. The articles had a bit of context to them but was primarily the verse itself. I am still a bit iffy about this one so I just tagged it to alert other editors to weigh in. That is all. Cheers! Spryde 13:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've further commented there.DGG (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Pardes (legend)

Shana tova. I largely replaced the article with a portion of what I had written about the legend at Elisha ben Abuyah. The article could be expanded with sections about how the fates of the three rabbis have been interpreted. Or we could delete this article and editors can include that interpretation in each rabbi's article if they choose to. Obviously it's most significant with respect to Elisha. I don't favor one approach over the other. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Do a table on RS

Seeing the success of Eleland's tabulation of the death estimates at Battle of Jenin, I'm wondering if we couldn't do the same thing for the RSs. I think we could quickly discern which of the various sources available we should be using. I'm confident we'd want to exclude some of them because they don't come across as reliable, either by their language, their adherence to good information, or what others say about them. What do you think? PalestineRemembered 22:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting idea. But I'm a bit confused. You'd like to list RS's in reference to what topic or question? If you want one for Jenin in general, that seems rather vague and a tall order, no? Ciao. HG | Talk 00:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest looking at the sources we've used in this article, in relation to this topic. It's possible that the Washington Times is reliable outside the Middle East, for instance. (Though I rather doubt it, for reasons I think I've given you). PalestineRemembered 06:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Back – fit, tanned and rested

Hi HG, I'm delighted you'd consider becoming an admin, because I think you'd make a great one. I'm afraid I can't offer much advice about the process; except for a few instances of vote-stacking, or badsites-related mayhem (see the Gracenotes RfA), things usually seem to be relatively straightforward. I promise to give it some more thought,--G-Dett 20:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

(copied for record) Your mediation skills are great. I originally visited the Hawaii article when I saw you get complimented, I wanted to see what you did and how you did it. At some point, I'd like to talk more about how you handle your placement within the RfC. Regardless of what others there say, I'd urge you to hold to your self-identification as a mediator, not an involved party. Sure, one side or another may try, in effect, to recruit or claim you for their side (or attack you as biased for the other side). I've see that happening subtly or bluntly w/me. But if you're interceding as an uninvolved party, stick to your guns (or the sea god equivalent)! So, I'd still suggest that you refactor your statements (and your direct interlocutors, like me) elsewhere on that RfC. But we can go into this more later, as you wish. Take care. HG | Talk 21:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks HG. It's my first real mediation effort on a subject I'm not involved in editing. Having positive feedback from you (as another uninvolved party) is therefore quite nice. I guess I should refactor the statements. I haven't yet since I sort of find the distinction between mediation and involved party kind of hazy. Ethnographic studies wherein the ethnographer in question recognizes that they are not an objective observer and that their presence indeed has an impact of the environment they are studying have influenced my outlook in this regard. Plus it seemed that Laualoha's interpretation of involved party was anyone who was party to the discussion prior to the RfC, even if only as mediator. After she moved your comments to that section, I just followed suit by posting there, not wanting to get into a tiff over comment placement. If you feel it's important to move them, by all means do so, I won't object. But I don't really think it's that important. I prefer to make the distinction in the content of my comments rather than their placement. I guess I'm a bit bohemian and unprofessional about mediation in that regard, or else it's just a more new-agey hair-down approach. ;) Thanks again for your kind words. Tiamut 21:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(copied) Hmmm, didn't realize you're such a bohemian. LOL. Sure, the distinction is hazy, esp since a mediator can end up suggesting and implementing edits. But the distinction may be a key to your effectiveness, both in how you are perceived by others and your ability to keep an open mind to competing views. I'd guess that your friendship w/Laualoha won't be altered if you play a neutral role, as you define it, but it's up to you. (Alternatively, you can serve as an advocate for her cause, I can't read your mind.) Anyway, given what's happened, I don't feel comfortable refactoring your comments unless Laualoha chimes in here w/her ok. BTW, it's a good sign that Jere is back, because he exemplifies more clearly what it means to be an involved party. Ciao. HG | Talk 21:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I will ask Laualoha if she wouldn't mind if I did that if you think it's that important. It's good that Jere is back yes and your latest comments were useful too. I'm not trying to be Lauloha's advocate though I'm sure my sympathies for her general plight are quite apparent. It's hard writing from the persepctive of a people or nation without a nation-state. (Sorry I couldn't resist referencing that.) Anyway, I'll drop her a note and follow up when I can. We just bought a really really old house that needs a lot of work (like plumbing, electricity, windows, etc. ) Yes, I (and my husband) are really are bohemians. ;) Will be spending less time on the screen and more time sanding down old shutters, and replacing broken colored glass in the days, weeks, months, and possibly years to come. It's a huge project. We're very excited. But I don't think I'll be able to break my Wiki addiction, so I'll still be seeing you around. Tiamut 21:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(copy) I wouldn't have said all of the above were I not confident in your ability to set aside (compartmentalize) your sympathies when choosing a neutral role. One trick would be to focus on the dissimilarities between the Hawaiian and Palestinian "nations" (I'm glad our relationship has weathered that stormy little argument) and their situations, and to find ways to sympathize w/Jere's view. Don't get lead poisoning or too much particulate dust during your rehab breaks... Adieu. HG | Talk 22:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to Legal Status of Hawai'i Comment

Hi HG. I just wanted to bring to your attention that I posted my reply to your comment on my page here, since it might be hard to find. (I've tried editing for clarity but it's no use, I'm too tired right now. Sorry.). BTW, I noticed the discussion w/Tiamut above. Yes, I think it's fine if you guys put your comments wherever you feel they are appropriate, as long as it's not misleading. It might help if you were to add a comment on your own post there, disclosing (as she did) that you were involved before. Hopefully this phase of the never-ending-weight-discussion is mostly pau and doesn't matter much, but I like to see things set straight. Aloha, --Laualoha 10:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replied there. Be well. HG | Talk 21:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: (WP:US/R) Scheduler for WP-work or wikibreaks

It's less feasible than the current wikibreak enforcer in most circumstances, because the system needs some way to remember whether you've logged on already that day in the general case. It would be possible to write if any of the following conditions are true:

• You use the same browser and computer for everything
• The times at which you can log on are determined in advance (for instance, only allowing logon between 9am and 10am, and between 7pm and 8pm each day)
• You don't mind information about whether you're logged on or not being publically available

Reply to this on the requests page, thanks. --ais523 15:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments on 'Psychiatric abuse' article

HG, thanks for intervening and making some common sense remarks about the NPOV dispute. There's only two editors wrangling away on that article, both 180 degrees apart. There has been another comment (from Chupper) that the article was good and interesting, but misleading, so I made changes to it that he suggested. At what point can one declare that the NPOV dispute is resolved, and take off the tag? Neither scuro nor I would be likely to back down. Is this sort of thing (NPOV dispute) subject to polls or votes? No one has rated the importance of the article yet. I'm not sure it it would be appropriate for me to do it, since I wrote it. S. M. Sullivan 07:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"fringe" in law

Aloha HG, and thank you for your note. I suppose to elaborate on my point, legal journals, and lawyers for that matter, are in the business of coming up with arguments, regardless of how "fringe" they may be - the novelty of an argument does not make it unacceptable for publishing in a legal journal. So if a professor of "international law" makes a proclamation that the Thracians were illegally displaced from their homelands, and deserve international reparations, and builds an entire article dedicated to that premise, a legal journal will not out of hand dismiss it.

However, that same professor, submitting a plea to either the ICJ, a U.S. court, or some court in the Balkans, would be laughed at and dismissed with prejudice.

In many ways I think this represents the Homeopathy issue - there are fervent believers in Homeopathy, who insist that it is real science, and real medicine. [7] But it is not science, it is pseudo-science - there is no evidence that water can have a "memory" once it has been diluted to the point where none of the original molecules in the solution remain. Just as the pro-sovereignty movement is not law, it is pseudo-law.

That being said, I believe that covering this "pseudo-law" movement is important - but in the context of a social phenomena, not a legal one. Were this an actual legal movement, over the past 30 years, we would have seen actual court action. There has been none. The primary reason for this is that in an adversarial format, the premises and basis of the pro-sovereignty argument would be ripped to shreds - they can only maintain their rationale if they don't allow anyone to challenge it. As an example of the conclusions made when all sides are given time to argue and defend their points, see the Native Hawaiians Study Commission Report, particularly the section on Existing Law, Native Hawaiians, And Compensation.

The hallmark of this movement has definitely been an attempt to make their current claims legal ones - and to do that, they've resorted to legislation like the Apology Resolution and the Akaka Bill. But as I illustrated before, one cannot legislate facts, and the Apology Resolution, tested in court in Rice v. Cayetano, was cited but ignored. So are these people creative? Absolutely. Are they doing a good job of muddying the waters enough to convince the layperson of their legitimacy? Perhaps. But they have not dared step into the courtroom.

In conclusion, I believe that there is a place for an article on challenges to the legal status of Hawaii, but it must be done in a context of psudeo-law, rather than being given full weight as actual law. For example, the abortion debate in this country, or the gun control debate in this country, has a long judicial track record on both sides. We would consider "fringe" any other "legal" POV that does not actually engage the judiciary system, such as the Free Vermont movement. Or are we willing to create a Legal status of Vermont page? --JereKrischel 15:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not opposed in principle to a Vermont page, except that I found no law journal articles on the topic. (There is a book review.) Conversely, simply searching for "Hawaiian sovereignty" turns up 119 articles on Nexis, many clearly on topic. Anyway, I like conversing with you and we both seem to be pretty civil and making intellectual arguments. (Do you feel the same way so far?) I think we're at an impasse but we've really narrowed down the reasons for our disagreement. Let me push you a bit no clarify the disagreement again. (1) You think peer-review law journals are publishing "fringe" views, as defined by WP:Fringe, whereas I argue that widespread peer-review publishing demonstrates that they are not "fringe" views. (2) You believe that failure or dismissal by courts today indicates "fringe", whereas I think lack of practical success is not sufficient evidence to make a legal argument fringe. Also, you downplay the relevance of the sovereignty view in at least one old court case (1910) and in such recent cases as Rice v. Cayetano (you concede that the view was cited but that's irrelevant because the court ignored it). (3) Based on what you say above, you further want to distinguish between legislative efforts and the courtroom. If the courts do not give much or any hearing to a legal argument, then you believe the argument is "fringe" even if the legislatures including Congress are open to discussing the legal arguments. Conversely, I believe that the legislatures, the courts and peer-reviewed law journals all comprise and determine the mainstream discourse of law, so plausible arguments published in any of these settings are "fringe" views. If you feel the above portrayal of our disagreement is a bit slanted, maybe you could suggest some edits. Then, given our impasse, maybe we can use this description to elicit other opinions. What do you think? Thanks very much for your thoughtful analysis and responsiveness. HG | Talk 16:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Type of sources

Hi. I noticed in your edit summary, for Battle of Jenin, you mentioned primary and secondary sources. Though I don't know you, I hope you don't mind my recommending the Wikipedia policy about primary and secondary sources. Maybe this seems counter-intuitive, but a key point is that "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." This is because the encyclopedia is mainly a "tertiary" source that depends on solid secondary sources, and because the interpretation of primary sources would draw us into original research, i.e., to be avoided. If the topic concerns media coverage of an event, then you are right to see that a given media report like Ha'aretz is functioning as a primary source, which therefore means that we should rely on secondary sources that put the Ha'aretz and other coverage into the proper context and analysis. I say this without prejudicing whether your proposed finding ("evidence of massacre") is correct or not. See what I mean? Hope this is useful. HG | Talk 16:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:HG - your explanation is admirable, but I think Haaretz is a secondary soure (ie the level at which some kind of fact-checking goes on). Our "Tertiary" level article should be able to treat Haaretz as an RS. Best Regards, PR^talk 21:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC on scuro is being deleted

Have a good holiday. It is possible that the last incident where my talk post vanished (today), was caused by a computer glitch, and scuro denies deleting the post. So I'm deleting the RfC on her.S. M. Sullivan 22:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sullivan and Psychiatric Abuse page

This is all just becoming a giant waste of time. No real forward progress has been made on any front. The page still is obviously biased to the point that one could label it propoganda. I can not do my job as an editor and alter it because my edits are reverted. Can you think of any reason why I shouldn't simply ask for a mediation cabal where this can get settled quickly?--scuro 23:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Psychiatric Abuse

Hi, thanks for the talk page message.

I agree that psychiatric abuse is somewhat vague, but I think we should be able to work with it. Of course, different advocacy groups have different standards for psychiatric abuse. I think the examples described in the current version are fairly unambiguous instances, and I think there's room for expansion without entering the gray area. I also think the other material in the article is valuable, particularly the discussion of standard discrepancies and the "Notable reformers" section. Though parts of it need work (like the source-deficient Mexican reform section), I'm still convinced it's worth keeping.

What do you think of DGGs (tentative) suggestion to divide the article into more narrow topic areas? Perhaps instead of forking to several articles, we could just have several sections ("Notable instances of psychiatric political abuse/controversy", "Notable instances of psychiatric experimentation upon humans", etc.) in one parent article. If appropriate, we could change the title to something slightly more general. Just an idea to think about.

Apologies in advance if my communication is unsatisfactory these coming days; very busy time for me. Should ease up somewhat in a week or so.

— xDanielx ^T/_C 01:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Scientology view is rather radical. I guess we have two options besides deletion: make the article strictly about psychiatric malpractice from a mainstream perspective (covering exceptional cases which are either highly contentious or just generally accepted as wrong), or we can cover Scientology-based advocacies as well but qualify them carefully so as to make it clear that those views are not mainstream (I think section headings can help differentiate non-mainstream views, to prevent an undesired implicit validation of the views from the page title). The former option might warrant a name change to something like Psychiatric malpractice. I think the status quo article is in between (which I think is okay) -- the article discusses non-mainstream views in the introductory section, but I think the example and analysis are mostly exclusive of the Scientology view, at least in the current revision. (The Electroconvulsive therapy stub-section might be an exception; I don't know enough to say.) What do you think?

About internal references -- I think WP:RS touches on this point when it says "Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources.". So I guess the answer is no, though I think/hope other editors may be a little more stringent with sources if they know that your claims are well-substantiated on neighboring articles. I would just make use of any sources from the original article that you can. Hope that helps, — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Psychiatric abuse and references on Wikipedia

I feel strongly the absurdity of a group of editors pummelling another editor who is agreeing with their overall stance that the article is problematic and should be deleted. However, I have changed my mind and vote now to keep the article, and will rewrite the entire thing myself if I have to. The absurd lengths of the "psychiatrists as gods" camp is simply astonishing. I never knew there was such a movement around. I cannot argue against feelings of this nature, or against feelings of any nature. I simply have nothing more to say, as nothing I am saying is making any impact--that articles should be referenced appears, for example, to be a major sticking point with you. We're not even in ballparks on the same planet right now. There's no point in continuing this discussion on the article's talk page or anywhere. KP Botany 02:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Jenin

Dear HG. I haven't a position on the question of that title. I do remark that there are very few, if any, long edit battles on talk pages dealing with evident massacres of Jews in the histories of Israel/Palestine, but whenever there is a discussion of a large number of Palestinian dead, intense edit wars are conducted disputing the word massacre, particularly by Jaakobou, who religiously intervenes wherever there is an innuendo that 'purity of arms' is questioned. That observation troubles me. Regards Nishidani 07:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello HG,

As you caught me in the middle of editing, I'll leave the comments I wrote for Talk here: I don't have see any major content problems with your edits, however I think that while your "introduction" language makes for a smoother read, it is generally a bad idea to stray from strictly factual citation-laden paragraphs, no matter how dense the prose, especially in an area as controversial as this. I also slightly restructured in order to keep the casualty summary paragraph together with the list of casualty counts, and altered language implying that that there were more than 60 Palestinian casualties, which no RS reported AFAIK. Do let me know what you think. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 02:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the message, but that is a user with whom I've unfortunately never been able to have a productive exchange, my every attempt at conversation only generating gross incivility; even at times were there was no conversation I found strings of unprovoked attacks on myself posted by him around WP. Perhaps you will have better luck... Tewfik^Talk 22:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Text of deleted article and talk page

I've added the text to User talk:HG/workshop/Abuses of psychiatry and User talk:HG/workshop/Abuses of psychiatry/Talk respectively, as requested. -- ChrisO 19:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The text from this deleted article should not be cut and pasted to other articles because of GFDL requirements. For details, see WP:MERGE. The pasting to date will either need to be undone, or fixed by an admin (see: Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves for related info). The easiest way to put Humpty Dumpty back together would probably be an undo of the paste, then a redo (un-undo) with a wikilink to the restored original article in the edit summary. Dhaluza 12:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Stub article

Thanks for your comments. You're right, the stub article was an experiment that wasn't really going anywhere: I'll delete it. -- The Anome 08:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Psychiatry

HG, Thanks for the comments. Sorry if I came across this way but it is not my intention to own the article nor to be the "buck stops here" editor when I stated "The criticism section will not be included ... the information will be included .... the current article will be replaced soon anyway." I'm fully aware that "no single editor gets to own an article" and the edit history for Psychiatry should reflect that I don't "own it". When editors add in referenced NPOV material, I welcome it, and always beg for it.

Before the "psychiatric abuse" dilemma here on Wikipedia, the Psychiatry article hadn't really been edited (I mean with substantial material) for a long period of time. My "rewrite" of psychiatry started long before the psychiatric abuse issue arose. I began the "rewrite" for the following reasons:

1. To add in references.
2. To introduce a more understandable outline and prose.
3. To eliminate the controversy section and integrate those comments into the remainder of the article.

Now the conflict during the last couple of weeks may draw more attention to my "#3" above, but when I originally read the article several weeks ago I thought it conflicted with Jimbo Wales's comments on criticism sections and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article structure. Honestly, criticism/controversy sections are unencyclopedic to me and need to be integrated.

"Do I have a sense of what this may read like?"

Yes, I'm trying to integrate this information into the history section, and other sections if appropriate. You can see what I've done so far at User:Chupper/Sandbox04.

"Instead, I would recommend that you propose some changes -- either vet a new structure/outline through Talk, or maybe replace one section at a time with an brief explanation in Talk."

Well, I don't know if you saw, but back on September 21st I posted a comment saying I'm going to try and rewrite the article and the location of where I was working on it. The reason I posted that there was so other editors could make comments if they wish.

While I always talk to other editors about controversial changes, I'm usually pretty bold in my edits and, honestly, probably won't formally propose rewrites in situations like these. The psychiatry article just needs too much work and has so few references. If I were going to "rewrite" a GA or other well written article, I would certainly talk to other editors beforehand. In addition, I'm always willing to make changes if editors don't agree with what I'm working on.

The reason I haven't replaced one section at a time is because some of the new sections are taking material from various other old sections. I figured it would be easier to get it rewritten that way. I may, of course, be wrong.

"I think you'll find that a gradual and more open process will gain you -- and Wikipedia -- much more in the long run. How does that sound?"

Well, I always try to follow the Wikipedia:Be bold idea. If you look at my edit history you should see that I'm always open and willing to talk about things, especially with controversial topics and changes. But if no opposition exists to my edits or hopeful edits, I'm going to go ahead and make the changes, even if they are big.

If you really feel I'm owning the article, please let me know, and it would probably be a good idea for me to refrain from editing it. I don't think I am, but recognizing your own problems is not always the easiest thing to do. Chupper 23:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(copy) Thanks for your detailed reply -- but for heaven's sake, I'm certainly not suggesting that you refrain from editing and reworking this article!! Your sandbox looks great and I'm sure you'll make terrific strides. And yes, I do appreciate the situation. Frankly, I'm hoping (partly for your sake) that the "psychiatric abuse" brouhaha will draw more attention, to give your more input and contributors. Just wanted to give you a heads up on your tone. And to encourage you, if we can draw more helpful attention your way, to open up the process and do it in manageable chunks. It's hard to get folks to work on a User Page, (though I had seen your note), so maybe you could run some specific ideas (e.g., your new outline) through Talk? I suppose you'll use your own judgment on how boldly to replace the article, but I imagine folks could feel ignored if their recent edits suddenly evaporated (i.e., not integrated in the rewrite). Take care, HG | Talk 23:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Approach to mediation

Hi. i replied to your comments at Talk:Battle of Jenin. Let me know what you think of my comments. i agree with your concerns and found them very insightful. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 16:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want, weigh in at the Causes 1948 article again, on the little exchange between me and pedro gonnet. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 17:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Editor review

First, you are permitted to ask anyone you want for an editor review. The best people to ask are people who have done other reviews recently; you can see who they are by scanning the page. I'll take a look at your review sometime in the next few days when I get around to it.

As to the inactivity of the page: yes, this is a problem. We're getting a lot more requests than we can process efficiently, and I don't even know who "we" is. Lists of editors at Wikiprojects, WP:EA and elsewhere tend to become outdated, but it might be a good idea to make a list anyway. If you have any ideas for how to make the process run more efficiently (and to prevent people from going six weeks without a review, as sometimes happens), please let me know. Best regards, Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Prod removal

Hi.

As per Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Conflicts, even if the removal may have been in bad faith, it should not be restored (unless it was blatant vandalism). In this case, your next step is AfD. Kol Tuv, -- Avi 05:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Houses

Are coming along very slowly. I got tonsillitis and had to bow out of the renovations for a while, leaving my husband and a friend to do the dirty work alone. I was so out of it I couldn't even be on wiki! Anyway, I'm slowly recovering and did a half day of renovations today (and a little wiki stuff). Thanks for the welcome HG. Tiamut 15:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Psychiatric ethics DAB

(copy) Hi, Anetode. Noticed your comment, in the 2nd AfD on psychiatric abuse, about the merit in deleting the DAB I'd set up. You're welcome to move to delete it, as you deem appropriate. If you don't mind, I would prefer that you move to do so thru an AfD (i.e., not PROD or speedy). Also, I would ask that you wait until after the current AfD is settled. Thanks very much. Best wishes, HG | Talk 23:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the inherent problem with the article on psychiatric abuse are made clear in the disambig page, since it (currently) functions as a brief list linking to several subsections of the main psychiatry article and Scientology and psychiatry. Frankly, I think that any Wikipedia page designed to group the science of psychiatry with historic ethical abuses of medicine or anti-psychiatry movements in fringe groups and religions would be little more than a piece of propaganda. Using prod or speedy deletion would be discourteous, but I think the current afd relates directly to the function of the disambig. Of course I'll wait until completion of this afd to address any concerns and recuse myself from exercising any administrative function relating to the debate. On a side note, I think that there's room for a critical examination of ethics in psychiatry, just that such criticism should relate to the methodology of the field. Use of untested psychoactive chemicals, selective interpretation of clinical trials, and corporate sponsorship of research and medicine marketing should all be examined when discussing psychiatry. "Psychiatric abuse", however, is a coatrack. Regards, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time for your thoughtful reply. I agree with most everything you said. I disagree somewhat regarding the DAB, insofar as it serves to disambiguate -- differentiate and keep at a distance -- the mainstream and the incompatible (aka "fringe") discourses. Furthermore, once it is set up, then it helps record and clarify the situation for future editors, so they won't have to deal with any future efforts (as well meaning as they may be) along the lines of the current article. Catch my drift? That said, I won't fall on my sword to save the dab. Be well. Thanks again, HG | Talk 13:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Re PR

Dear HG As the chat inflates, all purchase on origins and their contextual reality is swamped by hearsay and the habitus animorum, as Tacitus would put it. Back to first principles, then.

User Karl Meier raised this complaint, using evidence of what he says (I am surprised) was his casual encounter of PR's edit and POV statements in discussions on two issues with me. The whole gravamen of this trial's accusations rests on a representation made by a third party (whose own page reveals an esteem for two editors whose work is strongly anti-Islamic) who out of the blue takes his complaint to the Wikipedia community. Two pieces of evidence adduced are false, as I have explained elsewhere here. The two POV-pushing pieces to me were the result of a request to Pr to address private disagreements to me on the relevant pages, since I on principle have not enabled my email option.(See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nishidani&diff=prev&oldid=158903787) I like to keep everything in the public purview, unlike many, who coordinate strategies for controversial pages. I have deep disagreements with PR but personally have found nothing problematical in the way PR challenges my edits. I am afraid that this whole procedure looks like a kangaroo court, pushed by people with records decidedly adversative, on political grounds, to PR, and has degenerated into farcical wikilawyering and forum shopping, when the gravamen of the charges relates to a private on line exchange of edits and opinions between me and PR. Best Regards Nishidani 17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

PR made an apology, has a question

Please see this. PR^talk 11:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Conservadox

The term is in common use here in Israel at least in conservative institutions. Google has 28K results if one searches for conservadox. Kol tuv, Egfrank 18:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to seem rude by jumping into the middle of things, but I've been watching the origination and development of the Conservadox Judaism article with some interest. (I wanted to create it myself earlier but felt I lacked the knowledge or citations, partly because the term is rarely used in any kind of official capacity.) I'm a little surprised to read Egfrank's comment, since I spend nearly all of my time now in flagship institutions of the Conservative movement in Israel and encounter the term only rarely, and then with contempt. (I don't mean to question Egfrank's honesty or accuracy on this point, I'm just curious about the disparity.) Best, Savant1984 19:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not as if I haven't heard the term, it's that I don't see it showing up much in good quality secondary source analysis. (See my comment to Egfrank.) Maybe you aren't spending more time with the wayward vessels at the periphery of the fleet? ;-) Anyway, nice to make your acquaintance, best wishes, HG | Talk 20:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A quick search on the term shows that it appears on, of all places, American Jewish dating services, e.g. [8], [9], [10]. Not academic publication, some evidence the term is in common use. I concur that it has some negative connatations (as in "not really Orthodox") in some Orthodox circles. At this point I believe the topic could survive an AFD but I agree the article is not terribly well sourced. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I missed HG's comment on Egfrank's page when I checked earlier. In any event, I agree with HG and Shirachadasha -- the topic is notable, I think, but the article is kind of unencylopedic. The difficulty is simply with, as we've all noted, the inherently informal nature and usage of the term. Perhaps it would be better to focus the article on usage of the term itself rather than what it putatively marks out? Savant1984 20:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

For now, I put the Unref tag on the article. If progress can be made on that front, then probably other issues (essay, notability) will flow from there. I'm sure something will come out of the efforts made, either as standalone article or somewhere. HG | Talk 20:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good move (unref tag) - anybody object if I copy this discussion over to the talk page for the article? Kol tuv, Egfrank 21:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to confess I did indeed write parts of this article in June 2006, including some of the unsourced parts. It was pretty early on in my arriving here. I think I want to see what sources people can come up with before the slashing starts. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Confess! (and: "No one expects the Spanish inquisition..." Monty Python)  ;-> HG | Talk 23:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know what you're talking about ;) -- I think I can withstand the soft cushion, but I'm really not so sure about the comfy chair. --Shirahadasha 02:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Islamic military jurisprudence

You latest comment on talk is a bit unclear. Here is the scenario:

All the content in the article can stand without Quranic verses. All the content is well supported by scholarly secondary sources. But I think it may be a nice idea to mention the sources (in the footnotes) used by the secondary sources. This is because the Quran is open to interpretation and many readers themselves would like to see it. Please note the Bible is used as footnotes in many articles (and many times even as sources).

Can you clear it up a bit on talk? Thanks.Bless sins 01:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

AoIA renaming

Actually, I'd stand by the comment I made a few months ago. My concern at the time was that you wanted to restructure the article as an actual compendium of similarities and differences between Israel and apartheid-era SA. My position is that the article should explore the historical use of the Israeli apartheid analogy (I'd still prefer the title "Israeli apartheid analogy", but I suspect "Comparisons between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa" would better get the point across at this age). CJCurrie 04:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

HG/GH

I'm old enough to think, after years of controversy, that Freudian slips are silky pieces of lingerie that give blokes the, well, euphemistically, what drivers toot in peak-time traffic. But yes, you are right, that is undoubtedly an unconscious confusion on my part, and as put, bears an innuendo that is improper. I can only defend myself, while apologizing, by remarking that it was at the classic level of the unconscious, since most of what I was doing was pasting from a master (there! I just wrote 'mater'!!) file.

I will admit that having, apparently, coalesced the two identities, I did wonder, and checked both user pages, and noted the difference, and dismissed it as mere coincidence. Highly uncool of myself, and thanks for the correction. Mea culpa, mea culpa, me a mexican cowboy, as Catholic boys used to chant at mass, much to the annoyance of the friary. p.s. in these silly wars, I think both Jaakobou and myself (I thought I was clear, thinking in day periods, with two reverts, and not according to the clock) have violated the 3RR rule. I never have got a handle on that danged thing, but if you think it appropriate, perhaps we should both be rapped on the knuckles by the appropriate authority. If so, no excuse for either of us. Regards Nishidani 16:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I thought a moratorium was what was supposed to be in place. I certainly observed one. In fact from the 13th to the 15th, if I recall, I hadn't even checked the 1929 Hebron page. Then I noticed that the old, disputed or controversial edit by Jaakobou had been sitting there, and reverted it. You'd better check, I am not an expert on these things, and in a preceding case, the only violation of rules I've fallen foul of, only proved to others I did not understand the rule. In any case, as said, I did challenge Jaakobou's insistent reverts on the 15th twice, I think, and once today, and then, reminding myself of 3RR, looked, and realized I'd probably broken the rule. Still, I have great difficulty, at my age, in working up diffs and examining them. Whatever, rules are rules, and if you think the evidence of 15th-16th October 2007 indicates we are both at fault, I certainly will not make excuses, and bear the consequences, with no ill will. I can't complain of others on this futile practice, if I myself, willingly or not, happen to do the same. Regards Nishidani 16:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/HG

I reviewed you. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Shalom. Other editors are welcome to review, comment, critique, or offer constructive suggestions, too. If you'd rather communicate to me privately, you may use the "email this user" link. Thanks. HG | Talk 23:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Notable actuary

We are not amused. -- Avi 02:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but the accountants are absolutely giddy. }:-> HG | Talk 02:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

CAMERA

PR, hope you have tolerance for my periodic interjections, the above complaint is not unlike concerns about how you characterized Schechtman (in Causes 1948) as a hate source (and like a Holocaust denier). Maybe, PR, you could find a more nuanced or modulated vocabulary to make your critique of such sources. For instance, Narson suggests terms like partisan. How about a "highly antagonistic" or "vituperative" POV? I bet the sesquipedalian Nishidani can advise you! Such wording might be enough to persuade folks to avoid, or at least deprecate, the sources, without yourself antagonizing folks vituperatively. If you catch my drift. ;-) HG | Talk 12:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC) (PS My comment should not be interpreted as actually supporting PR's view, as I think he realizes.)

If you wish to deny that the following is a hate-statement (and, in this particular case, also an obvious lie), then be my guest: "Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands. Wounded and dead alike were mutilated. Every member of the Jewish community was regarded as an enemy to be mercilessly destroyed." PR^talk 18:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There are various ways of intensifying and heating up editing disputes. One way to provoke angrier disputes is to make accusations regarding racism, anti-Semitism, hate speech, etc. Such accusations are not working with well-defined boundaries, so many (arguably all) texts can be interpreted along these lines by somebody. Don't you think you might be losing your credibility, goodwill or patience with folks, if you overdo such accusations? Are you able to see which accusations will fit within the flow of a given Talk page, and which will seem disruptive and unnecessarily dramatic? If not, then how can folks welcome you to cooperatively edit with them? HG | Talk 19:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've not accused anyone of anything - I'm just saying that, in my opinion, recognising hate-speech is relatively straightforward. If you have a different outlook, please be my guest and explain your understanding. If you're not sure what I mean, I'll explain myself (again, because I think I've already done so).

The reason it's important is that quoting from a hate-site is a perma-block offense, as I discovered when it was alleged I'd quoted from the Holocaust Deniers for referencing Israel glorifying the assassins of Lord Moyne in 1944, ie while the UK was still fighting the Nazis. (Idiotic allegation in my case, but very, very serious nevertheless).

When the Wikipedia penalty is so severe, I thought you'd want people reminded of what is hate-speech and how to recognise hate-sources. I was under the impression you'd hinted that you're not one of the people who claim there's no such thing. PR^talk 20:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been drawing people's attention to "extreme historical falsification" longer than I've been drawing attention to hate-speech. If you're going to claim that "falsification" is the primary evil then you'll really hate Schechtman, because the utter nonsense of his claims may be even more obvious than the "hate-speech" component. But you'd also be opening the most amazing can of policy worms! PR^talk 20:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

New question - I'd like to know what you think of this CAMERA article - does it contain statements which amount to "extreme historical falsification"? Here's one I picked up - what do you think?: "Bisharat wrongly states, "In 1948, about 700,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homeland..." While some Palestinian Arabs were expelled, such as those who resided in Ramle and Lod, the vast majority of Arabs fled of their own accord, many due to false rumors spread by Arab propagandists.. PR^talk 16:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, PR, you're still trying to equate CAMERA with Holocaust denial? I think you have a serious problem insofar as you don't seem to be able or willing to make (IMO) reasonable, collaborative and proportionate judgments about sources, and you persist in making inappropriate comparisons. I'll ask Zscout to discuss this with you because I've already said my piece. That is, once the San Diego situation stabilizes. Take care, HG | Talk 18:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

request

i'm sure it's not your intention, but you are inadvertently being disruptive by promoting other users to over-expand and extend their unfocused conversation in a way that would make things impossible for 3rd party editors, who actually do wish to make a helpful statement, to follow. to the point, you're asking generic questions avoiding addressing the issues already raised.

please consider making note of the text and making statements that would help resolve the issues rather than extend it.Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I didn't intend to expand the topic. (At Talk:1929 Hebron massacre, right?) The 3O seems to deal with whether Sefer ha-Hebron (and Nishidani wants to deal w/the Jewsagainstzionism.com info) as reliable source(s). Which, if any, of my 4 questions expanded beyond that topic? Thanks. HG | Talk 09:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

Sorry you had to intervene again. I will be candid and say I don't see the possibility of fruitful unmediated dialogue between Tewfik and me. On the other hand, if you were willing, and he were willing, we could route our discussion through you, and possibly make some progress without having to resort to formal dispute resolution.--G-Dett 15:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You know that would be fine with me. And I think Tewfik feels moderately comfortable with me. But I'm a bit confused. Doesn't the disagreement over HRW, prima facie etc, involve armon and eleland, too? As I read the thread, I didn't catch that the rest of you had settled on the wording. And no apology needed, really, and I appreciate your quick response. Take care, HG | Talk 15:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Jenin prima facie discussion productive?

I was intending to post this on the Jenin talk page, but it is a bit offtopic and might be seen to discuss other contributors more directly than one would like on an article talk page.

I think that G-Dett's last, as usual, was an exhaustive summary of the facts at issue, the kind which I'm far too lazy and ill-tempered to produce in these kinds of disputes. I think that the next step depends on the response of Tewfik et al. If they have something to say about application of policy, or some logical conclusion that we haven't anticipated, great. If they try to say that the human rights orgs at issue did not, in fact, find that war crimes were committed, we have little more to discuss. <eleland/talkedits> 18:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't want to be dismissive of G-Dett's effort (I called it "drilling down" or something) but I'm not sure it answers, settles or refutes the underlying arguments against. Thanks for your note. HG | Talk 18:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi HG. I didn't think you were dismissive in the least! But what, praytell, are the 'underlying arguments against'?--G-Dett 20:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There are no unambiguously True ways to describe a text (eg HRW report). Instead, competing descriptions may rest upon editorial choices and judgments, supportable (hopefully) by policy-based arguments. Are you asking me to try to recapitulate the other side's view? I'd decline now due to time constraints. Still, I did already suggest "As a technique, you might each try summarizing your opponents' arguments in the best possible light." From you comment above, it sounds like you should at least make a good faith attempt at charitably reflecting back their view. HG | Talk 20:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, HG, okay. To be clear, I wasn't asking you to recapitulate – I thought from your previous post that there might have been some specific thing in my opponents' arguments that I'd failed to respond to. Regarding the HRW report – absolutely, there is no True way to describe it, as you say. HRW uses two different formulations, almost interchangeably. A source of frustration for me, however, is that we keep discussing this as if the disputed sentence presented merely the HRW report. If that were the question, I'd be pushing for the prima facie formulation as that's the more conservative formulation. But what we're discussing is how to present the consensus view of the HR groups that investigated (primarily Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, but also the British military expert David Halley, who was retained by AI but has made independent statements about the investigation, which are presented separately in later sections of our article).--G-Dett 21:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is it exactly. Previously I chose "prima facie evidence of war crimes" as the more conservative of the two formulations, on the basis that HRW said it and AI said "war crimes" with no qualifiers. G-Dett has since shown that HRW used both the "prima facie" formulation, and the "war crimes" formulation. Even without considering Halley's opinion (although he is not really a "human rights organization"), that brings it from a 50/50 split to a 75/25 split. I don't think we can justify sticking with a statement made only 1/3 as much. <eleland/talkedits> 21:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently my reply pointing out where I believe I've already answered G-Dett's question is "trolling" (first edit summary). Godspeed, Tewfik^Talk 02:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR

I always try to avoid 3RR. If by mistake did not counted well (and I don't think so as I am trying to be carefull about it) please let me know and I would immeditly self revert. see more comments in article talk page Zeq 18:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

PS I don't think anyone else violated 3RR on this article. there are 3 reverts but not 4. Zeq 18:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, hi. Thanks for your note(s). I noticed you over at Allegations of Israeli apartheid, too. I've reported the Arab citizens of Israel article both for protection and for editwarrring/3RR. I now see you're on some kind of probation. Hmmm. It does seem to me that your reverts are inappropriate, esp given your status. Sorry, if you don't mind my saying so, somebody in your shoes should be much more careful to try to work things out in Talk rather than thru restore & revert cycles. Whether or not you get blocked, it would make everybody's life easier if you worked thru conversation. (For one thing, it took me alot of time to compile the diffs.) Plus, it's to your advantage to establish credibility as an editor who can help mold or yield to consensus. Thanks muchly. HG | Talk 18:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not violated 3RR and I also think that you are too quick to jump into conclusions both about me and about the articles. Your 3RR report does not have diffs it has revisions - so please be carefull and if indeed I reverted just leave me a note and I would self-reverted it. If I am not mistaken in Allegations of Israeli apartheid I only participated in talk page. Your efforts can be much better help the project if you - which seems a fair minded and neutral if I may say so - will jump in and offer a compromise - in stead of protecting the articles and frezing them from edits. Zeq 18:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, thanks, you're right about my mistake in not giving the diffs properly. I don't have a substantive compromise to offer on that page. However, I disagree insofar as I'm coming to realize that page protection(s) and temp blocks might be quite useful in moving folks on Isr/Pales issues to work more collaboratively. See also my comments at the AN-3RR. Also, thanks for your kind comments about my effort to stay fair-minded. I didn't mean to jump to any conclusion about you specifically, and included 3 people with whom I have quite different relationships. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 19:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

page protection(s) have never supported coopreation since one side "win" - their version get to be kept for a week or two. they have no reason to engage in any discussion. Zeq 19:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point. In such a situation, maybe the de facto supervising admin(s) can/should be asked to switch the disputed text(s) every day or so during discussion. Anyway, in the long run, we should deploy protection and similar mechanisms to motivate editors to figure out ways of resolving disputed edits. Many we can find more selective ways of handling individuals who are recalcitrant or otherwise unable to engage in productive Talk. Thanks, Zeq. HG | Talk 20:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Probation

There uis a very important rule about probation: "don't pick on users under probation". What you are doing now is suggesting that I can not edit at all in sensitive issues in which disputes are frequent ?

This has been reviwed by ArbCom and some level of disputes is within norm in such articles. I suuugest again that instead of looking for "violations" you put your efforts in reviewing edits and coming up with a compromise. Zeq 19:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC) from : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FZeq-Zero0000%2FProposed_decision&diff=129902165&oldid=129892360

:# A certain level of editorial conflict is to be expected on controversial topics; I see no evidence that Zeq has been unusually egregious in that regard here, or that his edits in this particular conflict have been flagrantly unacceptable. Kirill Lokshin 19:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Zeq 19:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree that you shouldn't be picked on and I hope I haven't done so. Please note that I reported both sides of the conflict to a noticeboard, where somebody will make a determination. Since I don't know either how the community perceives your probation or what patience you are able to exercise on sensitive pages, I can't advise you on where you may want to focus your efforts. Perhaps we've started off on a bad footing, I'm sorry, yet I'm certainly open to talking to you about potential compromises or otherwise being of assistance. Best wishes, HG | Talk 20:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You highlighted my probation in a report on 3RR in which I was not the reverter.... let me suggest you strike the report out and use your energy to come up wit compromise. make sure you understand how both sides see issues.

For the Arab side POV you can just read wikipedia, for the extreme right on the Israeli side try this: http://www.inn.co.il/Besheva/Article.aspx/3102 . My viwes are somewhere in between but in wiki[pedi we should strive to represent the important views from both sides. Zeq 20:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm not familiar how probation works. Don't suppose you have what we'd call a "probation officer" to evaluate these incidents? In terms of the substance, I don't have much time right now. But I would consider reviewing scholarly (or comparable secondary) sources you folks might be debating. I have much less interest in trying to sort out competing POV-slanted sources, esp not a topic that probably quite well covered in high quality sources. Cheers. HG | Talk 21:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, what make you think this article is not in need of serious work by fair minded people ? Do you think all view Points are covered there ? Do you know how Jews and Arabs are treating each other now in Israel ? read judges verdict here: [11] to get an idea. This ref is part of what I added to the article but it was taken out by the reverters. Zeq 04:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What do You think ?

I would have reverted this, but what do you think is better way : [12] PS I wonder if every edit I would make to the article would be reverted... I hope not Zeq 04:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Zeq, for your patience with me. While I do think the degree of reverts there was out of line, I'm sorry for being wrong about the 3RR and for causing you worry. As teshuvah, and since you've asked, I've made an effort to give some constructive feedback at Talk:Arab citizens of Israel. It may not be quite what you wanted, but I think you'll find me trying to be responsive to you and even-handed. Thanks again, take care HG | Talk 05:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way ...

... another good idea that may easily be lost in the shouting is your Israel and apartheid. Hope you will bring this up again at some point in the discussion. BYT 11:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, BYT. Would love to get your advice on when I should chime in. As you well know, I'm always trying to get a more disciplined Talk process and I'm not sure when to simply add a few more drops to the flow. Anyway, I'd also point out that Israel and apartheid is but one of many alternatives that I'm reflecting back to the community from what I've heard others say. Still, I do admit this alternative has simplicity and IMO improved neutrality to its credit. Thanks for the encouragement. HG | Talk 05:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Great minds think alike

I guess the reason you encounter me at several articles is because we share the same interests?Bless sins 06:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid RfAr

Thanks for your note. Your proposals are a constructive contribution to the discussion, if a bit outside the typical way that ArbCom addresses these types of issues (but then again this was not exactly a typical dispute, either). My guess, however, is that for better or worse, the case has been pending for so very long that at this point, new proposals are probably not going to receive much attention from the committee. Hopefully matters on these articles can remain civil and collaborative from this point forward. I guess we'll see. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Jenin

Hi HG. I can't quite suggest compromise language until I know what's on the table. A number of fair formulations of the lede are possible, but I would need a better sense of what's important to Tewfik. His posted response refers twice to "the reports' strong desire to say something while explicitly stopping short of it." I don't see this explicit stopping short, but it should be noted that if our approach is to take rhetorically "stopping short" into account, we'll need to revisit how we collectively present the two groups' respective findings regarding the massacre claims. Amnesty actually did explicitly stop short on this score: "[Amnesty International Secretary General Irene Khan] clarified that there is no legal definition in international law of the word 'massacre' and that its use in the current circumstances is not helpful." In other words the locus of the dispute will necessarily widen. I don't introduce this factor to make your job more difficult :). It's just that the sine qua non of my position is that we need a single editorial standard for how to present the findings of HR groups in the lede. I am open to any number of different ways of doing that.--G-Dett 00:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I do appreciate your efforts. If you check the archives, you'll see that she accused me of supporting a text which was "larded with metaphorical atmospherics prejudicial to the Israelis" (to lard means to embellish). When I called her on it she claimed that I had "evidently mistook [it] for a "fatso"-type insult"", despite my having already presented the definition she intended in my objection. The relevance was that she likewise claimed that I misunderstood her as meaning politically conservative. She seems to think that accusing me of trying to unfairly embellish or weigh one part of the discussion is okay. The "maximalist" charge was indeed not meant to insult, but is similarly a reflection of her opinion that I am acting in bad faith. However it is exactly those charges that are the problem, for reasons of which I'm sure you are aware. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 22:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I realise that this isn't the subpage you had in mind, but I'm reasonably satisfied with your first attempt, and I could buy it right now. Too easy? Tewfik^Talk 22:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Wait, Tewfik, stay and chat.... Bad faith means trying to harm Wikipedia, not being honest, disruptive, etc. Isn't G-Dett saying something less personal -- contending that if we are cautious about citing HRW/AI on the war crime issue (as you've suggested), then we should be equally cautious in reporting HRW/AI on other issues, like massacre. Regardless of whether it's a fallacious or useful claim, this doesn't strike me as harsh as bad faith. True, she could word her concern in a less personalized way. Yet, even were she right, you have rebuttals that aren't about you as a person but your interpretation. E.g., you may well argue that you are making a valid distinction, not an inconsistent one, or you may say that a "foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" (i.e., Wikipedia is not bound to apply a single hermeneutic to each source). Anyway, I am between a rock and a hard place if you only take this as an accusation. G-Dett says it's a key point, you say it's a personal attack. I'd like to persuade you to tackle the substantive aspect of G-Dett's point, and I'd like to persuade G-Dett that it's not so compelling that we can't make progress here. What say you? HG | Talk 22:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Its certainly possible that I'm mistaken. Maybe we've both been at this so long that there is nil chance of seeing each others position in a different light. I've tried to weigh all of the text I've objected to and believe that they were appropriate, but if that is the only objection then I could bite my lip for a while. Of course, my major concern is not personal offence, but worry that with such a position on the "other side", there can be no bloodless resolution. I hope that I'm wrong. Oh, and I meant that I liked your attempt at resolution. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 23:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, "otherwise known as cherrypicking" was not directed at her, which may have been what you thought. I reproduced the quote directed at me to show her specifically what part of her text I was objecting to. I know that this is all only meant to be tangential, but I'm not sure that the comment makes any sense now. Tewfik^Talk 02:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Second intifada

Hello again,

Regarding your addition of the documentary, until now, Timeshifter has tried to insert it along with a film from the opposing POV, which is an attempt at balance, while you've added just the one. I'm not sure if you were taking an editorial position or were trying to mediate, but the dispute is not about including that film, but about including any films, since there are over a dozen, and there is no precedent for including lists of films on entries such as this. So in line with that, I would appreciate if you would self-revert. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 17:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I certainly only did this because I thought there was a tacit understanding. I self-reverted on the ext link. Didn't want to undo the "See also", since Timeshifter had added that, so how about we take this up in Talk? Thanks, HG | Talk 18:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. This film isn't about the Second Intifada, but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict generally. Its awards are relatively minor, while other ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Films about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have far more significant critical acclaim. I don't see a precedent for including lists of films on such entries, nor is it clear what is special about this specific one. If anything, Jenin, Jenin is probably far more apt, though it is already listed with its other-POV contemporary on the article to which it more directly relates. Tewfik^Talk 21:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Islam and antisemitism

That article just had unsuccessful mediation, IIRC. I think its headed to an Arbcom discussion. -- Avi 03:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Your question

I don't see an edit war, to be honest. If there is one, they are doing a fine job of resolving the conflict without the need for protection. --Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I hate every word of it, you conservative lardy

Just trying to keep up my rep as a hellion.

I've read your post twice, once this morning and once again this afternoon. I really have to congratulate you for thinking this through so thoroughly. I expected to find it acceptable, compromise-worthy, etc., but actually it was better than that; and your insights made me think of much of this in a different way. I do have some minor (I do mean minor) caveats and need to think through a couple of things. Can I have til tomorrow to post a fuller response?

I am sorry if my insistence on this has seemed out of proportion, and will concede that some measure of my chest-beating is a reaction to what I see as obstinacy, strawman arguments, and so on. But the real reason is that I see the lead as crucial in this case to the narrative that follows. Even something so seemingly small as referring to "findings" for one part of a report and "allegations" for another is a problem, because this is the overture, as it were, to a core narrative problem that I look forward to addressing together – i.e., with you, Eleland, Tewfik, et al. Regarding consistency, as I know this has been an issue. Consistency does not mean that we present all findings of a given source as equally true and valid; it means that we apply the same editorial and evaluative principles to each. It is fine, for example, to say that this or that aspect of Holley's statement is contested by sources X and Y, and not say that about the other part (if this distinction is indeed borne out by RSs). But it's not OK to cite Holley authoritatively and as a stand-in for Amnesty for one claim, and then dismiss another Holley claim (the next sentence from the exact same statement) as a "soundbyte quote in a news article" and ask what that "proves," pointing out moreover that he's not himself an HR organization. Be well, and thanks again for your good offices.--G-Dett 23:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Golly, thanks, you've buttered me up. I look forward to reading more from you tomorrow (or whenever). Be well HG | Talk 00:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

First installment here.--G-Dett 14:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ritual slaughter and Legal aspects of ritual slaughter

I like the name change. I still think merging the articles (as some commentors in the RFC suggested) would be a good idea, with legal aspects becoming a section, at least until there's more significant and neutrally presented general content. The Ritual slaughter article is being expanded by someone who seems to be presenting a view that ritual slaughter is generally a synonym for animal sacrifice. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Partly my responsibility, I had Animal sacrifice in the disambiguation page version (it was originally a redirect, remember?). We should find sources to distinguish (as does my dictionary). Thanks. HG | Talk 12:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Legal Aspects of Ritual Slaughter

I think The Politics of Beef: Animal Advocacy and the Kosher Buthering Debates in Germany. Robin Judd. might be essential reading. If you go to this link: http://modiya.nyu.edu/handle/1964/489 and then use the link there at the very bottom of the page that says Animal Advocacy and the Kosher Buthering Debates in Germany. you will find this paper/article. RPSM 16:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)RPSM 16:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

http://modiya.nyu.edu/modiya/bitstream/1964/569/2/shekhita-germany.pdf

Above is direct link to pdf document The Politics of Beef RPSM 16:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ritual slaughter, etc.

Yes, I thought that stupid,stupid,stupid was going over the top. I think it was that I edited lots of things, and everything I did was reverted without exception when it clearly states that anyone may edit anything, even without signing in. This is not the first time either. I can give you an account of the last time on another occasion, if you are interested. But I take your point. It was not a personal attack. If, instead of writing my address on an envelope, I decide to write the addresses of everyone in the world who does not have my address, by using microchips - that is stupid. And I was in the course os pointing out that listing all the countries in Europe with no bans on shehitah was a stupid exercise, (as only three countries had bans or maximum 6) And yet the entry on the list did not list these 45 countries, only six. Having edit/revert edit/revert was very frustrating. I was told there was nothing on the discussion page, but, as you correctly point out, I was filling up the discussion page much too much. Surely it is not a question who is talking on the discussion page, but of what the arguments are. Anyway, that is fixed now and some fixing has been fixed.

Progress so far: I sourced Austria background material, but now I am afraid to edit anything at all as everything I do gets reverted (well one or two successes with a few words) and I have not been able to find instructions on how to fix references (where?) Six provinces in Austria ban shehitah - that was 2002 - and in 2005, a federal law permits it. So Austria needs to come off the list. I am in e-mail correspondence with the Finnish J. community, and they say that the statement in wiki about pre-stunning is wrong. The Finnish Law now says that the stunning is done simultaneously with the shehitha cut - and this is permissible, I am told. No actual shehitah is perfomed due to lack of facilities - some halal. What should I do about these e-mails: Do you want them as references, are they invalid as own research, and should I erase the names and addresses or what for privacy reasons? I take your point about too much information, but I was told there was no discussion when there was too much already. And no-one was responding to anything I said, apart from being called a vandal. Yes it would be most kind if you set up a user page for me. Best wishes, RPSM 18:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Progressive Jewish thinkers

Hi Eg (may I call you that, for example?). Just noticed your Category:Progressive Jewish thinkers. If you don't mind my saying so, that list may be admirable but it would tend to be a matter of personal opinion, right? If so, how would you feel about deleting it? Be well. Pls reply to my Talk. L'hit, HG | Talk 05:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly open to discussing the usefulness of this category.

Some background. The category isn't exactly my invention. It arose while I was trying to do some cleanup on a rather heterogeneous set of items that had been assigned to Category:Reform Judaism - a mix of summer camps, rabbis, concepts, people, etc. When the members of a category are too much of a mixed bag the category is not particularly useful - the human mind needs a certain amount of homogeneity to effectively scan down a list.

I certainly didn't feel I had the right to nix the Reform Judaism category (nor even change its name alas - it includes topics of interest to all progressive Jews across the world but is named in a manner that is biased towards the American branch of progressive Judaism.) Nor, in most cases, did I have the time to research the validity of the existing associations between each article and progressive Judaism. My conservative solution was to break the items into mentally homogeneous groupings while still preserving the connection to Category:Reform Judaism. Hence thinker+reform turned into Category:Progressive Jewish thinkers.

As for the category being "personal opinion". No, I don't think so. If the thinker influenced the development of progressive Jewish thought then it is arguably a progressive Jewish thinker. We can find reliable sources for asserting X influenced progressive Judaism.

There are, BTW, many thinkers that have influenced research, dialog, and rhetoric in all streams of Judaism from Orthodoxy to the most tradition denying universalistic segments of Progressive Judaism. Abraham Joshua Heschel, Joseph B Soleveitchik, Leopold Zunz among them. By extension of the definition of "Progressive thinker" offered above, these would also be members of Category:Orthodox Jewish thinkers and Category:Conservative Jewish thinkers.

My question in return would be: how do we capture the thought that has influenced each movement? On one hand I think it is very important that we get away from the idea that any movement "owns" some part of Jewish thought and tradition. On the other hand, each movement focuses on a different (albeit overlapping) group of thinkers. This too is notable and needs to be documented.

Kol tuv, Egfrank 07:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your thorough response. Categories need clear definitions and criteria. Unfortunately, "influence" on a movement strikes me as far too vague (and maybe OR). It'd include Plato, Kant, and the rest of classical philosophy and liberal thought. Maybe you could have an article on "Theology (or Philosophy) of Progressive Judaism" and flesh out formative influences there, or through articles on individual thinkers. ("Progressive" is somewhat an unfortunate term for encyclopedia purposes, since "Progressive Jewish" doesn't sound like it refers merely to Progressive Judaism). thanks. HG | Talk 12:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see my response to you and User:IZAK on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Progressive Judaism#Article vs Category: Capturing the intellectual influences on Progressive Judaism. Shavuah tov, Egfrank 16:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

erase

will be erasing my comments when I get round to it shortly RPSM 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not always easy stepping into a new setting like this. Hope you enjoy the editing! HG | Talk 18:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin

Hi PR. I noticed your latest comment at Talk:Battle of Jenin.here's the diff. I think we deal with your concern rather well. You seem to be arguing about 2 sides, and we've moved on to a middle ground. I'm wondering if you'd be willing to retract (undo) your comment. After you undo, look over the thread again, and if you feel you still have a concern, maybe you could raise it with somebody you feel is basically on your side (e.g., Eleland?), and get their perspective. Sound ok? I think you can either trust me on this or, as I suggest, check it out with somebody like Eleland. HG | Talk 08:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's go back a step and remind ourselves that policy, verifiability, reliable sources and so forth all come first, and cannot (normally) be over-ridden by consensus, "middle ground" or anything else we care to call it. Policy says that our article reports what secondary sources have reported about events. So why are we saying: ...major human rights organizations found strong prima facie evidence of IDF war crimes. instead of saying: ...major human rights organizations found that the IDF had carried out war crimes.? For the latter formulation, we've had detailed citations from both major human rights organizations (Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International) making the claim explicitly and categorically. We have an independent statement from the British military expert, David Holley, making the claim explicitly and categorically. (We're quoting Holley in the same article as if his words were authoritative eg corroborated that there was no massacre). For the former formulation, we have one citation from Human Rights Watch. And nothing else. Why would we present multiple organizations as having said something they didn't say? And why would we not quote organizations as having said something they did say?

There is, of course, an easy way out of this - you (we?) could simply declare that Wikipedia has red-lines. We report accusations of war crimes against sovereign governments (up to and including the US). Excepting Israel, which cannot be reported as having been so accused.

It would save everyone an enormous amount of wasted time simply spelling it out! PR^talk 11:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)