Talk:Miriam Shear

Early arguments

How is it that there is a note that the neutrality of this page is disputed, but its talk page was empty?

Regarding the notability claim, I added three more links to newspaper articles (some of which mention this in connection to a case being brought to Israel's Supreme Court).

That some are outright blanking the page makes their intent quite obvious. Italiavivi 00:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Some = one. Please correct that. Further, all of that criticism has been from left-wing sources who grab every single opportunity to attack us. This bus line is 99% chareidi. The fouple of non-chareidi passengers will have to adapt to that. When I am in Tel Aviv, I also cannot force my guidelines of not wanting a woman to sit down next to me on their buses, right? In the same way, they cannot force their guidelines on our buses. There are certain rules, social norms, and these have to be observed.

I witnessed yesterday on line 2 that a man said to a woman who was sitting in the front part of the bus "women are supposed to sit in the back". The woman went WILD. She began launching a whole speech / diatribe, she got totally hysterical. She nearly fainted from anger. A chareidi girl came to try to explain to her that we have certain rules on our buses, but she would not understand it. The girl spoke to the woman for 5 minutes, with no succes. In any case, all that the man had said was "women are supposed to sit in the back of the bus". There had been no violence, no force, he did not even look at her nor move towards her nor stretch out his arm or anything like that. It was merely said as a statement: the women are supposed to sit in the back. Yet, this woman went completely wild...

Having witnessed that, I highly suspect that this was Shear (or a friend of her) again. --GivatShaul 11:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your openly admitting to original research with regard to this article; please cease adding unverifiable anecdote into Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is also not the place for your conspiracy theories concerning other women who are now refusing to move to the back of the bus. Italiavivi 12:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yisrael Asper:

There is no vandalism on my part. Every time I deleted material in an effort to get the objectivity of the piece no longer cast in doubt it failed and so I deleted the article. I also deleted Antisemitic links. To begin with the whole case is under investigation. Comparing her to Rosa Parks is premature when we don't know if Miriam Shear is lying. Also Miriam Shear was listed as born nearer to 1970. Really it was about 1960. Also she had been listed as American. Actually she is Canadian. I changed both to their correct data.

There have never been any "antisemitic" links whatsoever. Your tactics are pathetic. Italiavivi 03:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Your's are the pathetic. You are not the final arbiter here. Yisrael Asper

Why don't you point out the "antisemitic" links in question, hmm? Italiavivi 15:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A website saying Jews are bad isn't Antisemitic? Look at what link/s I singled out for deletion in the history section and you'll know. I'm not going to repost the link/s here. Yisrael Asper

There were no references saying "Jews are bad"; this article has used the same four references all week. If there were "antisemitic" references, why don't you link them here, to discuss on Talk! You won't, because you are lying, please cease your vandalism. Italiavivi 21:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There are no such references because I deleted it long ago. Check out where I had deleted the link in the history section of this article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miriam_Shear&diff=prev&oldid=99886914. I told you that I had deleted it. If you had paid close attention you would have noticed that.Yisrael Asper

There are no links or references removed in the diffs you provide. Please provide the "antisemitic" links you speak of here on Talk, and cease your vandalism. Italiavivi 19:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Check on the External Links part on the page. I am not going to post the link. Further your posting is biased. If someone alters this article other than how you wish you call it vandalism. Yisrael Asper

There are no links removed in the diffs you provide. Cease threatening to blank the page, which is vandalism. Italiavivi 18:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Check the bottom most link. In any event you are using intimidation to remove the information that the bus driver contends there was no violence. Yisrael Asper

Please note that that link is no longer in the article. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) if it's not too much trouble. Dekimasuが... 21:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Please note that that link is no longer in the article." I know I took it out. Yisraelasper

There never were any "antisemitic" links in the article. The diffs you provide do not show you removing any links, either. Cease your page-move vandalism, or you could end up blocked from editing Wikipedia. Italiavivi 03:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't control Wikipedia. What's more there was such a link. That's not the point. Yisraelasper

Please provide the "antisemitic" link in question, or diffs showing your removal of the supposed link, then. If you continue page-move and page blanking vandalism, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This is not my word, this is Wikipedia policy. Italiavivi 04:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not blanking pages. I am doing what your doing. Yisraelasper

Please provide the "antisemitic" link in question, or diffs showing your removal of the supposed link, then. You have engaged in page-blanking and page move vandalism several times. Italiavivi 04:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miriam_Shear&diff=prev&oldid=99886914. Yisraelasper

No link being removed is shown in those diffs. Please drop this made-up story about "antisemitic links" having been in the article. Italiavivi 04:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The bottom most link on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miriam_Shear&diff=prev&oldid=99886914 is no longer linked to. I didn't make anything up. Yisraelasper

POV tag, notability tag

Can someone (I see two people in the edit history) who supports the use of the POV tag explain what issues in the article are still being disputed? I removed the notability tag because it obviously passes the notability guideline: there are several cites of articles in major newspapers about the topic of the article. If you really feel it is not notable, you should probably nominate it for deletion instead. This is not a case in which a notability claim has been left unstated. Dekimasuが... 14:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The case is in dispute. There is no evidence yet that anything beyond a disagreement happened. The bus driver is innocent until proven guilty. You are prejudging the case. yisraelasper

The article doesn't say that the bus driver did anything wrong. It also doesn't say that anyone is guilty of anything. Dekimasuが... 06:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

She contended the bus driver didn't do anything. Further if someone would be caught that one would be in trouble. yisraelasper

The article does not say that she contended the bus driver didn't do anything. Are you saying that the article is biased in favor of the bus driver? I am once again removing the notability tag per my previous comment and leaving the POV tag but asking for clarification. Once again, please use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if you feel this doesn't meet the notability guideline, because it is clear that you don't feel further editing will show notability. Dekimasuが... 07:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The case is notable, reliably sourced, and properly uses the phrase alleged for ongoing legal matters. Removing the tag until you make a real case for inserting it. Dekimasu, you may be willing to try making a "good" Wikipedian of this guy, but his blatant (and repeated) page-move and page blanking vandalism speaks volumes of his intentions. I also see that User:GivatShaul has been flagged as a sock puppet. Italiavivi 14:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miriam Shear

Resolved

Due to these users' lack of familiarity with the AfD process, I am filing one on their behalf. Let's get this out of the way, once and for all. Italiavivi 15:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Dekimasu, you may be willing to try making a "good" Wikipedian of this guy, but his blatant (and repeated) page-move and page blanking vandalism speaks volumes of his intentions. I also see that User:GivatShaul has been flagged as a sock puppet."

Your bias is too much. yisraelasper

I agree, I am very biased against POV-pushing page-move/page-blanking vandals. Italiavivi 22:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Character assassination. You are a POV-pushing person and a vandal according to your definition if applied not according to party line. You didn't allow for any other opinion. If you would have been compromising I wouldn't have tried to see what else can be done about it. Only when cornered did you give in at all.yisraelasper

You also wrote:"(Cited article describes Shear as American Israeli who currently resides in Canada, not Canadian. Get your facts straight.)" I had previously changed it to reflect the fact that she is not Canadian as claimed in the Haaretz headline, but an American Jewish woman. You just switched it to “American Israeli woman” after that. When you insisted on writing that the conflict (implying it was as stated by her) started when blank happened I at least wanted to qualify before that the conflict is not known to have been for sure violent and yet you called it (in an ongoing case) whitewashing. You are if anything the vandal. I was learning rules and trying to see how they apply. You were being biased and unwilling to compromise. I saw that no matter what I did the bias notice and any other notice complaining of your side’s article bias was still up and you had no objection to it being removed by me; the page though you wanted to be kept. I blanked the page when I saw that no matter how I tried to balance the article those notices were still on it complaining about the article. I finally tried to rename the article and put notices when you hijacked the article by refusing to compromise. The article hasn’t despite it’s flaws changed when you began to give in to me more. I compromise. You hadn’t until I forced you to. yisraelasper

Empty posturing. Squirm away from your vandalism and whitewashed POV-pushing however you like. User:GivatShaul has been banned, and your activity on Wikipedia will be watched closely. Italiavivi 21:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we stop arguing about it now? Dekimasuが... 03:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I can. ":Empty posturing. Squirm away from your vandalism and whitewashed POV-pushing however you like... Italiavivi 21:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)"

You didn't address the issues I raised. I was quoting what happened and you ascribe your empty posturing to me. I make the language more neutral and you call it whitewashing. How unbiased and unPOV pushing. yisraelasper

You violated the Wikipedia rules to "Be polite, Assume good faith" and to use "No personal attacks." You are not a representative of Wikipedia. I'm not saying you should be banned but you were violating the spirit of Wikipedia, its very point which is to engage in compromise like what we currently have in the article. I wasn't asking for the article to be deleted until you brought it up for consideration. I’m not sure how long the article can endure with the case receiving zero updates but time will tell. You have allowed your bias to push for a point of view and accused me of doing the same when I was pushing just for neutral language as Wikipedia cannot take sides. I hope in the future you can engage in compromise so edit wars won’t flare up.yisraelasper

No one is required to assume good faith toward a repeat vandal like yourself, nor is warning you on your Talk page a personal attack. Again, your partner here was banned, and your editing will be watched. Italiavivi 04:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Since Italiavivi didn't listen to you Dekimasu I am reposting my reply:"Italiavivi I don't have a partner. Nor do you have the power to threaten and defame. You had been threatened with being banned so I assume you have no authority within Wikipedia. You are required to assume good faith toward me. A warning from you on my Talk page was a personal attack because of how you try to intimidate others. You have a pattern with this and have been warned about this. Instead of addressing my challenges you launch personal attacks. You added back to my Talk page but you omitted some of it to make it better for you. I deleted it all." yisraelasper

There is no reason to continue this line of discussion or escalate the conflict, on either side. Everyone's opinions have been clearly stated. The deletion debate has been resolved, and unless it is nominated again at some point in the future, the article will be here. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. I am marking the topic as resolved. Dekimasuよ! 04:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have left notes at User talk:Yisraelasper and User talk:Italiavivi in relation to continuing personal arguments on the talk page here, which I have been reverting. Dekimasuよ! 07:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject tag

Dekimasu why should an article about a disputed case be a part of the WikiProject Israel? yisraelasper

Maybe you will change your mind if you read the "Goals" section or "NPOV" section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel? The article falls under the scope of the Israel WikiProject due to the location and social dynamic of the event, and if you are interested in the article being based on the facts of the case (I think you are), there are dozens of users there who can help find reliable information to make the page better. Dekimasuよ! 14:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'm not sure how newsworthy this article that perhaps is headed nowhere, because the case so far is just sitting there is, but it's enough of a compromise. yisraelasper

Comparison to African-American Icons

If you read the article (ref 3) you'll see that she isn't being compared to any icons - he is just trying to draw similarities to the story itself, warning that the Israeli society (or parts of it) could become similar to the society of those times, as told in the two stories. I would also question whether one journalist who is trying to create a sensation warrants an encyclopaedic quote that she is being compared to these people. In the end this story isn't that big a sensation - and I wonder if it even requires a whole article to itself?

Nachmore 07:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)