User talk:Malik Shabazz

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Search the Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

[Lehi]

Lehi was a terrorist group. You may revert all you want.. but numerous sources from the time of the time of the King David Hotel bombing still exist. I will revert it. And, if you again revert my edit and sources, I will question your purpose on this website.

Also you removed my edit citing "the talk page" ... Let me remind you, as this site states, that Wikipedia is not a forum. It is not a Democracy. Lehi was a terrorist cell/group and there are many contemporary sources that state that, fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

"The bombing has been discussed in literature about the practice and history of terrorism. It has been called one of the most lethal terrorist attacks of the 20th century."

"The timing was also determined by the original intention that the attack should coincide with another, carried out by the Lehi, on government offices at the David Brothers Building."

"The Irgun and Lehi stepped up their campaign after the bombing, committing a series of attacks."

Go alter history there as well, since you're on a roll.

LEHI was a terrorist group. End of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis (talk • contribs) 02:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All-white jury

Malik, I have waited for IronDome's input, but it looks like he may have lost interest in this issue. I would like to resume my edits to this article, but I don't want to go appear to be breaking my pledge to wait for third party input. Your suggestions? Gulbenk (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gulbenk. If Irondome is too busy or has lost interest, we can ask for a third opinion at WP:3O. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, i'm here gents. Just been a bit diverted with various r/l & WP subjects of late. Ready to contribute. Simon Irondome (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gulbenk, lets start from the top. A brief over-view of your ideas for improvement, and I know we covered aspects of this but maybe a few days out may have further clarified some angles. Major problems in order of priority and proposed edits would be really useful. Lets see if Malik can come back with some viewpoints then and I will add my 2p, and hopefully we can all come out of this with new ideas and an improved article if that is possible, as i'm sure it is. I think we should remember the most important participant who can't comment, the reader. Lets do right by them. Simon Irondome (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irondome thanks again for your willingness to take this on. Give me a day or two to put something together. Gulbenk (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for article improvement. First, the present article is actually two separate articles cobbled together. One is the history of racial discrimination in juror selection in the United States. That article is supported by a significant number of references to legislative action and court decisions. One can construct that stand-alone article in a straight forward linear timeline. The second article purports to demonstrate the racial bias in the deliberations of all-white juries. It references the fact that there is a perception of bias, and then through inference attempts to validate that perception by listing select racially charged (race salience) cases. The references attached to those cases only confirm that the cases are real, not that racial bias by an all-white jury was the specific reason for the verdict. In fact, there is research which supports the argument that all-white juries are less likely to consider race when involved in "race salience" cases. That can be found here: [1]. If there is a article to be made of the subject, it should be separate from the article on racial discrimination in juror selection. An article about bias in all-white and all-black juries would be a great deal more complex than the simple article on discrimination in juror selection. Many of the findings, supported by studies conducted by a number of researchers involved in this field, are counter-intuitive... and in conflict with the unsupported assertions (and inferences) made in the current article. Gulbenk (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malik, do you have time, now, to share your thoughts on this matter? Gulbenk (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still here. Simon. Irondome (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys. Thanks for the reminder. I'll post my thoughts a little later today. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your patience. I think Gulbenk may be onto something with his suggestion that there are actually two articles in All-white jury. There's material that maybe should be moved to the tongue-twisting History of racial discrimination in juror selection in the United States or merged into Jury selection in the United States#Discrimination. I'm not as convinced as he is that the sources concerning the historic cases—both those cited in the article (which I haven't read) and other books and papers that have been written about some of these prominent cases—merely "infer" (his word) that racial bias was the primary reason for the verdict reached. Jury trials can't be replicated for "scientific" analysis of what would happen if one variable—such as the race of the defendant—were changed, but neither can wars or many other historical events, and yet we still take historians at their word when they write that "x was the cause (or a primary cause) of y", so I don't understand why Gulbenk is so dismissive of the idea that a historian can conclude that racial bias on the part of an all-white jury was the reason for its verdict.

On a related note, I just noticed that Racial discrimination in jury selection redirects to All-white jury, which probably isn't appropriate. When we resolve our differences, we ought to consider what the best target for that redirect is. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you colleagues make strong points. I think the initial road to explore is a point reached by all parties, which I agree with also, that there is material for at least another article here for creation. Jury selection in the United States#Discrimination is a potentially good spot. I would suggest yet a third potential article subject, Historiography of Jury selection controvosies in the United States Justice system, which may be a new area to explore a scientific v a historical approach. Need to immerse myself in source material. Initial thoughts here. The third mooted article may be a place to hash out the major concerns, in sandbox perhaps, as a collaborative exercise. Happy to continue with this. Simon. Irondome (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, we trim the current article (to one subject), retitle it, and move our other concerns to a sandbox. Happy to do that, if it is what we all agree on. Gulbenk (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irondome, would you please transpose this discussion to the Talk page of All-white jury, so that we can serve notice to interested parties about the title and content changes contemplated by this discussion? Thanks! Gulbenk (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kielce pogrom - Hlond

It was Arthur Greiser, not Grieser.
As far as I understand the source the Pope had interceded, not Hlond. Xx236 (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Xx236. I assume you're writing about this edit, in which I reverted an IP editor who (without explanation) changed "the pro-Nazi Cardinal August Hlond" to "the anti-Nazi Cardinal August Hlond". My edit summary was "According to the source, Hlond had interceded days earlier with the Polish govt. on behalf of Nazi Arthur Grieser."

I will defer to you (and Wikipedia) on the proper spelling of Greiser's name, but the source (on which I had relied) misspells it Grieser. But you are right that it was the pope, and not Cardinal Hlond, who interceded on Greiser's behalf. I misread the sentence, perhaps because Hlond is mentioned again later in the paragraph.

In any event, the description of Hlond as pro- or anti-Nazi is gone from the Wikipedia article, removed by another editor. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery in the US

Thanks for your recent edit - that one had me really stumped - of course you're right it was vandalism. regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DMorpheus2. I often look at changes on my Watchlist using POPUPS, so I don't always have a good sense of whether an edit is valid or not, and white Southerners were solid Democrats for nearly a century, so I wasn't sure at first whether the edit was vandalism or not. But a closer look at the rest of the sentence showed that it was about 2016, not 1860.

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge

Hello. I've revamped the contest page into this, based on the new British model. Long term goal, but I've added entries since the beginning of July to give it some initial life. Please add anything you've done then this then too! I hope it proves productive long term. The contests are still planned, but will be more tools towards increasing bulk output in overall goal. It's a permanent goal now, and open! I would be grateful if you could keep a record of all your articles you do there, as I really think seeing the combined efforts will encourage others to create more content too! Please spread the word to the others, cheers!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]