Talk:John Ging

Laois Senior Hurling Championship

Anyone stumbles across this, would love to figure out of John Ging is the same as the "John Joe Ging" listed at Laois Senior Hurling Championship —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs)

• Haven't see any sources saying that. Ging has been getting coverage in the Irish papers as of late and it would be something I would have thought that they would have picked up on. But the dates are wrong in any case. He would have been 16 or so in 1981 and the team mentioned in the Laois Senior Hurling Championship would be an adult team, so people on that would been at least over 18 - over 21 in normal practice. And Ging is a not-uncommon name in Laois That said, hurling is one of the few sports that being a senior player and having a career outside the sport aren't actually mutually exclusive. :) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, i thought he was too young. Even if he was a real prodigy, he wouldn't have been a captain at 17 or whatever.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Latest edits

Are rife with problems related to various core polices. One the blog source with ging saying unwra shouldn't exist... i doubt that's the full context. After all, he's working for this organization. I suspect we'll find "it shouldn't exist, but is needed because of blah blah blah." After all, he's devoted much of his life to the organization. There also aren't quotes around ging saying that on the blog used. As for the attempts by "palestinian extremists." Well, no one knows. That's possible -- or it could be a kidnap for ransom attempt by the doghmush clan, or, well, who knows? The sources don't. We need to report the facts as best as their known.

Finally, the edit deals with stuff that isn't about ging (the stuff about the attack on the summer camp comes to mind). The restored edit also didn't fix the language problems and formatting issues, though that's small beer against the other issues.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all I think people on wiki are too fast to delete something instead of trying to fix it. You have started the page and are obviously interested in the subject, so you could have taken the material I've laboriously collected from the web and rewrite or reorganize it instead of just undoing my efforts. You've claimed two different things when you've revised my editions. First, you've wrote "not enough hours in the day to fix the language in these edits". I'm the last to claim that my writing is perfect - it's not. Nevertheless it's understandable and although I make grammar mistakes, the linguistic register is quite fine. You should not delete an article because the language is mediocre - you fix it or put an appropriate template.

As for the second deletion you've now moved to the content. Again, it would have been much more courteous to fix every problem you find or post something in the discussion page before deleting everything. Nevertheless I'll try to approach every claim you've argued. You've said my edits are POV. I've really tried to write as neutral as possible (the only article I've really pushed my POV was about javelins). I've recently find a liking to write about controversial issues (out of my field of expertise, but it's a guilty pleasure). While doing so, I really try to be fair and be as close as possible to the sources. You gave the example of my use of "Palestinian extremists". The sources gave various suggestion for the identity of the attackers - al-Qaida (PA), Hamas (Haaretz) or a general "extremist Islamist groups" (Guardian). Since they don't mean Afghani or Egyptian al-Qaida but the Palestinian branch, and the same goes for "extremist Islamist groups", and of course for Hamas, I chose to merge all the suspects into an anonymous and yet neutral "Palestinian extremists". All groups suspected, are Palestinian and extremist is a neutral phrase. If you have a better term, go a head and suggest it. You've said it could also be the "doghmush clan". I don't know who they are (but I'll), but it's not relevant. No source indicated it is this clan. Your claim is original research. You've said that "we need to report the facts as best as their known" - that is exactly what I've done, and the doghmush clan theory is not a known fact.

Furthermore, you argue that "the edit deals with stuff that isn't about ging (the stuff about the attack on the summer camp comes to mind)". Both the summer games and the recreation facility are mentioned in the sources, e.g. "Earlier this year, arsonists attacked a site at which UNRWA was hosting summer games for Gazan children, leaving behind three bullets as a warning to Ging" (Guardian) - see also UNISPAL. They found it relevant and I found no reason to delete it.

You've also said I've used a bad source, i.e. the blog of Adi Schwartz. You didn't do your homework. In his blog, Schwartz, who is an Israeli journalist, published an unabridged version of an interview which was published in an Israeli newspaper. The source is not a bad one - it is an excellent one. This is not an editorial, it is an interview with the subject of the article. Schwartz says as follows "I had two long face-to-face meetings with Ging in the last month. After them, and in between, we continued emailing each other with additional questions and answers". Furthermore, I've just found an abridged version of the article in the Jewish Chronicle (http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/analysis/41856/even-head-unrwa-admits-it-should-not-exist) - it is legit

Finally, you've attacked the UNRWA's existence section. You've said "One the blog source with ging saying unwra shouldn't exist... i doubt that's the full context. After all, he's working for this organization. I suspect we'll find 'it shouldn't exist, but is needed because of blah blah blah.' After all, he's devoted much of his life to the organization. There also aren't quotes around ging saying that on the blog used". Ging said it in the article. I know that he works in the organization - that what makes it interesting. The journalist find it interesting and in the JC the headline is "Even the head of UNRWA admits it should not exist". Again, I've just wrote what I've read in the sources and I've used it in the exact context it was written in the article. You're doubts about this saying are irrelevant - unless you find something to refute this quote it should stay. Your can state your doubts on the discussion page - but you can't delete the article because you don't believe the sources. If the sources are legit and if no other source refute them, than it is appropriate for wikipedia. Your deletion, based on your doubts is actually original research which is not allowed.

I don't want to get into editorial war with you. I have very little time to write in wikipedia, and I prefer using it for writing and not for editorial forums. Furthermore, I find most editorial wars to be petty and childish. Hence, I don't want to undo your revision. I ask you to undo it yourself. After you revise your revisement I'll promise to continue and improve the article. I know it will add more drafts to the history, but although writing drafts in user page is advised it is not obligatory. Since you're interested in this subject I'd like to collaborate with you in improving the article. Nik Sage (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The free tabloid that fellow works for isn't exactly reliable, and I don't trust the completely out of context comment UNRWA "shouldn't exist." The next logical question a competenet reporter would ask is. "Why is that so, John?" Without that context, it's not really a view so much as a disembodied utterance. The fact that the same summary in the link you've just provided from the JC puts it this way "Commendably, Mr Ging admitted that UNRWA "shouldn't exist after so many years"," demonstrates that this isn't an unbiased interviewer. "Commendably?" "Admits?" What nonesenese. Knowing a bit about Ging's background, he thinks it shouldn't exist because he wishes there wasn't so much of a poverty problem there, or no refugee problem anymore, something on those lines. Statement's from Ging like this [1] shows he thinks UNWRA is doing vital work. Really, the interview from Schwartz comes off like out of context propaganda. Where's the context? As to stuff about the summer camp et al, how is that about Ging? (Hint: It's not). What wikipedia biographical articles don't need is fragments of out of context utterances. I could pull dozens from him praising unwra, it's mission, critiques of Israel, the pain of what he calls the "occupation" etc... None of that would make much sense either. A wikipedia article like this should be just the facts about the fellow, an overview of what he does, and not become yet another coatrack in the endless I/P wars. As for the attack/s on Ging. No one knows who did it -- so let's not make like someone did (beyond it obviously being "palestinians" given the location; maybe kidnap, maybe jihadis, no one has the answer as of yet).Bali ultimate (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, all of your comments are irrelevant and reflect original research which is not allowed in wikipedia. Original research is considered among others to be: "any analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by the sources" Wikipedia:No_original_research. All or your explainations and interpretation are of this nature, and thus are invalid. Regarding Israel HaYom as not exactly reliable, as you described it, is definately your prerogative, but it is a legitimate source for wikipedia (of the same nature as the Guradian or the Daily Mail). About Ging's comment I think you misread the source. Mr. Ging's said the quote while responding to the interviewer statement about UNRWA uniqueness (read the article again). In addition to that, it is not our job to censor the sources because again it is considered original research. If you would like to add any comment that refute this statement you are more than welcome. As for the identity of the attackers, there are speculations in the sources (al-Qaida, Hamas, etc.). It is not for you to to cancel these speculations, just becasue no one has any definite answer. It seem to me that you are very knowledgeable in UNRWA and the PA (much more than me), but it also seem to me that you are trying to push your POV in an unaccceptable manner. I ask you again to revert your revision so I could continue and Improve the article. I'm always willing to hear criticism and suggestions. Nik Sage (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course i'm not going to revert. You were degrading the article, to the point of refusing to fix your grammar mistakes (leaving aside the more contentious issue of the appropriatness of the edit.) Adi Schwartz doesn't stand up to much scrutiny as a source in this instance. As for "speculation", it's just that, at best would be worth a sentence like "various sources speculated the attack was variously hamas, or Al Qaeda, or the Doghmush clan, or xyz, but the crime has not been solved." With a stack of refs at the end of it. Anything beyond that is completely undue weight for a biography of Ging. As for you, why would you create a section in an article on Ging about his "views" consisting of any out of context sentence fragment to the extent that he says his organization "should not exist?" Inquiring minds want to know.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Bali, I don't think you read what I wrote. I said time and time again that I'M STILL WORKING ON THE ARTICLE. I have little time, and I'm writing bits and pieces about the subjects I'm interested in. Of course I intended to fix the grammar mistakes (where did I say I refuse to do so?). Furthermore I intend to expand the article and improve its content, but you were inpatient and reverted my edits twice without giving me time to do so. Since I'm relactunt to go into editing wars which I find idiotic, I tried to convince you to revise your revisement so I can continue and fix the article following you remarks (read my comments again). For example, your suggestion regarding the attack, i.e. "various sources speculated the attack..." (with a stack of refs) is a good idea and I'm going to use it, but without the Doghmush clan you insist on pushing, since I found no indication for its involvement (but I'll add it if you found a reference connecting the clan). Your revision violates wikipedia policies. I've already pointed out to you that your suggestions include original research which is not allowed. You've also breached the verifiability priniple. By not willing to include Schwartz' articles you've forgot that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true" Wikipedia:Verifiability. You've also pushed your POV with unaccepted measures. I don't mind if you have a specific bias, it is irrelevant - as is mine. The important thing is to keep a NPOV. If you forgot, editing from a neutral point of view means "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. That's exactly what I've done - I've published significant viewes from reliable sources - even if you don't like the viewes or the sources (see the verifiability clause again). I don't think you violated these priniciples in purpose, you started the article and you probably have a connection to it (I have the same for Javelin which I've started and I'll probably never finish). You judged my work when it was only half baked. I've intended to add every materia I would have found about Ging and the assassination attempts and his quote just seemed to me as the most interesting (that's why I wrote them first). I definately wanted to add Ging's remarks during the attack on Gaza, but again you didn't give me a chance. Believe me that I have no intent to "degrade" the article, on the contrary I want to improve it. Thus, I ask you again to undo your revision and give me a couple of days to write the article. If you won't like what I write you are more than welcome to fix my mistakes or my grammar or to add more data. Lets write a good article about this block TOGETHER, he is definately an interesting figure who deserves a good and detailed article. Nik Sage (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(finally found the time to read about the Doghmush clan - I understand why you suspect their involvement) Nik Sage (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I did read what you wrote, i just don't care about your entreaties that you're "still working on the article." Crap is crap, and shouldn't persist. My suggestion is try to come up with bite sized edits, like a paragraph, and bring them here for discussion once your confident they're good enough, so we can discuss. You don't seem to have a firm handle on policy or how to construct these kinds of articles. You write "I've intended to add every materia I would have found about Ging and the assassination attempts..." That's a horrible intent for an encyclopedia article, or for someone seeking to edit one. "Everything?" God no. Just the non-speculative, directly relevant stuff that makes sense (and in summary form) that might be somewhat enlightening about "Ging" which is what this article is about, not a coatrack for, well, dozens of other things. Oh yeah. I have zero connection to Ging, or the UN, or any of that shit, though these kinds of accusations are par for the course from mediocre editors who don't get their way. I just looked at your other edits -- that Adi Schwarz article is godawful; doesn't even pass the GNG, and beyond that it's a bloated piece of crap. Preventing this article form degenerating (on an actual notable person) in similar way is what i'm holding the line against.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Bali, in my previous response I think I haven't just entreated you to keep your patience, but I've also amply demonstrated that you are violating wikipedia's three core content policies. Furthermore you don't adhere to Wikipedia:Civility code of conduct as your comments are rude, disrespectful and your general behaviour is very agressive. I agree to your proposition to expand the article bits and pieces but you have to keep a civil discussion. I'm really not an expert in wikipedia protocol, as I don't know for example what GNG means, but I ask you to read Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Verifiability again if we are going to edit together. Now for your other comments, a wikipedia source is not "non-speculative, directly relevant stuff that makes sense", since the "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. That is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." I'm quoting it again since it seems that you don't concur to this policy. Articles in newspapers can be speculative, but you can use them while writing an article (you can add that the content is speculation). You can't ignore them just because you think the journalist has an agenda. Where did I say that you have a connection to Ging or the UN? What do I care if you do have a connection? (actually it could have quite helpful if you did). Again, this comment was irrelevant (which you've used to yet another unnecessary ad hominem attack). I'll appreciate content or style remarks in Adi Schwartz to make it less awful to your taste (and again I don't know what GNG means). As it seems that the assassination attempt is less controversial in your opinion I'll start in re-writing it and afterwards we'll move to other subjects. Since I believe that both of us see writing articles as their main activity in wikipedia, there is much more sense in cooperating than fighting each other. Hoping to have a better discussion from now on. Nik Sage (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Assassinations attempt-second version

Hi Bali, I've written a second version for the initial segment of the assassination attempts. Please comment on that section (even if it is just to say it's acceptable in your opinion). Nik Sage (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Ging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141108001434/http://www.unocha.org/about-us/senior-management/john-ging to http://www.unocha.org/about-us/senior-management/john-ging

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)