User talk:Ykantor

wikipedia principles

Hi Ykantor,

Thank you for your input in the different talk pages. I come back on a point on which you didn't answer :

contributors are expected to comply with WP:NPoV. It means they are not expected to unbalance the article in bringing information always in the same direction. What you call errors that you identified are also information that all go to the same pro-Israeli direction. Could you please confirm without ambiguity that you read and understand WP:NPoV and that you intend to look for all information by yourself no matter whatever the picture it gives is good or bad for one side or the other ?

a basic rule of WP:NPoV is WP:Due weight. It means that if you enter information, even true, it must not affect the global picture of what is relevant is not. Eg, stating that the ALA had armored vehicules without talking about those of Hagana is wp:undue (It is also false to shift from "antiquated" to "fighting" to talk about ALA vehicules), talking about the "artillery" of the ALA, without specifying the number of 2-inch and 3-inch mortars of the Haganah, is wp:unde, rejecting the idea that Abadallah invaded Israel because of fights is wpu:undue (it is also WP:OR - original reserch and false) if we would not say that the Yishuv invaded (same word) because of the conquest of Acre and Jaffa. (it is also WP:OR). Do you understand what I mean ?

Thank you, Pluto2012 (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ykantor,

Would you mind answering these questions or explaining why your refused to ? Pluto2012 (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

to pluto: I have fully replied in the Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War, at 20 May. If you search for the word "again", you may find it easily. Ykantor (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer this point : "Could you please confirm without ambiguity that you read and understand WP:NPoV and that you intend to look for all information by yourself no matter whatever the picture it gives is good or bad for one side or the other ?"

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

to pluto: I have fully replied in the Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War, at 20 May.

don't you find it funny, that while you are asking other guys to be objective and neutral, you yourself have not obeyed the rules? (by vandalizing deleting a section in spit of Wikipedia rules) Ykantor (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am totally objective and neutral but you refuse to comply with this : "intend to look for all information by yourself no matter whatever the picture it gives is good or bad for one side or the other".

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

to pluto: It is rather funny that you ,the offender, try to show other editors what to write. It seems that it is much easier for you to personally attack people who doesn't agree with you, rather than come up with sources. Whoever reads the talk page, can clearly see that you always blame in general, but do not say what is specifically wrong. You prefer general blames since it is like a smoke screen for your lack of specifics. Unless you provide specifics to base your claims, I do not see why one should waste his time and refer to you anymore. Ykantor (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank so much for bringing this matter to my attention. Thank you also for your valiant efforts to keep good content on that page. That British policy leaned towards the Arab side, especially Jordan during the 1948-49 war, that one of the factors behind the pro-Arab neutrality was anti-Semitism that equated Jews with Communism that was common amongst many British officials of that age, and Bevin himself shared these prejudices are fairly well established facts that would not mean with objections anywhere, but Wikipedia, which often puts a strange gloss on events. I really must confess that I am deeply disappointed by the actions of the others, which seems to be motivated by what can be can best described as a certain ignorance of how historians work, and at worse might be considered to be outright malevolence.

All historians are biased in some way, which Wikipedia’s much vaulted neutrality at least as far as history is bunk. History involves the assessment of facts, such was a particular occurrence a good thing, a bad thing or someone in between, and all historians are influenced by their views when making such assessments. As someone who is familiar with Karsh’s writings, it is correct that say that he is very pro-Israeli (the fact that he is Israeli probably has something to do with that) and that in his account of the Arab-Israeli conflicts, I don’t think there is any doubt about whose side he is on. But I don’t see why that disqualifies him as a source. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a deeply polarizing dispute as you must know, and there simply are no neutral historians writing about it. There are some historians who more neutral than others, but ultimately any historian has to address the question about whatever they think that Israel is a good thing or a bad thing, which is why the historiography relating to Israel is so starkly polarized. Karsh should be only disqualified as a source if can be established that he had engaged in scholarly misconduct of some sort. In fact, Karsh has been accused of such misconduct, especially in regards to his Palestine Betrayed, which has received savage reviews from historians’ sympathetic to the Palestinian side, and positively growing reviews from historians’ friendly towards the Israeli side. I have not read that book, so I am not qualified to pass judgement on these matters, and as far as I can tell, there have been allegations of misconduct, but that these allegations have not been established. Regardless, that has nothing to do with The Palestine War 1948, which Karsh wrote 8 years earlier or the section dealing with British diplomacy in 1948. Unless it has been proven that Karsh in some way distorted the record, which I don’t believe to be the case, the section should go back in. If someone is really concerned about neutrality, then can cite a historian who has a different interpretation of this matter. As I have learned from experience, it is best not to contribute to talk pages when one is angry, so I will post something on the talk page this weekend, when my temper has cooled. Thank so much for efforts to wage the good fight, and please have a wonderful day!--A.S. Brown (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ykantor

Thank you again for all your kind words and excellent work! I might take a stab at editing that page soon, but since I suggested that to address the concerns of the opposition that the works of other historians be brought in, I might want to follow my own advice. I suggested treating like a historiography section with viewpoints of different historians being brought in-a procedure that is awkward in the extreme, but is probably the best compromise. Personally, I'll rather like Karsh, since so much of what he writes is grounded in reality and makes sense, but the problem with trying to defend Karsh, so the historiography is so divided. Through you are right that it is rather odd that there is not much in the way of specific objections to Karsh other than he is Karsh. I could easily bring 100 rave reviews of Karsh, and I could just as easily bring in 100 damning reviews of Karsh. Through I am personally sympathetic towards Karsh, one is going to get bogged into an endless debate about whatever Karsh is a RS or not that will lead no-where. For every positive review I can find, the opposition will be able to bring a negative one. This just going to go no-where, and is going to waste a great deal of time. As I see it, the best solution for resolving the dispute and keeping the good content in, is to have the section say that historians are divided about this topic, and Karsh says this and so-and-so say that. This is not I would had preferred, but at least one cannot say it is not neutral. Sometimes one has to do that with there is no consensus within the historiography, but it is a cumbersome way of doing things. Sometimes, that is not necessary and other viewpoints can be safely ignored because they are dead wrong. For an example, at present the article on the Wehrmacht says that the International Military Tribunal ruled at Nuremberg that the Wehrmacht was not a criminal organization, which in fact what the I.M.T ruled was that the Wehrmacht lacked sufficient homogeneity to be classified as a single organization, which is something rather different. The fact that I.M.T refused to rule on whatever or not the Wehrmacht was a criminal organization because of very technical, legal grounds has been widely abused to make the utterly false claim that Hitler's military was a "untarnished shield" that fought a "clean war", an appalling whitewash that one sees way too much of on Wikipedia. The historians who say that I.M.T. ruled that the Wehrmacht was not a criminal organization are idiots who don't know what they are talking about or are just lying. I wish that there was a sufficient historical consensus in support of Karsh to score a similar knock-out blow, but there is not. So the best thing to do is summarize the viewpoints of different historians. The reader can then decide for himself/herself which of the dueling historians is the more closer to the truth. In a different context, John Milton once wrote: "Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?" Wishing you the best, thank you again for all your good work and please have a wonderful day! --A.S. Brown (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ARBPIA

You have continued to make a number of personal attacks on other editors, and continue to misuse the term vandalism against other editors. That is not acceptable behavior for somebody editing in a topic under discretionary sanctions, and if you continue I will ask administrators to sanction you for doing so. nableezy - 20:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is amazing That you defend the offender, pluto2012, by trying to frighten me. He has proven in a couple of deletions, that the title vandal fits him as described: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. However, I felt pity for him, since with his record he might have been banned from Wikipedia. Ykantor (talk) 07:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it up and I will report it. You are saying that another user is intentionally compromising the integrity of articles, a user who has added more to this encyclopedia on the 48 war than nearly every other editor around. Youve been notified of the case, and if you continue to violate the requirements that it set for editors in this topic area I will report it. nableezy - 14:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, You may report it immediately. Bear in mind that it will possibly expose this editor to an investigation concerning his action which fits: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. don't you see the irony i.e. you may expose your friend to possible investigation, while I feel pity for him because of his poor record. Ykantor (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Ill wait for you to do it again. nableezy - 16:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Synthax

I don't like you and you don't like me but at least you source your work, which is a very good point.

Please, take note of this mistake (unvolunteer) from your side.

When you write :

<ref>[The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951: Arab Nationalism, the United States, and Postwar Imperialism, By William Roger Louis , 12985, p. 407]</ref>

the brackets are useless and the synthax is not the usual one. The right synthax is :

<ref>William Roger Louis, ''The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951: Arab Nationalism, the United States, and Postwar Imperialism'', 1985, p. 407.</ref>

The brackets [ and ] are used to link to a website. For exemple, you could have :

<ref>William Roger Louis, ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=ATQQ0FMS1FQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+British+Empire+in+the+Middle+East&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=K7a4UbiKC8XQOanFgLAI&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20British%20Empire%20in%20the%20Middle%20East&f=false The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951: Arab Nationalism, the United States, and Postwar Imperialism]'', 1985, p. 407.</ref>

Which would appear in wikipedia as follows :

William Roger Louis, The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951: Arab Nationalism, the United States, and Postwar Imperialism, 1985, p. 407.

Your source is excellent. You should add what proves so : Oxford University Press. So the final is :

<ref>William Roger Louis, ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=ATQQ0FMS1FQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+British+Empire+in+the+Middle+East&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=K7a4UbiKC8XQOanFgLAI&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20British%20Empire%20in%20the%20Middle%20East&f=false The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951: Arab Nationalism, the United States, and Postwar Imperialism]'', Oxford University Press, 1985, p. 407.</ref>

that would appear as follows :

William Roger Louis, The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951: Arab Nationalism, the United States, and Postwar Imperialism, Oxford University Press, 1985, p. 407.

Hope this helps.

Pluto2012 (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas the fact that I explained you the synthax of sourcing, you didn't follow my advices : eg here but that is true for your last edits of the day.

It is obvious provociation from your side but it is also a real vandalism

Please take time to correct this.

I inform you that you deleted wp:rs information on other edits that I will revert right now.

Best Regard, Pluto2012 (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you are interested in the British role during 1948 Palestine War

http://www.aish.com/jw/me/Robert-Kennedys-1948-Reports-from-the-Holy-Land.html --Michael Zeev (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. It is very interesting. Ykantor (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ykantor. You have new messages at Smileguy91's talk page.
Message added 02:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

smileguy91^talk 02:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of editing privilege

Adding the same extended text to 7 different articles is really quite outrageous. Zero^talk 14:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I didn't know that it is forbidden. Would you mind to instruct me what is the correct way to re-write it? thanks. Ykantor (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I have found this rule: If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary. Anyway, I will add links, although it is not necessary. Note that the inline text is 19 words long only, and the rest are quotations in the foot notes. Is there more problems with this text duplication? Ykantor (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto

I take back what I said about Pluto being a reasonable editor you can find compromises with. He's completely out of control. I just saw that he removed sourced material over a technicality (the format of the ref) and in another article he claimed consensus without even checking the talk page while saying where a person was born and where they died "is not relevant for the lead" of their biography. I wish I could tell you what to do with this, but I get the impression the admins are not interested in dealing with the situation in the topic area right now, so I guess you're screwed. Sorry. These are bad times for wikipedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto is routinely deleting most of my edits, but I still hope that there will be a Wikipedia solution to this problem. thanks Ykantor (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the citations, you can start with WP:Reference. Notice that not only does it not say that an editor is allowed to remove sourced material because they don't like how the reference is formatted, it quite strongly implies in the lead that experienced editors are expected to fix this sort of thing. Removing properly sourced and relevant material used to be a big no-no in this topic area, but that was in the good old days when the admins still cared. I'm not very optimistic about a "wikipedia solution" at this point, but good luck. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet - BBC World Service

I write usually in 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. I am not sure if it is interesting for you. As an Israeli Sometimes I feel outnumbered, since in Wikipedia everyone can delete anything. There is no use to enter cycles of deletion and un-deletions, so a lot of my contributions are deleted, because of some vague reasons e.g not neutral, undue weight etc. I do not agree , since in my opinions it is well supported, concise and objective. Let us take as en example the deletion of the "british diplomacy in support of the Arabs". I have not written this section but I have checked it carefully and all of it's factual statement are correct. A pro Arab guy (and his friends) has deleted it , while claiming that it is supposedly not neutral. (They did not found any error there). However, even if it is not neutral, it should not have been deleted since a Wikipedia rule is "do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone.". As you can see in the Appendix, I have tried to find a solution by using some Wikipedia mechanisms, and I still hope for a correct solution. BTW people in the Hebrew Wikipedia claim that the English Wikipedia is a lost case for Israel.

Appendix: the previous reporting of the problem.

NPOV Noticeboard

Dispute resolution noticeboard

help desk

Ykantor (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any form of partition plan...

I don't know why you keep adding the same text with the same sources that don't support it. Maybe it is due to English not being your first language? For example the sentence "The Arabs rejected the United Nations Partition Plan so that any comment of theirs did not specifically concern the status of the Arab section of Palestine under partition but rather rejected the scheme in its entirety." means that the Arabs rejected the UNSCOP partition plan altogether and were not just complaining about the details. It doesn't say anything at all about other potential partition plans. The other sources you bring have the same problem. Zero^talk 08:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a matter of logic and not of a language. The used quotes like:

"The League demanded independence for Palestine as a “unitary” state"
"prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine"

is logically leading (in my opinion) to the equivalence rejected any kind of partition.

Anyway, instead of "rejected any form of partition", we may write "The Arabs demanded independence for Palestine as a “unitary” state and rejected an establishment of a Jewish state". Would it be better in your opinion?

Yes, that would be better (not agreeing yet to any particular implementation of this..). Zero^talk 14:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is your opinion concerning this article statement:" but Arabs have always reiterated that it was rejected because it was unfair:"? In my opinion it is a misleading sentence, since the Arab rejected any Jewish state, which means they would not accept even supposedly "fair" partition.

I apologize for my English. I try to write as concise as possible. Ykantor (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no contradiction, since the Arabs of Palestine considered that the excision of part of their country to form a Jewish state would be unfair to them, because they felt that it all rightfully belonged to them. Of course the strength of this feeling of unfairness would have depended on how great the loss would have been, and for that reason they might focus on the part of any plan that seemed to them the worst (such as the loss of the Galilee in the Peel plan). I don't see two different explanations for Arab opposition that we have to choose between. I only see one. Zero^talk 14:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no argument that the Arabs considered it unfair. The problem is that there is no connection between the fairness and between the rejection. The Arabs rejected any size of partition, even if the proposed Jewish state would have been extremely small. The Arabs wanted unitary state only. It seems clear to me, but may be I do not explain it well. Ykantor (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Arabs are not one entity.

Referring to the '48 war there are at least 5 more or less independent groups of Arabs :

the Arab population of Palestine
the Arab Higher Comitee (their representative) ruled by al-Husseini
the opponents to al-Husseini (Nashashibis)
the Arab League
Abdallah of Transjordan

when somebody writes "the Arabs", he should specify which ones.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

quotes:"The Arabs opposed partition and continued to demand independence in all of Palestine, promising to respect the rights of the Jewish minority.[36] The Arabs argued that it violated the rights of the majority ...The Arabs argued that it violated the rights of the majority...". Apparently you do not have any problem with these quotes, although using the term "Arab" as one entity. Anyway, if a majority here would accept your note, I will modify it as well. Ykantor (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes in citations

...are usually not needed. If included, they should be brief. 5KB just for quotations which the user won't see anyway is just a waste of internet bandwidth. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are generally right, but this case is different. Pluto deletes most of my writing, and other users keep challenging me for any slight difference between my writings and the cites, including false accusation that the quotes does not exist. So I have to cover myself with a lot of quotation. If and when the dust will settle down, I will cut most of my quotes. Ykantor (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the aim with the quotations is "to cover yourself" then they don't fulfill their function. They just make it more difficult to see what text you've actually added, as it gets lost in the sea of quotations when using the diff tool. Please don't do that. It just makes everyones job harder. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at a method to move the quotes from the inline text, and avoiding "gets lost in the sea of quotations when using the diff tool". Ykantor (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

to Frederico: Will you please have a look in my sandbox where the quotes are pushed to the section end? please have a look at first at the bottom here. Ykantor (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ykantor,

I had already explained that the quotes are not needed ! You didn't believe me and went to another place where exactly the same was told to you but you kept adding these. This is a WP:POINT.

More, you don't say the truth when you say that I "keep challenging [you] for any slight difference between [your] writings and the cites" even given I asked you to stop with these quotes.

What I have asked you here above is to comply with NPoV and to provide *all pov's* by yourself but you refuse. I also explained you that taking quotes to push one point of view is not the good way but you went on when it is required to give a fair *global* view. You just add quote to justifiy the pov that you want to push.

More, Zero0000 told you that in some cases the quotes you provide do not support the nuance you want to add.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You recycle the same arguments, so I have to repeat my replies.

quotes: Those "explanatory notes" are acceptable practice, to which you have been referred ( link).
"keep challenging [you] for any slight difference between [your] writings and the cites"- if you wish, I will attach some relevant links.
"to comply with NPoV"- I try to provide an objective opinion, which is based on RS. In those cases you mentioned (e.g. "Any form of partition plan was rejected by leaders of the Arab community"), I do not know about any other well supported views. ( which means avoiding Pape, Shleim or Karsh etc. interpretations ). If you are aware of such an opinion, you may add it to the article.
"Zero0000 told you that in some cases the quotes you provide do not support "- well ,there is an argument here. BTW For this specific case, you yourself accepted that the Arabs rejected any form of partition. Ykantor (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting sections of the sources you've used is no bad thing (for one thing, it makes the job of other editors easier), but if the quotes are for the benefit of editors rather than readers, it would be better to insert them on talkpages rather than the articles themselves. Perhaps a way to go is to include comments pointing to the talkpage along with citations (say, something like ). An advantage of putting them on the talkpage is that they shouldn't be deleted. ← ZScarpia 16:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is an interesting proposal. it might be a good idea to insert the quotes at both places; the article and the talk page. BTW a talkpage section is not usually deleted (unless Pluto is close by) but it is archived after a while.

Will you please have a look in my sandbox where the quotes are pushed to the section end, and compare it to the original section where the quotes stay in line. ?

I will start with the sandbox alternative disadvantage: at the section last sentence, there is an accumulation of qt marks (e.g.: ...the other Arab states.[qt 1][qt 2][qt 3][qt 4]) which belongs to previous sentences, and not to the last one. However,the readability of the DIFF end EDIT pages is significantly improved , while retaining the the capability of hovering around the quote mark and watching the quote window pop up, so it is easy to read without leaving the section. What's your opinion? Ykantor (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was because of talkpage archiving that I suggested putting the date of talkpage content in comments placed in the article which point to the talkpage. Giving the date gives editors an idea of where to search should archiving be carried out.

I've bookmarked your sandbox and will try to comment on its content in reply to the last message you addressed to me on the 1948 War article's talkpage.

19:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)