User talk:IronDuke

Thanks for stopping by. If you want my attention on something, please: Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. Use headlines when starting new talk topics. Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here. I may move your/our comments to the relevant talk page. Do not make personal attacks unless they are funny.

That was the year that was: archive of talk from 2005 and 2006

Year II: archive of talk from 2007

2008

m:User:IronDuke

jewish terrorism and zionist political violence

Could you please have a look at these articles because what happens there seems to me not very wise and a little bit not in compliance with wp:npov but rather more with wp:soap. Thx. Ceedjee (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

E-mail

I've lost your e-mail address, but you can send me e-mail to a new addrss I've just enabled Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, IronDuke. You have new messages at Ltwin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rachel Corrie

Sorry about causing a commotion at the R.C. article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As long as we end up with a better article, I wouldn't worry too much about it. IronDuke 03:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

From If Americans Knew mediation

Just to let you know, an outside view was given. Ltwin (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

After looking at his contributions, I see what you mean. He is involved in all these Israel/Palestine articles it seems. Thanks for letting me know. It is still a view point though, even if its not necessarily an outside view. Ltwin (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, IronDuke. You have new messages at Ltwin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

An editor I am not aware of and believe to be a newly created account has made substantial edits to the IAK page. I would hope not, but this may cause controversy to boil up again and I hope that doesn't happen. I have left a message on this user Flawfixer's talk page. I have asked him to revert his edits and to discuss these changes on the talk page. I have not recieved a response. Just wanting everyone to remember to stay calm and civil. This may lead to nothing or it may cause problems. Thats why I'm asking for restraint from all sides and for discussion. Ltwin (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've never done that on wikipedia. I'd be willing if I knew how. Ltwin (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, IronDuke. You have new messages at Ltwin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Have requested alternative mediation

Per request of Flawfixer, I have contacted WP:Mediation Cabal requesting assistance and alternative mediation. To let everyone know, I am not going to stop assisting in finding consensus. I believe all my efforts here have been appropriate, however, I recognize that my efforts to maintain the integrity of the mediation process may have inadvertently compromised that mission. Ltwin (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Elections

See User talk:Brewcrewer#BC_SPI, you ARE eligible, if you create a SUL or have a Meta user page that links to your EnWIki user page. -- Avi (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Newbie

This is the only account I've had on wiki. I registered quite a while ago but only started editing recently. Wodge (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC regarding WP:TERRORIST

Hi: You're probably watching the WT:WTA talk page, but if not, I wanted to let you know I've set up an RFC to get some outside discussion there, and to encourage slightly more formal statements than our more freewheeling discussion thus far. Ray^Talk 17:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes

Just in case you are unfamiliar with BLP guidelines, mentioning ethnicity is in no way offensive, even if it is Jewish. Im not interested in an edit war, please correct it by yourself by restoring my edit. Thanks in advance Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 21:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Advice?

I would like to get your view on this. I have been trying to do something to improve it, but the situation may be hopeless. Any thoughts? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It's yet another in a long and tiresome series of articles meant to demonize Israel, an OR, POV mess. I think whatever is salvagable is best merged elsewhere. I wonder if people understand how destructive this sort of thing is. IronDuke 21:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

controversial statements

like i said earlier, i dont really have a problem with the title you used, but there does need to be some consistency. Avigdor Lieberman remarks about destroying population centers or using atomic weapons against Gaza gets worked over to the point where the heading is now Statements against Palestinian militancy and there are countless other examples of that same type of treatment. if there was some consistency regarding how to title these types of sections i could support the change in the al-Zahar page, but there isnt. Nableezy (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate what you're saying, but from my point of view, one thing has nothing to do with another. Or, to put it another way, I could interpret you remarks as you saying "Yes, your edit made the article better. However, other articles remain bad. This is inconsistent. Therefore, I cannot support your improving the article until other articles are also improved." That way lies wikimadness. There will always be inconsistencies on WP as long as it remains an encyclopedia anyone can edit. IronDuke 16:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I dont think your edit made it better, I just dont have a problem with it. He said what he said, but I still feel that 'Controversial statements' covers it as well as it needs to be covered. My point was that you dont really see section names that specific and inflammatory, they all get watered down to 'Controversial statements' or things like that. If that is how it is consistently done why change here? Nableezy (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"I dont think your edit made it better..." Really? Well, that is a surprise, given that on the talk page, when you suggested the virtually identical title, you wrote"What I think would be the best title would be 'Statement on the legitimacy of the killing of Jewish children during the Gaza conflict'." (emphasis added). So, according to you, my edit didn't just make the article better, but was the best choice available. And you're also not quite right about headers in general. Yes, sometimes they do get watered down, but not always. IronDuke 23:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I know it was my idea, best was assuming 'controversial statements' was rejected (which was the first idea I put forward). But you are nitpicking here, what I am saying, note the present tense, is that I still think 'Controversial statements' is all that is needed. If that is somehow unacceptable and the detail of the quote is needed, then what you quoted me saying earlier would be what I would say fits the quote in the most accurate (best) way. Let's not forget, the title that was being discussed at the time was something along the lines of 'Statement advocating the murder of Jewish children across the world'. I think you already knew all that, and just wanted to score some pretend point. Now that I have clarified, is there still any confusion on what I think is best? Nableezy (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is confusion about what you think is best -- you should probably consult the inside of your own head for the answer to that. When you say "nitpicking," I say "taking your words at face value." You offered a suggestion (not the "best" one, apparently), I agreed. Now you want to withdraw support for what yourself seemed to think was a good idea at the time, because some other article or articles have not been written to your satisfaction. I've seen this argument before and, while I can sympathize, it is nevertheless wholly illegitimate, both from a logic and from a WP policy point of view. IronDuke 00:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

If you didn't notice, I first suggested just having 'controversial statements', you rejected that. So I made another suggestion in light of the fact that 'controversial statements' is not acceptable to you. That does not mean I would not support 'controversial statements' over anything else, but if the specifics need to be mentioned in the header, which I still dont understand why, then my other suggestion stands as what would be best. Nableezy (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I definitely noticed, but there was nothing in what you posted that led me to believe you didn't actually mean "best title" but rather "second best title." Now I know. As to why specificity in headers is good, it's because it makes for easier navigating for people who are looking specifically for that quote/reaction. "Controversial statement" doesn't do that. "Incitment controversy" is just... well, I'll only say it doesn't work at all. IronDuke 00:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Re Malcolm injunction

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Proposed decision#Malcolm Schosha restricted. Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Two points

Forum shopping is inappropriate, and Jimbo cannot supercede a wide consensus. rootology (C)(T) 16:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If JW can't supersede a wide consensus, I can't very well be forum shopping, then. IronDuke 16:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. ;) I've asked you a serious question on AN here that needs answering on AN. rootology (C)(T) 16:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Anti-American

Do you really say that disagreeing strongly with American government policy makes one anti-American? DuncanHill (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

See Anti-Americanism. IronDuke 16:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

So the Republican party is anti-American? After all, they seem to disagree strongly with American government policy. DuncanHill (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think you'd save time if you simply poked your own holes in that analogy? IronDuke 17:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I do wish you would answer questions instead of evading them. DuncanHill (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not evading them, it's just a) obvious but b) takes a while to spell out why it's obvious. I could spend, literally, all day fending off "But hey! What about this userpage! Surely, to be consistent, etc..." IronDuke 17:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it isn't obvious to me. DuncanHill (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I would take offense to anyone calling me Anti-American, and I strongly disagreed with Bush-era policies, but favored Clinton's and Obama's. So, am I anti-American, or was I just while Bush was in office? rootology (C)(T) 16:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a strange question. IronDuke 17:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Commended

I'd like to try to explain why I said that the other editor should be commended. He had a statement that was clearly inflammatory and beyond the pale. When it was made clear to him why it was unacceptable, he changed it to one which I think you would accept is OK (whatever you think about the picture above it). He did a good thing - even if his original position was wrong. To use an example from British history - I think Gerry Adams is to be commended for ending the pIRA's military campaign/terrorism (call it what you will). Commending him for this does not indicate in any way approval of what he did before that, or agreement with his political position now, just that he did a thing that was in itself good and right. I'll add - when someone with whom you disagree changes something, even a little thing, to be less objectionable, he's more likely to listen to your concerns in future if you praise what you can, than if you stick to your guns and keep attacking. Of course, I don't claim to be perfect at following my own advice, all I can plead in mitigation of that is that I am human, and humans tend to be less than perfect! DuncanHill (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well put, but I meant something a bit different. Gerry Adams didn't change because he was facing the death penalty, right? But CMM, in wiki terms, was. Also, he continued to have an image that combined with the text, was inflammatory. If he had removed it all, maybe... but I still see nothing to commend. IronDuke 18:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the death penalty never did anything in terms of improving the situation in Northern Ireland, made it much worse in fact. Adams changed because people talked to him, and listened to him. Still, with regard to the editor - small steps are still steps. As to the image - one can disapprove of something, even very strongly, and still put up with it. Tolerance is a wonderful thing, exercise it and you find it being exercised towards you. I suppose it's a form of the Golden Rule. DuncanHill (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

So if I had an old racist caricature on my userpage, with a caption reading, "This user strongly dislikes the way black people comport themselves," you'd have no problem allowing it? And this after I'd expressed a desire to see all black people murdered? IronDuke 18:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

His comment now is about a government, not a nationality or ethnicity. That is a very significant difference. DuncanHill (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

So you would then have a problem with my userpage containing what I wrote above? IronDuke 18:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that truly how you feel? DuncanHill (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Tell you what: answer the question, and I will tell you exactly how I truly feel. IronDuke 18:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

But then what guarantee would I have that you weren't telling me what you thought I would want to hear? No, you take responsibility for your own beliefs, and accept that others may not share them. DuncanHill (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... that's very... strange? Why on earth would I tell you what you wanted to hear? I try to be respectful, but I speak my mind. I think even my enemies would agree. Methinks you are doing a bit of wrigglage here. No big deal... IronDuke 18:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, if you want to speak your mind - then do so. If you don't - then don't. My opinion is just one of many. Why not ask JW what his opinion of your proposed userpage is? DuncanHill (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I wanted you to answer my question. You don't wish to answer it. That is your right. IronDuke 19:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It would not be okay for you to write that on your user page. Just like it was not okay for the original 'murder of all Americans', for which that user was blocked until he agreed to remove it. But saying 'Down with America', or 'This user strongly dislikes U.S. foreign and domestic policy' is not equivalent to saying 'This user strongly dislikes the way Americans comport themselves'. Nableezy (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think "Down with America" is worse than "This user strongly dislikes the way Americans comport themselves." But the point I'm making is that they're all bad -- useless at best. Why have them at all? IronDuke 19:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have consistency in your position by saying all pro and all anti sentiments of any kind are disallowed on userpages then I dont really have a problem with that position. I personally think that they do serve a purpose, it identifies where a user may have biases and whether or not they can control that bias in article space. You can tell a decent bit about me based off my userpage currently, and more about me based on what it has been in the past. You can see where I may have problems in keeping my own biases under control, and then see if I am successfully able to do so. I don't see much of a difference between 'this user is an anarchist' and 'down with America'. There are a ton of userboxes that offend me, you know what I do? Say the words 'well fuck you too' out loud to myself, and never think of it again. Nableezy (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And I dont think that 'Down with America' is worse, with the first the user is speaking of the government, the second of a group of people. 'Down with America' is no different than a revolutionary American saying 'Down with the British Empire' Nableezy (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I would love to have pretty much all pro and anti political sentiments scrubbed from userpages. If that can't happen -- and it likely can't -- then at least let's do away with "This user hates you and your people" type pages. And really, I don't think it serves a purpose. I don't need to see your userpage to know what your POV might be. Your edits will tell me, or else it won't matter. IronDuke 19:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I disagree. If a user had previously shown a desecrated Palestinian flag and hoped for the murder of most of them, then written "Down with Palestine!", I would take a very dim view. IronDuke 19:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

RfC Invitation

Within the past month or so, you appear to have commented on at least one AN/I, RS/N, or BLP/N thread involving the use of the term "Saint Pancake" in the Rachel Corrie article. As of May 24th, 2009, an RfC has been open at Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Request_for_Comments_on_the_inclusion_of_Saint_Pancake for over a week. As editors who have previously commented on at least one aspect of the dispute, your further participation is welcome and encouraged. Jclemens (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbs

I don't think I will be actively pursuing this... Casliber said he'd return to comment on this, but conveniently never returned to the discussion. It is obvious that a number of the current Arbs would not be able to pass the hurdle they've set for the rest of us, but it is equally obvious that they will not self-sanction themselves. I plan to contribute outside the I/P area, and ask for a review in 6 months. I have 8 DYKs already (4 since the ArbCom case) and a GAN waiting for review - perhaps you'd like to have a go at reviewing it? It's been waiting for more than 2 weeks now. NoCal100 (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

'Issue was resolved' tag at Talk:Juan Cole

Issue was resolved. No further dispute resolution or mediation was demanded by any editor.

Do you object at all to tagging the talk page section as such? The Squicks (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Flying Aces GAN

You meticulous reading of everything I wrote was much appreciated! I do not regret asking you to review it even for a second. I've gone ahead and implemented your suggestions - have another look when you get the chance. NoCal100 (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Your RfC comment

I've replied on the talk page. [1]. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian

Thank you for correcting (changing) the remark at the talk. -DePiep (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem; the lines of communication are always open, so do please let me know if you have similar conerns in the future. IronDuke 20:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Dodge. Can you say if you have used or are using any accounts other than this? Thanks, IronDuke 20:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Now please deal with the issue of cutting the size of the Israel section in CUPE. Dodge rambler (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Dr, I've moved this so it's together (and so my question to you doesn't disappear, which I'm sure you didn't intend). If that bothers you, feel free to port this whole discussion over to my talk page. Cheers. IronDuke 21:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

So moved. Dodge rambler (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

questions

Out of curiosity, do you think this is an "opinion piece" as it relates to WP:RS? nableezy - 17:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it certainly doesn't read like an opinion piece. The author has a thesis, and advances arguments and facts to support it. When I think of an opinion piece in this vein, it's usually something like "Stay the course in Iraq," basically something hortatory that relies more on a supposition the intended readers can be expected to already support in principle. The piece you link to looks like a rough history of events since Oslo through 1997. Does that help? IronDuke 20:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The classification of the things he cites as "anti-Israel" is what I see as the opinion. Yes he cites a whole lot of statements made by people but makes the conclusion that they are anti-Israel. And the notice at the top saying "The views expressed here are those of the author alone" makes me say it is an opinion piece. But do you think on the basis of this piece it is proper to say, in Wikipedia's voice, that these people and organizations are "anti-Israel" or act in ways inimical to the existence of Israel? If I were to find a source from a director of CAIR or the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee calling "pro-Israel" groups anti-Muslim or anti-Arab would that be enough to do so on Wikipedia? nableezy - 20:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, sure, it's definitely his opinion, but for me that doesn't make it an opinion piece. As a fer example, I was reading Team of Rivals a while ago (great book, BTW), and Doris Kearns Goodwin takes issue with the idea that Abraham Lincoln was gay, advanced by, I think, Gore Vidal and others. Is it a fact that Lincoln wasn't gay? No, but Goodwin has standing to be heard on the issue. And that's your only question here: does Lewis have standing to be heard on this issue? His conclusions can be presented as fact iff they are widely supported. Otherwise, you get yer basic, "According to Michael Lewis..." IronDuke 20:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I got nothing against Vidal, in fact I think he is an excellent writer who has written some very interesting things, but if an encyclopedia were to put his views on Abraham Lincoln ahead of Goodwin that encyclopedia should no longer exist. But I did come here for your opinion and you were gracious enough to provide so I suppose it is time to stop badgering you. nableezy - 20:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help, flattered that you asked, not badgering at all. Cheers. IronDuke 21:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If I am not badgering, would you answer one more question. Would you be opposed to the creation of an anti-Islam lobby in the United States or an anti-Arab lobby in the United States article largely based on opinion pieces, or articles such as this, from directors at CAIR, the ADC and other similar organizations and people containing pro-Israel lobbies and activists? nableezy - 23:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to an analogy to Anti-Israel lobby in the United States, it would be something along the lines of Anti-Palestine lobby in the United States, no? And I'm not sure which way I'd go on that, to be honest. On the one hand, there are surely elements, organized to some extent--which deprecate the idea of a homeland for the Palestinians. Meir Kahane springs to mind and, while I couldn't and wouldn't want to speak for him, I don't think he would have minded being included in just such an article. That said, what it means to be anti-Israel is a bit more developed than what it means to be anti-Palestine. The latter is just a more complex issue, I'm speaking technically here. For example, no "nation" of Palestine exists. Thus, a person who is anti-Palestine is anti-Palestinian, anyplace anywhere? Anti the idea of a state for Palestinians? Anti the Palestinian Authority? Or just someone who takes serious issue with the policies, such as they can be resanably articulated, of offical or quasi-official Palesitnian organizations? Short answer: I dunno if I would oppose it; I'd really have to see what it looked like. Could go either way. IronDuke 03:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That is the analogy, but more of an article were political opponents of groups and individuals define them a certain way (anti-Islam, anti-Arab, anti-Palestine . . .). I personally would oppose that, I dont think we should be defining people and groups based on how their opponents do. Thats just me though, thanks for the responses, nableezy - 03:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you have a point. But then, Wikipedia seems to have embraced Israel and the apartheid analogy (complete with "Discrimination" navbar!), which seems to be exactly what you're arguing against. If you'll permit me to badger you in return, would you vote to delete that article? IronDuke 03:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If it had been Israel and apartheid maybe, but it is, at least nominally, about the analogy people have made. If this article were to be called allegations of anti-Israel bias by Arab/Muslim/whatever groups maybe this wouldnt be so objectionable to me, but then I would argue that it is just the coatrack that it is and is not a notable topic in its own right. That article doesnt actually define Israel as an apartheid state. But truthfully I do think that article should be broken up into each of the topics it covers with a small remainder specifically on the analogy (like we would have an article on a word), but not combining every instance of its use. But when it is used it should be mentioned in the relevant article, as in the West Bank barrier article has mention of it being called the "Apartheid Wall", but they do not need to be combined into one big article. But the analogy itself is notable, with a number of reliable sources discussing its use, or do you disagree with that? nableezy - 04:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"Nominally" is the mot juste here. The article is and was always meant to be a coatrack to attack Israel. And the thing is, the attacks themselves are totally fine, just put it in "Human rights in Israel/Palestine" or some like title. But the idea was to define Israel according to what its enemies think, and this was done. I don't know, sorry, I feel like I just dragged your legitimate question into a bit of an off-topic rant. Suffice it to say, this sort of thing happens on WP all the time, for better or for worse. (And for the record, yes the analogy is in wide use, but so is/was the phrase "Slick Willie" for Bill Clinton. An interesting article certainly could be written of the latter, but it wouldn't really be a good idea.) IronDuke 14:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a tad different. Yes there are people who called him "Slick Willie" (which I think is an awesome nickname, in fact if you want to call me Slick Bleezy fine by me) but there are not sources discussing the use of the phrase "Slick Willie". There are however sources discussing the analogy itself, not just a particular usage of it. That is why I say the analogy itself is notable and deserving of an article covering it, but not necessarily documenting each use. nableezy - 02:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, SB, as a matter of factual, Bill Clinton hated that nickname, and articles were written to that effect. I suppose I could hunt one up if you were all that curious, or you may take it as read. IronDuke 04:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think care has to be taken when abbreviating names, I was in a conversation elsewhere in which a username was shortened to BD. Where I am from that has a certain meaning. It took a great deal of restraint to not post that link at WP:AN where this took place. nableezy - 04:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I shall excercise more caution in future. Where I'm from, SB means Superbowl, though I gather from your geographic location that may be something of a sore subject. IronDuke 19:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello.

Do you know where I can find a list of admins who monitor the edit-war ANI?

William made one of his first-ever stale decisions after waiting 2 days to give a formal response. He did however manage to respond to every other edit-war report that was filed, even those submitted after mine. He suggested I contact another admin. I would just like to see a certified-moderator confirm editors were warring. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"Do you know where I can find a list of admins who monitor the edit-war ANI?"

there is no such list

[2], [3], [4] - how many would you like? And do you have any concern for accuracy? You seem to think I have a vendetta against you. I don't. Its worse that that: I don't care. Which is why I'm bothering to post this William M. Connolley (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

William, I’m not sure your remarks are helpful. Wikifan is asking about what methods of appeal or redress are available, which is legitimate. As for closing reports as stale, yes, in two of the links you show, they were quite stale (In fact, you wrote “Life has moved on. There have been 100’s of edits since r4.” Not at all the case in Wikifan’s complaint. The last “stale” ruling you issued was wrong in the same way this one was, in that it wasn’t really stale at all, and you seem to have missed completely that the editor being reported was using an IP sock, even though this was made crystal clear in he report. Another admin then intervened and blocked the main account [5]. You may wish to reevaluate your approach. IronDuke 14:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WF is welcome to ask you, or any other admin, about appeal. You seem to have missed my point: I'm not talking about whether it was *correct* to close it as stale, but WF's assertion that this was one of his first-ever closings as stale. I went to the bother of looking up diffs to prove he was wrong, because I'm interested in the truth. It would be nice if WF corrected his error William M. Connolley (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, I think your got point. What I was referring to was your writing "there is no such list." While technically true, that could be reasonably read as suggesting to Wikifan that no further admin redress was possible, which is not. But yes, WF could certainly refactor his post re your use of the word "stale," given yours and my respective points. IronDuke 14:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please William. This was a clear cut case of warring abuse and you consciously waited days before responding while quickly wielding sysops powers to reports filed after mine. Then you claimed it was stale. If you don't care then why are you here? A confirmation that edit-warring occurred is all I need. I really don't care much about a block. I guess I can message a random admin since I don't want to canvaas friendlies. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, unfortunately, you aren’t likely to get satisfaction. You could go to AN/I, but the most likely result would be jeering—that’s partly what the page exists for. Then, eventually, you would be told to be quiet or face blocking—irrespective of the rightness or wrongness of WMC’s behavior. You might think about approaching an admin you trust and asking for a third opinion, but it would be kinda stale now. Plus, it doesn’t really matter, in the sense that the edits are on record, and if the pattern recurs and requires attention, you still have all those diffs to hand. IronDuke 14:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see your respond. I think I'll stay away from the ANI, William has been against much worse and nothing happened. And seeing as I've been blocked by Will 3 times, I doubt any admin would take my complaints seriously. Wikifan12345 (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

you consciously waited days before responding - you're still failing to understand. Its not my AN3 board. Plenty of admins work there. They all ignored your report. You can, if you like, assume that they all had a deep grudge against you, or you could consider the possibility that it wasn't quite as clear cut as you think William M. Connolley (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I'm a bit puzzled by this... if admins had really looked at the report and thought it, for example, stale or erroneous, why would they not have closed it themselves? The only explanation I could think of was that they saw your post, and assumed you were handling it. Otherwise, they'd be behaving pretty oddly. IronDuke 14:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but if Wikifan thinks WMC has a grudge against him then why keep on hounding him to judge a dispute he's in? Sounds like Wikifan should be happy that WMC did not involve himself in the report until it turned stale. I'm happy to have someone else look at it. As I stated at the noticeboard if my editing of that page needs a behavioral modification I welcome the suggest by an admin and will mend my ways. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Says who? You are the exclusive admin at the noticeboard (at least since I filed my report) and can claim majority in terms of assessing notices. So at least you admit ignoring my report and then saying it is stale after deciding to no longer ignore it. But I guess that's all okay since "other" admins (who?) also ignored the post. Sound logic. Wikifan12345 (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I think I can say, without irony, that this has been a productive discussion, and that the parties concerned are about as satisfied as they're likely to get. I was going to slap a "Please do not modify this" thingie on it, but I don't want anyone to feel muzzled. Hopefully, we'll all move along now. IronDuke 14:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

analytic philosopher

made some changes, hope you dont mind. But is there an independent source for "analytic philosopher" for Bernard Harrison? nableezy - 17:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Mind? Next stop arbcom, buddy. Seriously, looks fine, I think. Don't know what you mean by independent -- it says Harrison is "a non-Jewish analytic philosopher" in the overview of his book. Don't know why they had to mention his ethnicity, but there it is. IronDuke 19:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Saw that, meant by independent something besides what he or his publisher wrote. Not sure where google takes the overview from. Not a big deal though, but I think it would be better to say University of Utah philosophy professor. nableezy - 19:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

What bothers you about "analytic?" IronDuke 19:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if it's up to WP snuff as a source, but there's this Communciation signed by Berel "Dov Lerner, Lecturer in Philosophy, Western Galilee College." IronDuke 19:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing bothers me about it, just dont see what it adds. But it doesnt really matter to me, just seems to be a useless word. nableezy - 19:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Notice

Just to inform you that I have posted a query/comment relating to you on the admin noticeboard. RolandR 16:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Iosefina

Thanks for the notification. Please understand, however, that not having your knowledge of the history here, there was no way I could have been aware of this relationship. The edits themselves were not objectionable, and did not indicate that they came from this banned user. Had you been a bit more explicit when deleting, some of this drama might have been averted. RolandR 21:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Zionist political violence

Hi, just to note that the reason you gave for undoing this edit was invalid as the IP has been a frequent editor to the article and discusses it on the talk page - as far as I know this is their primary account. I've not undone your revert as I happen to agree that the edit was not following the consensus on the talk page. Smartse (talk) 05:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Smartse, I appreciate that. IronDuke, please refer to the talk page and article history before a revert on the grounds of "primary account". Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.188.10 (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if I acted in error/haste. 65.127.188.10, is that your only account here? IronDuke 15:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Query

I see that you feel that user:chris O is stalking you. May I trouble you for the areas where this has occurred?
--NBahn (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you say what your interest is? IronDuke 04:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Chris O is aiming some pretty charged characterizations at you; I find his use of such terminology to be quite unusual and I'm quite curious as to why. If you wish for me to butt out of this argument, as it were, then I shall honor that request. But I am, nevertheless, curious.
--NBahn (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's not as unusual as you may think. Chris and I have an unfortunate history together, and my strong impression is that I am not precisely his favorite person in the world. He periodically follows/antagonizes me, then writes something similar to what you witnessed. I'm not altogether certain why someone who didn't like me would want to keep drawing me into their life, but, it takes all kinds, I guesss. Thanks for your interest, but I'm hoping, if history is a guide, that this problem may well resolve itself without my having to take action. IronDuke 15:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy IronDuke's Day!

User:IronDuke has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as IronDuke's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear IronDuke! Peace, Rlevse 00:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! Well deserved! --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

About time. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, all. Wikipedia editing has felt like a particularly thankless task lately, so this was most welcome. IronDuke 21:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

...and now there an article about you on the DYK.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Look at me, I'm famous! (If a little rusty, perhaps.) IronDuke 21:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AllStarEcho_restricted

As you participated at the above discussion, this is to let you know I've proposed an alternate wording (for reasons stated there). However, it is essentially the same proposal. If you have any objections to it, please note them down. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

grammar questions

Hi IronDuke, would you mind telling me what grammar concerns there are with "proclaimed struggle"? The same issue is popping up on another related page. nableezy - 19:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)It doesn't fit, grammatically, where it is placed, that is to say, it cannot replace "to advance." That's basically a noun replacing an infinitive. Dig? IronDuke 20:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

So would it be fair to say you would find problems with the following sentence:

X refers to acts of violence committed by people of X aimed at achieving political objectives in their proclaimed struggle for Y.

and that the correct formulation would be something along the lines of

X refers to acts of violence committed by people of X for political reasons to advance their struggle for Y.

? nableezy - 01:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the second sentence better, yes, although I think you could take out "for political reasons" and "their struggle for" and the sentence is virtually identical, just shorter, thus "X refers to acts of violence committed by people of X to advance Y." IronDuke 01:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to make that view known at Talk:Palestinian political violence? I dont think it counts as canvassing to bring in a supposed "opponent". nableezy - 14:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. IronDuke 15:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. A consistent argument is all one can ask for and you did not disappoint. I think that would be the best way of making NPOV "enforceable". It is fairly easy to determine when somebody is not being consistent with their arguments and if that is sanctionable behavior I think issues with how to ensure NPOV would no longer be the problem it currently is. nableezy - 15:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, though I would venture to say few cases are quite this similar. If I had a dollar for every time someone said to me, "Well, IronDuke, if you feel that way about this edit, why don't you also go to the Holocaust page and..." etc. Somehow, I never feel obliged to take up that suggestion. IronDuke 16:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

and re this, you have to admit that is a very good movie (just as a movie, pretending it is just a work of fiction) nableezy - 19:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In fact, you are correct and I am forced to admit it was a good movie. I had really dreaded seeing it, as I had a feeling I knew roughly how it would go, but was wrong. I can think of a few quibbles with it, but overall it was pretty nice work. IronDuke 20:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, and question

Hi IronDuke. I've been following the discussion at Ethnic cleansing, where you suggest that Benny Morris – the single most celebrated and influential historian of the events in question – "locates the issue as complex and nuanced," the issue being whether there was an ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. All serious scholars treat their subject matter as complex and nuanced, but is there any indication anywhere that Morris has misgivings about the applicability of this term for this issue? Here's from an interview with Ari Shavit:

AS:[W]hen the commanders of Operation Dani are standing there and observing the long and terrible column of the 50,000 people expelled from Lod walking eastward, you stand there with them? You justify them?

BM:I definitely understand them. I understand their motives. I don’t think they felt any pangs of conscience, and in their place I wouldn’t have felt pangs of conscience. Without that act, they would not have won the war and the state would not have come into being.

AS:You do not condemn them morally?

BM:No.

AS:They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.

BM:There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing.

AS:And that was the situation in 1948?

BM:That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.

AS:The term “to cleanse” is terrible.

BM:I know it doesn’t sound nice but that’s the term they used at the time. I adopted it from all the 1948 documents in which I am immersed.

Does he express qualms or misgivings about the term anywhere? I've always understood this to be a commonplace about his work. The first sentence of the jacket description by the publisher of his new book, for example, simply reads, "Benny Morris is the founding father of the New Historians, a group of Israeli historians who have challenged long-established perceptions about the origins of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Their research rigorously documented crimes and atrocities committed by the Israeli armed forces, including rape, torture, and ethnic cleansing."

I don't intend to edit the article, but I am curious to hear you elaborate on why, and where, you find Morris to be ambiguous on this point. Regards,--G-Dett (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow... you are hands down the toughest... I don't want to say "opponent" as we are theoretically on the same side, but your knowledge of this subject is so fricking irritating. As a matter of fact, I think he is ambiguous on the point, in that he asserts that the Palestinians were acting as a fifth column behind Israeli lines. The idea wasn't "Oh there's some peaceable folks here, they just happen to be sitting on land we want," it's "They will kill us if we turn our backs on them." That's different from, say Arab countries expelling Jews after 48 (who in no way represrented a 5th column). Or do you think those events are morally the same? It also seems that Morris equivocates when he says "[Ben Gurion] left a large and volatile demographic reserve [of Palestinians] in the West Bank and Gaza and within Israel itself." Indeed, Morris seems to be arguing that the Israelis ought to have "cleaned" all the Palestinians out, even from Gaza and the West Bank (as well as Israel proper). Anyway, good to hear from you, even if it's to put me on the hot seat. IronDuke 03:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your gracious response. Does Morris express misgivings about the term? Does your understanding of ethnic cleansing presuppose a morally unambiguous context?--G-Dett (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd add this as well. Some groups have suggested that Obama's being for uprooting Israeli settlements amounts to "ethnic cleansing" see for examplehere. Does that mean that it should be added to the list? No. Whatever the merits (or lack thereof) of the settlements in question, the rhetoric surrounding it is just that. It could be mentioned in an article on the settlements themselves, but would be improper in a "list" of the ethnically cleansed. IronDuke 03:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The difference being that Morris is not only a scholar but the scholar of the events in question, so to speak. He's not an op-ed writer making an analogy.

My feeling is that your distinction between EC as a "fact" and EC as "sloganeering" is a good one. If the forced departure of Israeli settlers from Gaza and (in some possible future) the West Bank comes to be described as ethnic cleansing, not by this or that commentator, but by scholars of Morris' rank and canonical influence, then yes the article should reflect that.--G-Dett (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to give you a fuller response tomorrow (as you no doubt wait with bated breath), but in the meantime I can't help but ask: as Morris is "canonical," do you think it proper to write here and elsewhere that the Israeli action, whatever one may call it, was ultimately justified, that "A society [the Palestinians/Arabs] that aims to kill you [the Israelis] forces you to destroy it"? IronDuke 04:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to your response tomorrow. Maybe I'm not understanding your question perfectly, but I don't think Wikipedia can ever say in its neutral voice that something's "justified." If you're asking do I think Morris' judgment on that is very notable, very interesting, and very intellectually serious (i.e. worth considering as readers and worth mentioning as editors), the answer is yes. If I've misunderstood your question and you want to rephrase it, I'll happily give it another go.--G-Dett (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

My question -- a leading and loaded one -- was to the effect that our placement of 1948 Palestinian exodus on that list established it as a fact, even with erstaz disclaimers tacked on to the end. It isn't a fact, it's one way to describe some of the events that took place then (you could also describe it, if you were so inclined) as Palestinians retreating to regroup for a later, more efficient genocide against Jews. POV? Sure. But I think you see my point. More importantly, we describe this much better in the master article. Benny Morris writes that most of the refugees fled their homes because of the flail of war and the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders, but that there were several dozen sites, including Lydda and Ramla, from which Arab communities were expelled by Jewish troops. Yes, BM calls some of those instances ethnic cleansing, but not the Exodus en toto. But that's what we assert, as the entry is written. Finally, and this may be beside the point, that interview seems... uncharacteristic of most of BM's work. Even in opposition to it. Not sure what that means for us, but... IronDuke 16:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

But "ethnic cleansing" is always and everywhere simply "one way to describe" certain types of events. Hence the qualifying words at the beginning of the section on "Instances of ethnic cleansing": "This section lists incidents that have been termed "ethnic cleansing" by some academic or legal experts. Not all experts agree on every case; nor do all the claims necessarily follow definitions given in this article. Where claims of ethnic cleansing originate from non-experts (e.g., journalists or politicians) this is noted."

I think you're mistaken when you say this is uncharacteristic of Morris' work. Morris' politics these days are center-leaning-right, which puts him in the company of many who abhor the use of this term for the events of 1948. But he makes an explicit distinction between "citizen Morris" and "historian Morris," and his account of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948 is more than "characteristic" of his scholarly work, it's a centerpiece of it. It's true that he sees this cleansing as morally justified by the situation mid-century Zionism found itself in, but the definition of ethnic cleansing – especially when understood through the lens of "fact" rather than "sloganeering" (your encyclopedic distinction and a good one) – does not presuppose contexts of moral clarity.

Your penultimate point is your strongest and most significant: Morris describes some of the events of '48 as ethnic cleansing, but not the Palestinian dispossession en toto. Or more accurately, Morris says there's no evidence of a top-down official policy of ethnic cleansing in 1948; rather, it's something that happened on the ground, with surprising regularity but no central coordination. He differs on this point with Ilan Pappé, but Morris' version is still the dominant scholarly one – the "canonical" account. Our article should certainly reflect this.--G-Dett (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

if you were bored of G-Dett destroying your argument

I could use somebody with a certain skill with words at a draft that is badly in need of converting facts into prose. If you are so inclined it would be much appreciated. nableezy - 05:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ha! She conceded my point! (I was simply too gracious to harp on it.) Yeah, I'll take a look in the next few days, I assume you're not meeting a deadline with it. To whet your appetite, it's "bored with G-dett destroying," (or possibly "by") -- not "of." And it would probably be a smoother read if you made "G-dett" "G-dett's." You're welcome. IronDuke 05:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You need reading comprehension classes if you took what G-Dett wrote as a concession to your point. She pretty much said what I said to you on the talk page. Morris doesn't deny that ethnic cleansing happens; he disputes that there was a master plan for it, but he admits it happened and indeed, wishes more of it happened. That is not a an argument for removing the listing of Palestinians at Ethnic cleansing, something you have been lobbying for against all reason and sources for the last little while now. I wish you would concede that the literature disagrees with you, and that there are many other cases listed on that page with a much more tenuous claim to being there than the Palestinian one, as Epa101 pointed out to you as well. If your interest really is the betterment of the article, your critical attention would be better placed on them. Tiamut^talk 09:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I wish reading comprehension classes were all I needed. That said, we could well be study partners in said class, as I'm not denying that some people have used that term, I'm arguing that calling the entire 48 Exodus EC is a controversial point. Is that such a wacky point for me to be making? IronDuke 15:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In IronDuke's responses to me above, he argues that Morris "equivocates" about ethnic cleansing in 1948 in three ways: (1) Morris sees the situation as morally complex and nuanced (in Duke's words Morris' "idea wasn't 'Oh there's some peaceable folks here, they just happen to be sitting on land we want,' it's 'They will kill us if we turn our backs on them'" ); (2) Morris stresses that the job wasn't completed, that is, that in Morris words "[Ben Gurion] left a large and volatile demographic reserve [of Palestinians] in the West Bank and Gaza and within Israel itself"; and (3) Morris doesn't describe the Palestinian dispossession en toto as ethnic cleansing.

My response (apparently so delicately phrased that it was vulnerable to misunderstanding) was that points 1 & 2 are irrelevant, because "ethnic cleansing" (the fact, not the slogan, per Duke's emphasis) presupposes neither a moral clarity of context nor an absolute success of operation. Morris does not – pace IronDuke – equivocate on either of these grounds. He doesn't say there are circumstances in history in which forced expulsions are morally necessary, circumstances in which such expulsions can't be fruitfully understood as "ethnic cleansing"; he simply says, "There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing." And he does not say, these events might have led to ethnic cleansing, but for better or for worse, Ben-Gurion pulled his punches, leaving a large and volatile demographic reserve etc. Rather, he says:

A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.

So much for (1) and (2). IronDuke has a valid point in (3), but I think the article text as now written already handles this: "There is much disagreement as regards how many Palestinians were expelled and how many left of their own will." At this point in the historiography of 1948, I'm not sure there is all that fierce a debate about numbers, but I may be wrong about that. The more salient scholarly dispute at present (as I understand it) is whether and to what extent the ethnic cleansing that did take place was guided by a so-called "master plan." In Morris' revised 2004 version of The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, he notes a shift in his own conclusions on this question: "Over the intervening years, I have concluded that pre-1948 'Transfer' thinking had a greater effect on what happened in 1948 than I had previously allowed for." As another scholar puts it, "In [Morris]'s view, pre-1948 Zionist discussions of 'Transfer' (the forced removal of Arabs) did not necessarily provide the blueprint for expulsions in 1948, but rather offered a policy option that was acted upon in moments of crisis or stress." Pappé and others meanwhile argue that there was indeed an effective blueprint. This dispute is analogous to the Functionalism versus intentionalism dispute in Holocaust studies. In both cases it's not really a debate about what happened but rather how it happened. (Please note that I'm not making a historical comparison but only a historiographical one; that is, I'm not comparing the scale of horror of the Jewish holocaust to that of the Palestinian nakba, I'm just comparing the interpretive disputes that arise within the historical study of each.)

At any rate, the article text can certainly point to the relevant disputes. We could say for example that "there is disagreement regarding what percentage of Palestinian refugees were forcibly expelled, and whether and to what extent their expulsion was centrally planned."--G-Dett (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll add yet another point for you to toss around: an interview with Morris is not the same as a carefully considered and worded work of scholarship. I'd also ask you, as you seem doubtful that there is a debate amount the numbers, what the numbers in fact are? How many left of their own free will, and how many did not? And the question remains, though you've sort of begged it: presentation of the P experience in 48 as EC, on that page, effectively destroys any pretense of neutrality. If the page were "List of things that some people have at some point called Ethnic cleansing," it'd fit in beautifully. But your proposed sentence, as it stands, isn't going to cut it. IronDuke 22:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I saw the mention of free will and had to say something. ID, none of them left of their own freewill. If an army is advancing toward you, and you're hearing stories like Deir Yassin massacre, and as a result grab whatever you can and flee with your family, there's as little free will involved in that decision as there is if you're actually at gunpoint. The test of whether it's ethnic cleansing is whether the refugees were allowed to return, and the vast majority weren't. If your argument is that there's no evidence of an intention to engage in ethnic cleansing, you have to explain why the refugees weren't allowed back. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

By all means, butt away. Can you show me a source that says that "none of them left of their own freewill"? I mean... not all Palestinians left, right? Did they stay of their own freewill? IronDuke 22:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there's a source that explicitly says none of them did, but most of the historians says words to that effect ("flail of war" etc). The point is that it makes no sense to talk of free will in a situation like that. But the larger point, which I hope you'll address, is that they weren't allowed back. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "flail of war" = none of them had a choice. As I say, people of Arab ethnicity make up roughly 20% of the current Israeli population. They (or their parents and grandparents) stayed, flail of war notwithstanding. IronDuke 23:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I'd also add this: "Between December 1947 and March 1948, around 100,000 Palestinians fled. Among them were many from the higher and middle classes from the cities, who left voluntarily, expecting to return when the Arab states took control of the country." That's Morris, emphasis added. IronDuke 23:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

And the other issue -- of them not being allowed to return? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to move on to that if you feel we've settled the first issue. IronDuke 23:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Duke, Slim says up above that "The test of whether it's ethnic cleansing is whether the refugees were allowed to return, and the vast majority weren't," to which you respond by asking "Can you show me a source that says that 'none of them left of their own freewill'?" Benny Morris himself addresses the issue you're both getting at, in the 2004 edition of Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited:

The word 'expelled' (gurshu) was often used loosely by Israelis during 1948. It was quite often assumed by non-participants that a given community of Arabs had been expelled when, in fact, it had evacuated before Israeli forces had arrived. The desire to see the Arabs depart often triggered the assumption that commanders - who presumably shared the same desire - had acted overtly to obtain that result when this was not true. But most of 1948's displaced Arabs were indeed 'expellees' in the sense that almost all were prevented from returning after they had left their villages and towns before or during their conquest. (449)

On another note, you raise a good point about the difference between an interview and an article. This is something to bear in mind especially with regards to Morris, because of the distinction between "citizen Morris" who speaks to the popular press and makes the moral case for Israel, and "historian Morris" who writes his fairly dispassionate books about what happened in 1948, based on the documentary evidence. When summarizing and paraphrasing his work, I think it would usually be best to favor the word "expelled" over "cleansed," because that's the word he generally uses in his books. But it's also clear that he sees these as synonyms, has no objection to "cleansed" and uses it on occasion himself; bear in mind also that it's become a truism among secondary sources that his scholarship established Israeli ethnic cleansing in the war of '48 (to the point where it's stated explicitly by his publisher, Cambridge University Press, right there on the jacket of the book that established his reputation).

In light of this distinction between types of sources, you may be interested to know that the "flail of war" quote you introduced above comes from a letter to the editor of a newspaper.--G-Dett (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that G-Dett, points both well-made and well-taken. I agree with much of what you write, though I don't think, if I'm following your argumetn correctly, that we can use "expel" in the way Israelis are ostensibly using it. IronDuke 17:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

process question

Is a source that has had RS/N end in no recognizable consensus reliable or not reliable? Because I have seen the same argument applied both ways, either there is no consensus the source is reliable so it stays out or that there is no consensus that the source in unreliable so it stays in. nableezy - 03:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You raise a difficult question. Leaving aside how often it is that only a handful weigh in at RS/N, I would focus, perhaps, on just what is at issue, e.g., IronDuke's blog may be an RS for his own views, but not for the views of Nableezy. Can you say more about the issue at hand? IronDuke 22:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ive seen recently people asserting that HRW is not a reliable source (though the last RS/N discussion of that was pretty one-sided in favor of it being a RS) because there is no consensus that it is but MEMRI is not an unreliable source because there is no consensus that it is. I guess my question is are sources presumptively reliable or unreliable, ie is consensus needed to call it reliable or is consensus needed to call it unreliable. nableezy - 01:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think HRW is iffy on Israel -- or at least controversial. IronDuke 01:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thats nice, but it doesnt answer the question. I know we likely wont agree on specific sources, but I think we would agree that this is an instance where a consistent argument should be expected. nableezy - 02:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, you have me there. Yes, we should have consistency here. And how can we enforce this? Consensus. And if there is no consensus on if we need consensus...? IronDuke 02:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you try confuse! nableezy - 02:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

And I succeeded, didn't I? Right now, you're reeling away from your computer, stunned, unable to continue editing. IronDuke 02:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I had to go to my happy place and get re-centered. But where would I go try and establish a consensus on what needs consensus? And, if I may try one more time to get your answer, which do you think is a correct statement:

A source that has no consensus to be called a reliable source cannot be used as a reliable source in an article.

or

A source that has no consensus to be called an unreliable source may be used as a reliable source in an article.

? nableezy - 06:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Dood, I wish I knew the answer. On the one hand, WP runs on consensus. On the other, three editors vote aye, one nay, and victory is declared. A month later, the same question is posed, and the results are reversed. If you can think of a better way, I'm all ears. IronDuke 06:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Marc Garlasco

There is a Sept. 10 DKY nom for the Garlasco article under discussion on DKY.Historicist (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

New Antisemitism

I have explained. thank you for helping.Historicist (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, the first source used to deny that the new anti-Semitism is antisemitism at all is an article by Brian Klug. However, a phrase search on: ("new anti-semitism" site:catalystmagazine.org.uk) comes up empty. This may well be true of other articles cited on the page. The rule the commodore is attempting to impose is , of course, absurd.Historicist (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)