User talk:Eleland

Middle East Textbooks Invitation

WikiProject Middle East Textbooks is looking for editors to create, expand, and maintain complete, accurate, and neutral articles on school textbooks used throughout the Middle East, with a focus on textbook controversies and textbook analyses. You can start by simply adding your name to the list of members at WikiProject Middle East Textbooks.

Yamashita's gold

You said:

I can't believe Wikipedia is still suffering through this nonsense. It's fine to discuss the Seagraves's elaboration of this tall tale, and their silly books, but we owe it to the readers to keep some distance. Enough of this "many credible historians have argued well-documented" weasel worded crap. If the Seagraves claim something, say "the Seagraves claim X" and put it in a section called "According to the Seagraves," stop with the puffery and WP:FRINGE theory pushing. <eleland/talkedits> 18:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The long and favourable review of the Seagraves' book by Chalmers Johnson, a well-known historian and former CIA consultant, in the London Review of Books is a credible source that is also used in the article. Johnson also draws on books by other people. His article can be found here: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n22/john04_.html

I don't think the claims of "nonsense", "tall tales", "silly books", "weasel words" or "fringe theories" can be justified in this instance. Grant | Talk 08:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

note on edits.

eleland, i always enjoy your comments, and find you very insightful. I would like to humbly ask that you not continue the discussion of jewish genes. there is no basis for making any conclusions from such data about the relevance or validity of the jewish people or any other group, even if findings might appear to be in any way conclusive. if the world accepts the jewish people, or any other religious, cultural, social, political, or ethnic group, then all we can do as an encyclopedia is accept and report that basic fact. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

your last comment was really great. I hope you'll think of restoring at least part of it. Of course, it's completely up to you. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. i just responded to you, at Talk:Palestinian right of return. look forward to further discussion. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 03:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Mohamed ahmed dirir hewalbin: No assertion of notability?

• See User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard#Mohamed ahmed dirir hewalbin: No assertion of notability?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Rolling Stone

The "Rolling Stone" magazine of 7/2/1970 notes that there was "an unmistakeable orange flash at the end of his pistol". This refers to Hunter's pistol. The writer notes that the orange flash appeared "before" Hunter was stabbed.

Angels

Barger and the Hells Angels generally say that Hunter fired his gun. Presumably, they do not count as a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't go telling me about it. Instead edit the article to say that, and be sure to add the text

<ref>Lastname, Firstname. 'Name of media report.' ''Rolling Stone'' 7 Feb 1970</ref>

so we know where you got it. The Hells Angel's claim can also be mentioned and attributed. <eleland/talkedits> 09:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Also please make your comments in one piece, its impossible to reply when i keep getting edit conflicts. Signing would be nice, too (put ~~~~ at the end, you get the ~ from shift+key @ top left of kbd) <eleland/talkedits> 09:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The article in the "Rolling Stone" of 1970 is already mentioned in the External Links in the article on Hunter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please start signing your comments, and please read and cite your sources properly. It actually says,

In one frame, just before [Hunter] is jumped, there is an unmistakable orange flash at the end of the pistol, Bibb adds. It lasts only for this one frame. Bibb is not saying this is a gunshot, and he's not saying it's not. It might be, say, a reflection off someone's watch or glasses. "The Angels say there was a shot fired," says Bibb. "I can't tell you. It's impossible, really, to tell what it is. None of us heard a shot."

So Rolling Stone reported that somebody said there was a flash, but that he couldn't tell whether it was a gunshot, and you want to use that as proof of a gunshot as reported by Rolling Stone? Uhm, no. <eleland/talkedits> 09:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The orange flash is visible to any one looking at the "frame", not to one man only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring as combative language

Eleland, hi. I'm not entirely sure, but when you describe the AoIA reverts as "edit warring" you are maybe too quickly making an accusation. If WP:BRD applies, then after their initial revert you should then move to discussion and not revert back. Right? Anyway, couldn't you use another phrase or omit that, and just go to your well-sourced substantive discussion? And thanks for noting and follwing 1RR, kudos to you. HG | Talk 15:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

1948 Palestine War

Hi Eleland,
You suggested that summaries of other articles be written in this one. For their size, you suggested 2-3 paragraph.
I agreed but I am embarrassed... I had already written a "summary" of the first of the article about the dec47-May48 period and it is more longer. Do you think this could be even more summarized in keeping NPov ?
Thank you for your comments :-) Ceedjee (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Read and heed — Rlevse • Talk • 21:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User: "Abuse truth"

Hi,

I have just noticed something odd that I'd like to share with you: this.

In the edit summary of the Revision as of 22:00, 10 February 2008 of talk:Satanic ritual abuse, you can see that it was an entry by Abuse truth in the section "Professional, peer-reviewed evidence". However, the comment was signed thus: Biaothanatoi (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Curious, isn’t it? Seems he cut and pasted an old signature. Note that the timing: 22:00, 10 February 2008 greatly differs from 06:25 of December 2007)!

And it's also curious that Biao just showed up after a vacation in the moment when all of us are voting :)

—Cesar Tort 06:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, he did list this under the header "a comment from a previous editor on this talk page." Still, I agree that the timing of Biao's return is very suspicious. Both seem to be SPAs devoted to pushing conspiracy theories about ritual abuse, recovered memory, and other pseudoscientific topics. There was another SPA, User:West world, who was involved in the same kind of thing, but (thankfully) is dormant. I think there's a possibility of either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. *** Crotalus *** 06:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• • It is not terribly suspicious, the original comment can be found at Talk:Satanic ritual abuse/Archive 4#POV tag badly needed —mediation also needed! and AT simply copied it. I doubt they're actually the same person. Abuse Truth tends to plead and is not terribly literate. Biao is abusive and denigrating (in the guise of condemning everyone else as abusive and denigrating) but literate. <eleland/talkedits> 08:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right guys: I didn’t pay due attention to AT’s heading before the quotation!

Changing subjects, we don’t need consensus to create Ritualized child abuse. I have been recently involved in a lengthy discussion in talk:Psychohistorical views on infanticide and some people more knowledgeable of WP policies than me believe that the subject lacks notability to merit an article of its own.

I could just move Psychohistorical views on infanticide to Ritualized child abuse: a subject that nobody would dispute that it’s not notable enough. Of course, Lloyd deMause’s theories could be maintained in a section within the article far from the lead called, for example, “Psychological explanations” of ritualized child abuse (just as the infanticide article has such section).

However if I move the page I would need a good lead and also some content totally unrelated to deMause’s theories to justify the moving (I could fix by myself the many articles’ redirects though).

Once Ritualized child abuse is created as a legitimate WP article, there would be no reason to impede us the moving of the legitimate cases of child ritual abuse to the moved article. We can even do it before the SRA page is unlocked. This strategy would comply with WP’s due weight policy by vindicating the majority view in history and sociology that the subjects are distinct (RCA is about actual forensic evidence, while SRA is about a 1980s and 90’s moral panic more analogous with witch-hunts than with ritual crime).

I’ll leave this message in Crot’s talk page as well.

—Cesar Tort 20:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• P.S.

I'm having second thoughts. Instead of messing up with the controversial Psychohistorical views on infanticide, I am willing to start from scratch Ritualized child abuse tonight. Nothing in WP policies impedes me from doing it, right?

—Cesar Tort 23:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• P.P.S.

Done! —Cesar Tort 11:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Eleland,

I must concur with other editors that AT's reverting without consensus has gone on long enough. Like you I want an arbitration case and want these sort of pov pushers banned from Wikipedia. But Rubin is not sure about which specific step we might to take on this sort of behavior.

When the SRA page is unlocked, guys like AT will make that the page gets locked immediately afterwards.

Presently, it's easier to handle Biao. It has become increasingly obvious that he is sitting on a mountain of un-RS for his PhD (just the strategy used by fringe conspiracy theorists Noblitt and Perskin in their "scholarly" book). It's easy to beat Biao with the WP policy that extraordinary claims require extraordinary (ie, peer-reviewed journals) sources.

But AT keeps on reverting in so many articles that an action must be taken if the SRA page is going to finally settle down.

What would you recommend?

—Cesar Tort 06:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Aamer Alfar.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Aamer Alfar.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Aamer Alfar.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Aamer Alfar.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez Your name was the last on the page so I am hoping you can assist me. Please fix the following things on the article if you can.

Citation There is a request for a citation under Early Life, the sentence can be sourced to The Observer, May 7th 2006, The new kid in the barrio. I do not seem to be able to put this in the article, or know how. Please include if possible. There is a link I found on the internet to the article http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2006/may/07/featuresreview.review

Delete Can someone also delete the last thing added to the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez&diff=190976084&oldid=190271538 —Preceding unsigned comment added by N4GMiraflores (talk • contribs) 20:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Israeli Occupation Forces

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Israeli Occupation Forces, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You've been blocked for 48 hours for this edit, which I find violates both standard wiki civility policy and arbcom rulings on Mideast articles. Referring to someone's edits as "idiocy" and "garbage" is not the best way to handle things. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So it's fine to misrepresent your sources, but calling someone on it is block-worthy. Lovely. <eleland/talkedits> 16:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Eleland, it depends on how you call someone on it. You can use {{unblock}} to appeal the block, but please remember that being civil is just as strong a policy on wikipedia as is verifiability. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|Okay, I've given myself a few hours now to cool off, and yes, referring to anothers' edits as "idiocy" and "garbage" is inexcusable. I apologize for the insulting language. Something like "difficult to understand" and "seemingly at wide variance with the cited sources" would have got the job done better and without acrimony.

My uncivil comments stemmed from a recent flare-up in a series of long-term disputes that I and multiple other editors, from varying POVs, have with User:Jaakobou. I believe, and I am prepared, given a little time, to show that he is a seriously, serially, tendentious editor. Much of it was already covered at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. However, article talk was the wrong place to bring this up, and insulting language is not appropriate anywhere. I will not again allow this conflict to spill over into article talk pages, which are about collaborating to improve articles, not attack one another. I will also pledge not to edit Palestinian right of return or the corresponding talk page for seven days starting today. I will refrain from any direct communication with Jaakobou for the same period. <eleland/talkedits> 00:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)}}

Hi Eleland. Just saw your pout (or frown) at WP:IPCOLL/BATTLE, actually made me smile wryly (?) to see you add your name yourself, and I wanted to encourage you to move forward (albeit with less invective ink spilled). Regards, HG | Talk 17:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

guidelines for the naming of articles

Like too many other editors who have contributed to the current renaming debate at 9/11 conspiracy theories, you claimed that what "reliable sources" call something is a consideration in choosing names for articles, despite the fact that it had already been pointed out that this was not the case. Please do not misrepresent wikipedia policy and guidelines in this way because it causes a lot of confusion. ireneshusband (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

MIlitary history WikiProject coordinator election

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Note about imagination and communal editing.

I thought I'd remind you of this old diff to illustrate a point (and the problem):

• "rv; please stick to scholarly understanding of zionist movement, rather than imaginative" - Eleland, 12:23, 6 February 2008.

Information of the centuries-old dreams of the "Return to Zion" can be found (for example) here and here.

Despite continuous defense of a certain very bad editor, I've seen you work for the good of the encyclopedia. However, it's impossible to edit in an environment when your (my) edits are immediately questioned as "imaginative".

Don't take offense from the wiki-link, but avoidance of biting applies also to established editors, who know what they are writing about, and not only new comers.

I certainly hope we'll be able to communally edit in the future without anger and attitude. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Your edit said "A swelling in European anti-Semitism became catalyst to the resurgence of Zionism, a Jewish national movement," and your edit summary explained that the change was because "zionism existed before the 19th century[.]"

The (totally non-reliable) sources you're now giving to try and prove this point say:

Zionism was self-consciously the Jewish analogue of Italian and German national liberation movements of the nineteenth century. The term "Zionism" was apparently coined in 1891 [...] The Zionist movement was founded by Theodor Herzl in 1897[.]

[Mizrahi] Jews were unaware of Theodor Herzl's political Zionism or of European pogroms. They were motivated by the centuries-­old dream of the "Return to Zion" [...] In 1897, Jewish leaders formally organized the Zionist movement[.]

So, yet again (this is about the fiftieth time I've found you doing this) you're citing sources that you obviously haven't read or haven't understood in the slightest.

On a more general point, I wish you would acknowledge that all nations and nationalist movements pick and choose certain aspects of history, exaggerating some, downplaying others, and sometimes making them up altogether, in order to construct a national mythology or narrative. Just because you can find some website which claims that Zionism was the eternal dream of the Jews from 135 to 1948 doesn't mean it's a credible claim. It's incredibly frustrating to fight you all the time over such trivially obvious points. <eleland/talkedits> 14:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read the sources and read historical notes and examples that support both these two well regarded sources and also my text. I don't consider your version on Zionism well found or supported by sources but if you insist on declaring something of the feel that "everybody lies and my version is the absolute truth... can't you see it's trivially obvious" then our "imagination" discussion is over.

I still hope we'll be able to communally edit in the future without anger and attitude. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

p.s.

• [1] - They were motivated by the centuries­old dream of the "Return to Zion"
• [2] - The term "Zionism" was apparently coined in 1891 by the Austrian publicist Nathan Birnbaum, to describe the new ideology, but it was used retroactively to describe earlier efforts and ideas to return the Jews to their homeland

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)