User:HG1/archive2007 4

Psychiatric Abuse

Hi, thanks for the talk page message.

I agree that psychiatric abuse is somewhat vague, but I think we should be able to work with it. Of course, different advocacy groups have different standards for psychiatric abuse. I think the examples described in the current version are fairly unambiguous instances, and I think there's room for expansion without entering the gray area. I also think the other material in the article is valuable, particularly the discussion of standard discrepancies and the "Notable reformers" section. Though parts of it need work (like the source-deficient Mexican reform section), I'm still convinced it's worth keeping.

What do you think of DGGs (tentative) suggestion to divide the article into more narrow topic areas? Perhaps instead of forking to several articles, we could just have several sections ("Notable instances of psychiatric political abuse/controversy", "Notable instances of psychiatric experimentation upon humans", etc.) in one parent article. If appropriate, we could change the title to something slightly more general. Just an idea to think about.

Apologies in advance if my communication is unsatisfactory these coming days; very busy time for me. Should ease up somewhat in a week or so.

— xDanielx ^T/_C 01:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Scientology view is rather radical. I guess we have two options besides deletion: make the article strictly about psychiatric malpractice from a mainstream perspective (covering exceptional cases which are either highly contentious or just generally accepted as wrong), or we can cover Scientology-based advocacies as well but qualify them carefully so as to make it clear that those views are not mainstream (I think section headings can help differentiate non-mainstream views, to prevent an undesired implicit validation of the views from the page title). The former option might warrant a name change to something like Psychiatric malpractice. I think the status quo article is in between (which I think is okay) -- the article discusses non-mainstream views in the introductory section, but I think the example and analysis are mostly exclusive of the Scientology view, at least in the current revision. (The Electroconvulsive therapy stub-section might be an exception; I don't know enough to say.) What do you think?

About internal references -- I think WP:RS touches on this point when it says "Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources.". So I guess the answer is no, though I think/hope other editors may be a little more stringent with sources if they know that your claims are well-substantiated on neighboring articles. I would just make use of any sources from the original article that you can. Hope that helps, — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Psychiatric abuse and references on Wikipedia

I feel strongly the absurdity of a group of editors pummelling another editor who is agreeing with their overall stance that the article is problematic and should be deleted. However, I have changed my mind and vote now to keep the article, and will rewrite the entire thing myself if I have to. The absurd lengths of the "psychiatrists as gods" camp is simply astonishing. I never knew there was such a movement around. I cannot argue against feelings of this nature, or against feelings of any nature. I simply have nothing more to say, as nothing I am saying is making any impact--that articles should be referenced appears, for example, to be a major sticking point with you. We're not even in ballparks on the same planet right now. There's no point in continuing this discussion on the article's talk page or anywhere. KP Botany 02:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Jenin

Dear HG. I haven't a position on the question of that title. I do remark that there are very few, if any, long edit battles on talk pages dealing with evident massacres of Jews in the histories of Israel/Palestine, but whenever there is a discussion of a large number of Palestinian dead, intense edit wars are conducted disputing the word massacre, particularly by Jaakobou, who religiously intervenes wherever there is an innuendo that 'purity of arms' is questioned. That observation troubles me. Regards Nishidani 07:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello HG,

As you caught me in the middle of editing, I'll leave the comments I wrote for Talk here: I don't have see any major content problems with your edits, however I think that while your "introduction" language makes for a smoother read, it is generally a bad idea to stray from strictly factual citation-laden paragraphs, no matter how dense the prose, especially in an area as controversial as this. I also slightly restructured in order to keep the casualty summary paragraph together with the list of casualty counts, and altered language implying that that there were more than 60 Palestinian casualties, which no RS reported AFAIK. Do let me know what you think. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 02:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the message, but that is a user with whom I've unfortunately never been able to have a productive exchange, my every attempt at conversation only generating gross incivility; even at times were there was no conversation I found strings of unprovoked attacks on myself posted by him around WP. Perhaps you will have better luck... Tewfik^Talk 22:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Text of deleted article and talk page

I've added the text to User talk:HG/workshop/Abuses of psychiatry and User talk:HG/workshop/Abuses of psychiatry/Talk respectively, as requested. -- ChrisO 19:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The text from this deleted article should not be cut and pasted to other articles because of GFDL requirements. For details, see WP:MERGE. The pasting to date will either need to be undone, or fixed by an admin (see: Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves for related info). The easiest way to put Humpty Dumpty back together would probably be an undo of the paste, then a redo (un-undo) with a wikilink to the restored original article in the edit summary. Dhaluza 12:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Stub article

Thanks for your comments. You're right, the stub article was an experiment that wasn't really going anywhere: I'll delete it. -- The Anome 08:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Psychiatry

HG, Thanks for the comments. Sorry if I came across this way but it is not my intention to own the article nor to be the "buck stops here" editor when I stated "The criticism section will not be included ... the information will be included .... the current article will be replaced soon anyway." I'm fully aware that "no single editor gets to own an article" and the edit history for Psychiatry should reflect that I don't "own it". When editors add in referenced NPOV material, I welcome it, and always beg for it.

Before the "psychiatric abuse" dilemma here on Wikipedia, the Psychiatry article hadn't really been edited (I mean with substantial material) for a long period of time. My "rewrite" of psychiatry started long before the psychiatric abuse issue arose. I began the "rewrite" for the following reasons:

To add in references.
To introduce a more understandable outline and prose.
To eliminate the controversy section and integrate those comments into the remainder of the article.

Now the conflict during the last couple of weeks may draw more attention to my "#3" above, but when I originally read the article several weeks ago I thought it conflicted with Jimbo Wales's comments on criticism sections and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article structure. Honestly, criticism/controversy sections are unencyclopedic to me and need to be integrated.

"Do I have a sense of what this may read like?"

Yes, I'm trying to integrate this information into the history section, and other sections if appropriate. You can see what I've done so far at User:Chupper/Sandbox04.

"Instead, I would recommend that you propose some changes -- either vet a new structure/outline through Talk, or maybe replace one section at a time with an brief explanation in Talk."

Well, I don't know if you saw, but back on September 21st I posted a comment saying I'm going to try and rewrite the article and the location of where I was working on it. The reason I posted that there was so other editors could make comments if they wish.

While I always talk to other editors about controversial changes, I'm usually pretty bold in my edits and, honestly, probably won't formally propose rewrites in situations like these. The psychiatry article just needs too much work and has so few references. If I were going to "rewrite" a GA or other well written article, I would certainly talk to other editors beforehand. In addition, I'm always willing to make changes if editors don't agree with what I'm working on.

The reason I haven't replaced one section at a time is because some of the new sections are taking material from various other old sections. I figured it would be easier to get it rewritten that way. I may, of course, be wrong.

"I think you'll find that a gradual and more open process will gain you -- and Wikipedia -- much more in the long run. How does that sound?"

Well, I always try to follow the Wikipedia:Be bold idea. If you look at my edit history you should see that I'm always open and willing to talk about things, especially with controversial topics and changes. But if no opposition exists to my edits or hopeful edits, I'm going to go ahead and make the changes, even if they are big.

If you really feel I'm owning the article, please let me know, and it would probably be a good idea for me to refrain from editing it. I don't think I am, but recognizing your own problems is not always the easiest thing to do. Chupper 23:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(copy) Thanks for your detailed reply -- but for heaven's sake, I'm certainly not suggesting that you refrain from editing and reworking this article!! Your sandbox looks great and I'm sure you'll make terrific strides. And yes, I do appreciate the situation. Frankly, I'm hoping (partly for your sake) that the "psychiatric abuse" brouhaha will draw more attention, to give your more input and contributors. Just wanted to give you a heads up on your tone. And to encourage you, if we can draw more helpful attention your way, to open up the process and do it in manageable chunks. It's hard to get folks to work on a User Page, (though I had seen your note), so maybe you could run some specific ideas (e.g., your new outline) through Talk? I suppose you'll use your own judgment on how boldly to replace the article, but I imagine folks could feel ignored if their recent edits suddenly evaporated (i.e., not integrated in the rewrite). Take care, HG | Talk 23:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Approach to mediation

Hi. i replied to your comments at Talk:Battle of Jenin. Let me know what you think of my comments. i agree with your concerns and found them very insightful. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 16:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want, weigh in at the Causes 1948 article again, on the little exchange between me and pedro gonnet. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 17:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Editor review

First, you are permitted to ask anyone you want for an editor review. The best people to ask are people who have done other reviews recently; you can see who they are by scanning the page. I'll take a look at your review sometime in the next few days when I get around to it.

As to the inactivity of the page: yes, this is a problem. We're getting a lot more requests than we can process efficiently, and I don't even know who "we" is. Lists of editors at Wikiprojects, WP:EA and elsewhere tend to become outdated, but it might be a good idea to make a list anyway. If you have any ideas for how to make the process run more efficiently (and to prevent people from going six weeks without a review, as sometimes happens), please let me know. Best regards, Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Prod removal

Hi.

As per Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Conflicts, even if the removal may have been in bad faith, it should not be restored (unless it was blatant vandalism). In this case, your next step is AfD. Kol Tuv, -- Avi 05:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Houses

Are coming along very slowly. I got tonsillitis and had to bow out of the renovations for a while, leaving my husband and a friend to do the dirty work alone. I was so out of it I couldn't even be on wiki! Anyway, I'm slowly recovering and did a half day of renovations today (and a little wiki stuff). Thanks for the welcome HG. Tiamut 15:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Psychiatric ethics DAB

(copy) Hi, Anetode. Noticed your comment, in the 2nd AfD on psychiatric abuse, about the merit in deleting the DAB I'd set up. You're welcome to move to delete it, as you deem appropriate. If you don't mind, I would prefer that you move to do so thru an AfD (i.e., not PROD or speedy). Also, I would ask that you wait until after the current AfD is settled. Thanks very much. Best wishes, HG | Talk 23:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the inherent problem with the article on psychiatric abuse are made clear in the disambig page, since it (currently) functions as a brief list linking to several subsections of the main psychiatry article and Scientology and psychiatry. Frankly, I think that any Wikipedia page designed to group the science of psychiatry with historic ethical abuses of medicine or anti-psychiatry movements in fringe groups and religions would be little more than a piece of propaganda. Using prod or speedy deletion would be discourteous, but I think the current afd relates directly to the function of the disambig. Of course I'll wait until completion of this afd to address any concerns and recuse myself from exercising any administrative function relating to the debate. On a side note, I think that there's room for a critical examination of ethics in psychiatry, just that such criticism should relate to the methodology of the field. Use of untested psychoactive chemicals, selective interpretation of clinical trials, and corporate sponsorship of research and medicine marketing should all be examined when discussing psychiatry. "Psychiatric abuse", however, is a coatrack. Regards, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time for your thoughtful reply. I agree with most everything you said. I disagree somewhat regarding the DAB, insofar as it serves to disambiguate -- differentiate and keep at a distance -- the mainstream and the incompatible (aka "fringe") discourses. Furthermore, once it is set up, then it helps record and clarify the situation for future editors, so they won't have to deal with any future efforts (as well meaning as they may be) along the lines of the current article. Catch my drift? That said, I won't fall on my sword to save the dab. Be well. Thanks again, HG | Talk 13:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Re PR

Dear HG As the chat inflates, all purchase on origins and their contextual reality is swamped by hearsay and the habitus animorum, as Tacitus would put it. Back to first principles, then.

User Karl Meier raised this complaint, using evidence of what he says (I am surprised) was his casual encounter of PR's edit and POV statements in discussions on two issues with me. The whole gravamen of this trial's accusations rests on a representation made by a third party (whose own page reveals an esteem for two editors whose work is strongly anti-Islamic) who out of the blue takes his complaint to the Wikipedia community. Two pieces of evidence adduced are false, as I have explained elsewhere here. The two POV-pushing pieces to me were the result of a request to Pr to address private disagreements to me on the relevant pages, since I on principle have not enabled my email option.(See http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nishidani&diff=prev&oldid=158903787) I like to keep everything in the public purview, unlike many, who coordinate strategies for controversial pages. I have deep disagreements with PR but personally have found nothing problematical in the way PR challenges my edits. I am afraid that this whole procedure looks like a kangaroo court, pushed by people with records decidedly adversative, on political grounds, to PR, and has degenerated into farcical wikilawyering and forum shopping, when the gravamen of the charges relates to a private on line exchange of edits and opinions between me and PR. Best Regards Nishidani 17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

PR made an apology, has a question

Please see this. PR^talk 11:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Conservadox

The term is in common use here in Israel at least in conservative institutions. Google has 28K results if one searches for conservadox. Kol tuv, Egfrank 18:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to seem rude by jumping into the middle of things, but I've been watching the origination and development of the Conservadox article with some interest. (I wanted to create it myself earlier but felt I lacked the knowledge or citations, partly because the term is rarely used in any kind of official capacity.) I'm a little surprised to read Egfrank's comment, since I spend nearly all of my time now in flagship institutions of the Conservative movement in Israel and encounter the term only rarely, and then with contempt. (I don't mean to question Egfrank's honesty or accuracy on this point, I'm just curious about the disparity.) Best, Savant1984 19:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not as if I haven't heard the term, it's that I don't see it showing up much in good quality secondary source analysis. (See my comment to Egfrank.) Maybe you aren't spending more time with the wayward vessels at the periphery of the fleet? ;-) Anyway, nice to make your acquaintance, best wishes, HG | Talk 20:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A quick search on the term shows that it appears on, of all places, American Jewish dating services, e.g. [1], [2], [3]. Not academic publication, some evidence the term is in common use. I concur that it has some negative connatations (as in "not really Orthodox") in some Orthodox circles. At this point I believe the topic could survive an AFD but I agree the article is not terribly well sourced. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I missed HG's comment on Egfrank's page when I checked earlier. In any event, I agree with HG and Shirachadasha -- the topic is notable, I think, but the article is kind of unencylopedic. The difficulty is simply with, as we've all noted, the inherently informal nature and usage of the term. Perhaps it would be better to focus the article on usage of the term itself rather than what it putatively marks out? Savant1984 20:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

For now, I put the Unref tag on the article. If progress can be made on that front, then probably other issues (essay, notability) will flow from there. I'm sure something will come out of the efforts made, either as standalone article or somewhere. HG | Talk 20:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good move (unref tag) - anybody object if I copy this discussion over to the talk page for the article? Kol tuv, Egfrank 21:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to confess I did indeed write parts of this article in June 2006, including some of the unsourced parts. It was pretty early on in my arriving here. I think I want to see what sources people can come up with before the slashing starts. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Confess! (and: "No one expects the Spanish inquisition..." Monty Python) ;-> HG | Talk 23:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know what you're talking about ;) -- I think I can withstand the soft cushion, but I'm really not so sure about the comfy chair. --Shirahadasha 02:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Islamic military jurisprudence

You latest comment on talk is a bit unclear. Here is the scenario:

All the content in the article can stand without Quranic verses. All the content is well supported by scholarly secondary sources. But I think it may be a nice idea to mention the sources (in the footnotes) used by the secondary sources. This is because the Quran is open to interpretation and many readers themselves would like to see it. Please note the Bible is used as footnotes in many articles (and many times even as sources).

Can you clear it up a bit on talk? Thanks.Bless sins 01:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

AoIA renaming

Actually, I'd stand by the comment I made a few months ago. My concern at the time was that you wanted to restructure the article as an actual compendium of similarities and differences between Israel and apartheid-era SA. My position is that the article should explore the historical use of the Israeli apartheid analogy (I'd still prefer the title "Israeli apartheid analogy", but I suspect "Comparisons between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa" would better get the point across at this age). CJCurrie 04:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

HG/GH

I'm old enough to think, after years of controversy, that Freudian slips are silky pieces of lingerie that give blokes the, well, euphemistically, what drivers toot in peak-time traffic. But yes, you are right, that is undoubtedly an unconscious confusion on my part, and as put, bears an innuendo that is improper. I can only defend myself, while apologizing, by remarking that it was at the classic level of the unconscious, since most of what I was doing was pasting from a master (there! I just wrote 'mater'!!) file.

I will admit that having, apparently, coalesced the two identities, I did wonder, and checked both user pages, and noted the difference, and dismissed it as mere coincidence. Highly uncool of myself, and thanks for the correction. Mea culpa, mea culpa, me a mexican cowboy, as Catholic boys used to chant at mass, much to the annoyance of the friary. p.s. in these silly wars, I think both Jaakobou and myself (I thought I was clear, thinking in day periods, with two reverts, and not according to the clock) have violated the 3RR rule. I never have got a handle on that danged thing, but if you think it appropriate, perhaps we should both be rapped on the knuckles by the appropriate authority. If so, no excuse for either of us. Regards Nishidani 16:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I thought a moratorium was what was supposed to be in place. I certainly observed one. In fact from the 13th to the 15th, if I recall, I hadn't even checked the 1929 Hebron page. Then I noticed that the old, disputed or controversial edit by Jaakobou had been sitting there, and reverted it. You'd better check, I am not an expert on these things, and in a preceding case, the only violation of rules I've fallen foul of, only proved to others I did not understand the rule. In any case, as said, I did challenge Jaakobou's insistent reverts on the 15th twice, I think, and once today, and then, reminding myself of 3RR, looked, and realized I'd probably broken the rule. Still, I have great difficulty, at my age, in working up diffs and examining them. Whatever, rules are rules, and if you think the evidence of 15th-16th October 2007 indicates we are both at fault, I certainly will not make excuses, and bear the consequences, with no ill will. I can't complain of others on this futile practice, if I myself, willingly or not, happen to do the same. Regards Nishidani 16:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/HG

I reviewed you. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Shalom. Other editors are welcome to review, comment, critique, or offer constructive suggestions, too. If you'd rather communicate to me privately, you may use the "email this user" link. Thanks. HG | Talk 23:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

CAMERA

PR, hope you have tolerance for my periodic interjections, the above complaint is not unlike concerns about how you characterized Schechtman (in Causes 1948) as a hate source (and like a Holocaust denier). Maybe, PR, you could find a more nuanced or modulated vocabulary to make your critique of such sources. For instance, Narson suggests terms like partisan. How about a "highly antagonistic" or "vituperative" POV? I bet the sesquipedalian Nishidani can advise you! Such wording might be enough to persuade folks to avoid, or at least deprecate, the sources, without yourself antagonizing folks vituperatively. If you catch my drift. ;-) HG | Talk 12:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC) (PS My comment should not be interpreted as actually supporting PR's view, as I think he realizes.)

If you wish to deny that the following is a hate-statement (and, in this particular case, also an obvious lie), then be my guest: "Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands. Wounded and dead alike were mutilated. Every member of the Jewish community was regarded as an enemy to be mercilessly destroyed." PR^talk 18:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There are various ways of intensifying and heating up editing disputes. One way to provoke angrier disputes is to make accusations regarding racism, anti-Semitism, hate speech, etc. Such accusations are not working with well-defined boundaries, so many (arguably all) texts can be interpreted along these lines by somebody. Don't you think you might be losing your credibility, goodwill or patience with folks, if you overdo such accusations? Are you able to see which accusations will fit within the flow of a given Talk page, and which will seem disruptive and unnecessarily dramatic? If not, then how can folks welcome you to cooperatively edit with them? HG | Talk 19:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've not accused anyone of anything - I'm just saying that, in my opinion, recognising hate-speech is relatively straightforward. If you have a different outlook, please be my guest and explain your understanding. If you're not sure what I mean, I'll explain myself (again, because I think I've already done so).

The reason it's important is that quoting from a hate-site is a perma-block offense, as I discovered when it was alleged I'd quoted from the Holocaust Deniers for referencing Israel glorifying the assassins of Lord Moyne in 1944, ie while the UK was still fighting the Nazis. (Idiotic allegation in my case, but very, very serious nevertheless).

When the Wikipedia penalty is so severe, I thought you'd want people reminded of what is hate-speech and how to recognise hate-sources. I was under the impression you'd hinted that you're not one of the people who claim there's no such thing. PR^talk 20:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been drawing people's attention to "extreme historical falsification" longer than I've been drawing attention to hate-speech. If you're going to claim that "falsification" is the primary evil then you'll really hate Schechtman, because the utter nonsense of his claims may be even more obvious than the "hate-speech" component. But you'd also be opening the most amazing can of policy worms! PR^talk 20:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

New question - I'd like to know what you think of this CAMERA article - does it contain statements which amount to "extreme historical falsification"? Here's one I picked up - what do you think?: "Bisharat wrongly states, "In 1948, about 700,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homeland..." While some Palestinian Arabs were expelled, such as those who resided in Ramle and Lod, the vast majority of Arabs fled of their own accord, many due to false rumors spread by Arab propagandists.. PR^talk 16:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, PR, you're still trying to equate CAMERA with Holocaust denial? I think you have a serious problem insofar as you don't seem to be able or willing to make (IMO) reasonable, collaborative and proportionate judgments about sources, and you persist in making inappropriate comparisons. I'll ask Zscout to discuss this with you because I've already said my piece. That is, once the San Diego situation stabilizes. Take care, HG | Talk 18:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

request

i'm sure it's not your intention, but you are inadvertently being disruptive by promoting other users to over-expand and extend their unfocused conversation in a way that would make things impossible for 3rd party editors, who actually do wish to make a helpful statement, to follow. to the point, you're asking generic questions avoiding addressing the issues already raised.

please consider making note of the text and making statements that would help resolve the issues rather than extend it.Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I didn't intend to expand the topic. (At Talk:1929 Hebron massacre, right?) The 3O seems to deal with whether Sefer ha-Hebron (and Nishidani wants to deal w/the Jewsagainstzionism.com info) as reliable source(s). Which, if any, of my 4 questions expanded beyond that topic? Thanks. HG | Talk 09:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

Sorry you had to intervene again. I will be candid and say I don't see the possibility of fruitful unmediated dialogue between Tewfik and me. On the other hand, if you were willing, and he were willing, we could route our discussion through you, and possibly make some progress without having to resort to formal dispute resolution.--G-Dett 15:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You know that would be fine with me. And I think Tewfik feels moderately comfortable with me. But I'm a bit confused. Doesn't the disagreement over HRW, prima facie etc, involve armon and eleland, too? As I read the thread, I didn't catch that the rest of you had settled on the wording. And no apology needed, really, and I appreciate your quick response. Take care, HG | Talk 15:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Jenin prima facie discussion productive?

I was intending to post this on the Jenin talk page, but it is a bit offtopic and might be seen to discuss other contributors more directly than one would like on an article talk page.

I think that G-Dett's last, as usual, was an exhaustive summary of the facts at issue, the kind which I'm far too lazy and ill-tempered to produce in these kinds of disputes. I think that the next step depends on the response of Tewfik et al. If they have something to say about application of policy, or some logical conclusion that we haven't anticipated, great. If they try to say that the human rights orgs at issue did not, in fact, find that war crimes were committed, we have little more to discuss. <eleland/talkedits> 18:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't want to be dismissive of G-Dett's effort (I called it "drilling down" or something) but I'm not sure it answers, settles or refutes the underlying arguments against. Thanks for your note. HG | Talk 18:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi HG. I didn't think you were dismissive in the least! But what, praytell, are the 'underlying arguments against'?--G-Dett 20:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There are no unambiguously True ways to describe a text (eg HRW report). Instead, competing descriptions may rest upon editorial choices and judgments, supportable (hopefully) by policy-based arguments. Are you asking me to try to recapitulate the other side's view? I'd decline now due to time constraints. Still, I did already suggest "As a technique, you might each try summarizing your opponents' arguments in the best possible light." From you comment above, it sounds like you should at least make a good faith attempt at charitably reflecting back their view. HG | Talk 20:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, HG, okay. To be clear, I wasn't asking you to recapitulate – I thought from your previous post that there might have been some specific thing in my opponents' arguments that I'd failed to respond to. Regarding the HRW report – absolutely, there is no True way to describe it, as you say. HRW uses two different formulations, almost interchangeably. A source of frustration for me, however, is that we keep discussing this as if the disputed sentence presented merely the HRW report. If that were the question, I'd be pushing for the prima facie formulation as that's the more conservative formulation. But what we're discussing is how to present the consensus view of the HR groups that investigated (primarily Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, but also the British military expert David Halley, who was retained by AI but has made independent statements about the investigation, which are presented separately in later sections of our article).--G-Dett 21:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is it exactly. Previously I chose "prima facie evidence of war crimes" as the more conservative of the two formulations, on the basis that HRW said it and AI said "war crimes" with no qualifiers. G-Dett has since shown that HRW used both the "prima facie" formulation, and the "war crimes" formulation. Even without considering Halley's opinion (although he is not really a "human rights organization"), that brings it from a 50/50 split to a 75/25 split. I don't think we can justify sticking with a statement made only 1/3 as much. <eleland/talkedits> 21:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently my reply pointing out where I believe I've already answered G-Dett's question is "trolling" (first edit summary). Godspeed, Tewfik^Talk 02:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR

I always try to avoid 3RR. If by mistake did not counted well (and I don't think so as I am trying to be carefull about it) please let me know and I would immeditly self revert. see more comments in article talk page Zeq 18:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

PS I don't think anyone else violated 3RR on this article. there are 3 reverts but not 4. Zeq 18:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, hi. Thanks for your note(s). I noticed you over at Allegations of Israeli apartheid, too. I've reported the Arab citizens of Israel article both for protection and for editwarrring/3RR. I now see you're on some kind of probation. Hmmm. It does seem to me that your reverts are inappropriate, esp given your status. Sorry, if you don't mind my saying so, somebody in your shoes should be much more careful to try to work things out in Talk rather than thru restore & revert cycles. Whether or not you get blocked, it would make everybody's life easier if you worked thru conversation. (For one thing, it took me alot of time to compile the diffs.) Plus, it's to your advantage to establish credibility as an editor who can help mold or yield to consensus. Thanks muchly. HG | Talk 18:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not violated 3RR and I also think that you are too quick to jump into conclusions both about me and about the articles. Your 3RR report does not have diffs it has revisions - so please be carefull and if indeed I reverted just leave me a note and I would self-reverted it. If I am not mistaken in Allegations of Israeli apartheid I only participated in talk page. Your efforts can be much better help the project if you - which seems a fair minded and neutral if I may say so - will jump in and offer a compromise - in stead of protecting the articles and frezing them from edits. Zeq 18:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, thanks, you're right about my mistake in not giving the diffs properly. I don't have a substantive compromise to offer on that page. However, I disagree insofar as I'm coming to realize that page protection(s) and temp blocks might be quite useful in moving folks on Isr/Pales issues to work more collaboratively. See also my comments at the AN-3RR. Also, thanks for your kind comments about my effort to stay fair-minded. I didn't mean to jump to any conclusion about you specifically, and included 3 people with whom I have quite different relationships. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 19:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

page protection(s) have never supported coopreation since one side "win" - their version get to be kept for a week or two. they have no reason to engage in any discussion. Zeq 19:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point. In such a situation, maybe the de facto supervising admin(s) can/should be asked to switch the disputed text(s) every day or so during discussion. Anyway, in the long run, we should deploy protection and similar mechanisms to motivate editors to figure out ways of resolving disputed edits. Many we can find more selective ways of handling individuals who are recalcitrant or otherwise unable to engage in productive Talk. Thanks, Zeq. HG | Talk 20:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Probation

There uis a very important rule about probation: "don't pick on users under probation". What you are doing now is suggesting that I can not edit at all in sensitive issues in which disputes are frequent ?

This has been reviwed by ArbCom and some level of disputes is within norm in such articles. I suuugest again that instead of looking for "violations" you put your efforts in reviewing edits and coming up with a compromise. Zeq 19:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC) from : http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FZeq-Zero0000%2FProposed_decision&diff=129902165&oldid=129892360

:# A certain level of editorial conflict is to be expected on controversial topics; I see no evidence that Zeq has been unusually egregious in that regard here, or that his edits in this particular conflict have been flagrantly unacceptable. Kirill Lokshin 19:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Zeq 19:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree that you shouldn't be picked on and I hope I haven't done so. Please note that I reported both sides of the conflict to a noticeboard, where somebody will make a determination. Since I don't know either how the community perceives your probation or what patience you are able to exercise on sensitive pages, I can't advise you on where you may want to focus your efforts. Perhaps we've started off on a bad footing, I'm sorry, yet I'm certainly open to talking to you about potential compromises or otherwise being of assistance. Best wishes, HG | Talk 20:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You highlighted my probation in a report on 3RR in which I was not the reverter.... let me suggest you ~~strike~~ the report out and use your energy to come up wit compromise. make sure you understand how both sides see issues.

For the Arab side POV you can just read wikipedia, for the extreme right on the Israeli side try this: http://www.inn.co.il/Besheva/Article.aspx/3102 . My viwes are somewhere in between but in wiki[pedi we should strive to represent the important views from both sides. Zeq 20:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm not familiar how probation works. Don't suppose you have what we'd call a "probation officer" to evaluate these incidents? In terms of the substance, I don't have much time right now. But I would consider reviewing scholarly (or comparable secondary) sources you folks might be debating. I have much less interest in trying to sort out competing POV-slanted sources, esp not a topic that probably quite well covered in high quality sources. Cheers. HG | Talk 21:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, what make you think this article is not in need of serious work by fair minded people ? Do you think all view Points are covered there ? Do you know how Jews and Arabs are treating each other now in Israel ? read judges verdict here: [4] to get an idea. This ref is part of what I added to the article but it was taken out by the reverters. Zeq 04:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What do You think ?

I would have reverted this, but what do you think is better way : [5] PS I wonder if every edit I would make to the article would be reverted... I hope not Zeq 04:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Zeq, for your patience with me. While I do think the degree of reverts there was out of line, I'm sorry for being wrong about the 3RR and for causing you worry. As teshuvah, and since you've asked, I've made an effort to give some constructive feedback at Talk:Arab citizens of Israel. It may not be quite what you wanted, but I think you'll find me trying to be responsive to you and even-handed. Thanks again, take care HG | Talk 05:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way ...

... another good idea that may easily be lost in the shouting is your Israel and apartheid. Hope you will bring this up again at some point in the discussion. BYT 11:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, BYT. Would love to get your advice on when I should chime in. As you well know, I'm always trying to get a more disciplined Talk process and I'm not sure when to simply add a few more drops to the flow. Anyway, I'd also point out that Israel and apartheid is but one of many alternatives that I'm reflecting back to the community from what I've heard others say. Still, I do admit this alternative has simplicity and IMO improved neutrality to its credit. Thanks for the encouragement. HG | Talk 05:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Notable actuary

We are not amused. -- Avi 02:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but the accountants are absolutely giddy. }:-> HG | Talk 02:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I hate every word of it, you conservative lardy

Just trying to keep up my rep as a hellion.

I've read your post twice, once this morning and once again this afternoon. I really have to congratulate you for thinking this through so thoroughly. I expected to find it acceptable, compromise-worthy, etc., but actually it was better than that; and your insights made me think of much of this in a different way. I do have some minor (I do mean minor) caveats and need to think through a couple of things. Can I have til tomorrow to post a fuller response?

I am sorry if my insistence on this has seemed out of proportion, and will concede that some measure of my chest-beating is a reaction to what I see as obstinacy, strawman arguments, and so on. But the real reason is that I see the lead as crucial in this case to the narrative that follows. Even something so seemingly small as referring to "findings" for one part of a report and "allegations" for another is a problem, because this is the overture, as it were, to a core narrative problem that I look forward to addressing together – i.e., with you, Eleland, Tewfik, et al. Regarding consistency, as I know this has been an issue. Consistency does not mean that we present all findings of a given source as equally true and valid; it means that we apply the same editorial and evaluative principles to each. It is fine, for example, to say that this or that aspect of Holley's statement is contested by sources X and Y, and not say that about the other part (if this distinction is indeed borne out by RSs). But it's not OK to cite Holley authoritatively and as a stand-in for Amnesty for one claim, and then dismiss another Holley claim (the next sentence from the exact same statement) as a "soundbyte quote in a news article" and ask what that "proves," pointing out moreover that he's not himself an HR organization. Be well, and thanks again for your good offices.--G-Dett 23:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Golly, thanks, you've buttered me up. I look forward to reading more from you tomorrow (or whenever). Be well HG | Talk 00:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

First installment here.--G-Dett 14:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Great minds think alike

I guess the reason you encounter me at several articles is because we share the same interests?Bless sins 06:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid RfAr

Thanks for your note. Your proposals are a constructive contribution to the discussion, if a bit outside the typical way that ArbCom addresses these types of issues (but then again this was not exactly a typical dispute, either). My guess, however, is that for better or worse, the case has been pending for so very long that at this point, new proposals are probably not going to receive much attention from the committee. Hopefully matters on these articles can remain civil and collaborative from this point forward. I guess we'll see. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Jenin

Hi HG. I can't quite suggest compromise language until I know what's on the table. A number of fair formulations of the lede are possible, but I would need a better sense of what's important to Tewfik. His posted response refers twice to "the reports' strong desire to say something while explicitly stopping short of it." I don't see this explicit stopping short, but it should be noted that if our approach is to take rhetorically "stopping short" into account, we'll need to revisit how we collectively present the two groups' respective findings regarding the massacre claims. Amnesty actually did explicitly stop short on this score: "[Amnesty International Secretary General Irene Khan] clarified that there is no legal definition in international law of the word 'massacre' and that its use in the current circumstances is not helpful." In other words the locus of the dispute will necessarily widen. I don't introduce this factor to make your job more difficult :). It's just that the sine qua non of my position is that we need a single editorial standard for how to present the findings of HR groups in the lede. I am open to any number of different ways of doing that.--G-Dett 00:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I do appreciate your efforts. If you check the archives, you'll see that she accused me of supporting a text which was "larded with metaphorical atmospherics prejudicial to the Israelis" (to lard means to embellish). When I called her on it she claimed that I had "evidently mistook [it] for a "fatso"-type insult"", despite my having already presented the definition she intended in my objection. The relevance was that she likewise claimed that I misunderstood her as meaning politically conservative. She seems to think that accusing me of trying to unfairly embellish or weigh one part of the discussion is okay. The "maximalist" charge was indeed not meant to insult, but is similarly a reflection of her opinion that I am acting in bad faith. However it is exactly those charges that are the problem, for reasons of which I'm sure you are aware. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 22:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I realise that this isn't the subpage you had in mind, but I'm reasonably satisfied with your first attempt, and I could buy it right now. Too easy? Tewfik^Talk 22:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Wait, Tewfik, stay and chat.... Bad faith means trying to harm Wikipedia, not being honest, disruptive, etc. Isn't G-Dett saying something less personal -- contending that if we are cautious about citing HRW/AI on the war crime issue (as you've suggested), then we should be equally cautious in reporting HRW/AI on other issues, like massacre. Regardless of whether it's a fallacious or useful claim, this doesn't strike me as harsh as bad faith. True, she could word her concern in a less personalized way. Yet, even were she right, you have rebuttals that aren't about you as a person but your interpretation. E.g., you may well argue that you are making a valid distinction, not an inconsistent one, or you may say that a "foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" (i.e., Wikipedia is not bound to apply a single hermeneutic to each source). Anyway, I am between a rock and a hard place if you only take this as an accusation. G-Dett says it's a key point, you say it's a personal attack. I'd like to persuade you to tackle the substantive aspect of G-Dett's point, and I'd like to persuade G-Dett that it's not so compelling that we can't make progress here. What say you? HG | Talk 22:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Its certainly possible that I'm mistaken. Maybe we've both been at this so long that there is nil chance of seeing each others position in a different light. I've tried to weigh all of the text I've objected to and believe that they were appropriate, but if that is the only objection then I could bite my lip for a while. Of course, my major concern is not personal offence, but worry that with such a position on the "other side", there can be no bloodless resolution. I hope that I'm wrong. Oh, and I meant that I liked your attempt at resolution. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 23:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, "otherwise known as cherrypicking" was not directed at her, which may have been what you thought. I reproduced the quote directed at me to show her specifically what part of her text I was objecting to. I know that this is all only meant to be tangential, but I'm not sure that the comment makes any sense now. Tewfik^Talk 02:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Second intifada

Hello again,

Regarding your addition of the documentary, until now, Timeshifter has tried to insert it along with a film from the opposing POV, which is an attempt at balance, while you've added just the one. I'm not sure if you were taking an editorial position or were trying to mediate, but the dispute is not about including that film, but about including any films, since there are over a dozen, and there is no precedent for including lists of films on entries such as this. So in line with that, I would appreciate if you would self-revert. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 17:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I certainly only did this because I thought there was a tacit understanding. I self-reverted on the ext link. Didn't want to undo the "See also", since Timeshifter had added that, so how about we take this up in Talk? Thanks, HG | Talk 18:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. This film isn't about the Second Intifada, but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict generally. Its awards are relatively minor, while other Category:Films about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have far more significant critical acclaim. I don't see a precedent for including lists of films on such entries, nor is it clear what is special about this specific one. If anything, Jenin, Jenin is probably far more apt, though it is already listed with its other-POV contemporary on the article to which it more directly relates. Tewfik^Talk 21:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Islam and antisemitism

That article just had unsuccessful mediation, IIRC. I think its headed to an Arbcom discussion. -- Avi 03:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Your question

I don't see an edit war, to be honest. If there is one, they are doing a fine job of resolving the conflict without the need for protection. --Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ritual slaughter and Legal aspects of ritual slaughter

I like the name change. I still think merging the articles (as some commentors in the RFC suggested) would be a good idea, with legal aspects becoming a section, at least until there's more significant and neutrally presented general content. The Ritual slaughter article is being expanded by someone who seems to be presenting a view that ritual slaughter is generally a synonym for animal sacrifice. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Partly my responsibility, I had Animal sacrifice in the disambiguation page version (it was originally a redirect, remember?). We should find sources to distinguish (as does my dictionary). Thanks. HG | Talk 12:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Legal Aspects of Ritual Slaughter

I think The Politics of Beef: Animal Advocacy and the Kosher Buthering Debates in Germany. Robin Judd. might be essential reading. If you go to this link: http://modiya.nyu.edu/handle/1964/489 and then use the link there at the very bottom of the page that says Animal Advocacy and the Kosher Buthering Debates in Germany. you will find this paper/article. RPSM 16:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)RPSM 16:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

http://modiya.nyu.edu/modiya/bitstream/1964/569/2/shekhita-germany.pdf

Above is direct link to pdf document The Politics of Beef RPSM 16:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ritual slaughter, etc.

Yes, I thought that stupid,stupid,stupid was going over the top. I think it was that I edited lots of things, and everything I did was reverted without exception when it clearly states that anyone may edit anything, even without signing in. This is not the first time either. I can give you an account of the last time on another occasion, if you are interested. But I take your point. It was not a personal attack. If, instead of writing my address on an envelope, I decide to write the addresses of everyone in the world who does not have my address, by using microchips - that is stupid. And I was in the course os pointing out that listing all the countries in Europe with no bans on shehitah was a stupid exercise, (as only three countries had bans or maximum 6) And yet the entry on the list did not list these 45 countries, only six. Having edit/revert edit/revert was very frustrating. I was told there was nothing on the discussion page, but, as you correctly point out, I was filling up the discussion page much too much. Surely it is not a question who is talking on the discussion page, but of what the arguments are. Anyway, that is fixed now and some fixing has been fixed.

Progress so far: I sourced Austria background material, but now I am afraid to edit anything at all as everything I do gets reverted (well one or two successes with a few words) and I have not been able to find instructions on how to fix references (where?) Six provinces in Austria ban shehitah - that was 2002 - and in 2005, a federal law permits it. So Austria needs to come off the list. I am in e-mail correspondence with the Finnish J. community, and they say that the statement in wiki about pre-stunning is wrong. The Finnish Law now says that the stunning is done simultaneously with the shehitha cut - and this is permissible, I am told. No actual shehitah is perfomed due to lack of facilities - some halal. What should I do about these e-mails: Do you want them as references, are they invalid as own research, and should I erase the names and addresses or what for privacy reasons? I take your point about too much information, but I was told there was no discussion when there was too much already. And no-one was responding to anything I said, apart from being called a vandal. Yes it would be most kind if you set up a user page for me. Best wishes, RPSM 18:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Progressive Jewish thinkers

Hi Eg (may I call you that, for example?). Just noticed your Category:Progressive Jewish thinkers. If you don't mind my saying so, that list may be admirable but it would tend to be a matter of personal opinion, right? If so, how would you feel about deleting it? Be well. Pls reply to my Talk. L'hit, HG | Talk 05:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly open to discussing the usefulness of this category.

Some background. The category isn't exactly my invention. It arose while I was trying to do some cleanup on a rather heterogeneous set of items that had been assigned to Category:Reform Judaism - a mix of summer camps, rabbis, concepts, people, etc. When the members of a category are too much of a mixed bag the category is not particularly useful - the human mind needs a certain amount of homogeneity to effectively scan down a list.

I certainly didn't feel I had the right to nix the Reform Judaism category (nor even change its name alas - it includes topics of interest to all progressive Jews across the world but is named in a manner that is biased towards the American branch of progressive Judaism.) Nor, in most cases, did I have the time to research the validity of the existing associations between each article and progressive Judaism. My conservative solution was to break the items into mentally homogeneous groupings while still preserving the connection to Category:Reform Judaism. Hence thinker+reform turned into Category:Progressive Jewish thinkers.

As for the category being "personal opinion". No, I don't think so. If the thinker influenced the development of progressive Jewish thought then it is arguably a progressive Jewish thinker. We can find reliable sources for asserting X influenced progressive Judaism.

There are, BTW, many thinkers that have influenced research, dialog, and rhetoric in all streams of Judaism from Orthodoxy to the most tradition denying universalistic segments of Progressive Judaism. Abraham Joshua Heschel, Joseph B Soleveitchik, Leopold Zunz among them. By extension of the definition of "Progressive thinker" offered above, these would also be members of Category:Orthodox Jewish thinkers and Category:Conservative Jewish thinkers.

My question in return would be: how do we capture the thought that has influenced each movement? On one hand I think it is very important that we get away from the idea that any movement "owns" some part of Jewish thought and tradition. On the other hand, each movement focuses on a different (albeit overlapping) group of thinkers. This too is notable and needs to be documented.

Kol tuv, Egfrank 07:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your thorough response. Categories need clear definitions and criteria. Unfortunately, "influence" on a movement strikes me as far too vague (and maybe OR). It'd include Plato, Kant, and the rest of classical philosophy and liberal thought. Maybe you could have an article on "Theology (or Philosophy) of Progressive Judaism" and flesh out formative influences there, or through articles on individual thinkers. ("Progressive" is somewhat an unfortunate term for encyclopedia purposes, since "Progressive Jewish" doesn't sound like it refers merely to Progressive Judaism). thanks. HG | Talk 12:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see my response to you and User:IZAK on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Progressive Judaism#Article vs Category: Capturing the intellectual influences on Progressive Judaism. Shavuah tov, Egfrank 16:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

erase

will be erasing my comments when I get round to it shortly RPSM 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not always easy stepping into a new setting like this. Hope you enjoy the editing! HG | Talk 18:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin

Hi PR. I noticed your latest comment at Talk:Battle of Jenin.here's the diff. I think we deal with your concern rather well. You seem to be arguing about 2 sides, and we've moved on to a middle ground. I'm wondering if you'd be willing to retract (undo) your comment. After you undo, look over the thread again, and if you feel you still have a concern, maybe you could raise it with somebody you feel is basically on your side (e.g., Eleland?), and get their perspective. Sound ok? I think you can either trust me on this or, as I suggest, check it out with somebody like Eleland. HG | Talk 08:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's go back a step and remind ourselves that policy, verifiability, reliable sources and so forth all come first, and cannot (normally) be over-ridden by consensus, "middle ground" or anything else we care to call it. Policy says that our article reports what secondary sources have reported about events. So why are we saying: ...major human rights organizations found strong prima facie evidence of IDF war crimes. instead of saying: ...major human rights organizations found that the IDF had carried out war crimes.? For the latter formulation, we've had detailed citations from both major human rights organizations (Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International) making the claim explicitly and categorically. We have an independent statement from the British military expert, David Holley, making the claim explicitly and categorically. (We're quoting Holley in the same article as if his words were authoritative eg corroborated that there was no massacre). For the former formulation, we have one citation from Human Rights Watch. And nothing else. Why would we present multiple organizations as having said something they didn't say? And why would we not quote organizations as having said something they did say?

There is, of course, an easy way out of this - you (we?) could simply declare that Wikipedia has red-lines. We report accusations of war crimes against sovereign governments (up to and including the US). Excepting Israel, which cannot be reported as having been so accused.

It would save everyone an enormous amount of wasted time simply spelling it out! PR^talk 11:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

PR we aren't proposing either of the statements you've shouted about now twice. Instead, we're saying: Based on testimony and documentation, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch charged that IDF personnel in Jenin committed war crimes. Both human rights organizations called for official inquiries; however, the IDF disputed the charges. No war crimes trials were held. No prima facie, for instance. Now, PR, please please do me a favor. I've been pretty friendly and rather supportive of you. Hey, haven't I been "buddy buddy" ;-) So here's my request -- please talk about this with Eleland before repeating your concerns here or at the article Talk page. Ok? Pretty please? Thanks, yours truly, HG | Talk 12:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

HG re subpage

Good grief! Am I doing anything illegal? I looked at the subpage and shuddered. Give me some abstruse text in a dozen languages and I can probably get my way around most of it pretty quickly, but I must confess that when I looked at this stuff, I squirm and think 'Youngsters take to this like kids to cornflakes', and quickly retreat to my library.

The reason I put it there, was not to set up an alternative page to the proper one open to anyone to edit, but that, since I am not good at looking at diffs, going back donkey's ages to find a reliable text, and since after Zeq's success in getting me reverted (though, excuse my saying so, he is the wrong person for trying to write whatever moderate POV one would desire on that page) I decided to abstain from that page until he moves on and stops messing it, or someone with an intelligent approach to editing takes over, as an oldtimer it is convenient to have an intelligible version, readily accessible, and not endlessly subjected to absurd edits. I know young people can check back and fix damage, and check diffs and the rest. I couldn't master that even to help Ovadyah on the Ebonite Arbitration page, so even less so here. If it is illegal, by all means tell me so. I don't like to cram wiki with subpages, etc. whatever they are. Guidance please, sir! Regards Nishidani 21:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean illegal, like copyright law, or do you mean against WP policy? I suspect you want to store a diff for the version you like, so you can always revisit it. For WP, I think you need to keep the History associated with the texts you want to use. Anyway, why do you go to WP:EAR and see if somebody will give you some helpful guidance. Au revoir, HG | Talk 21:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Greetings from A Sniper

Howdy HG. Anyway, I rarely notice the minor box, which is usually already ticked (and out of laziness I forget to un-tick - like probably with this entry). I sure hope we didn't get off on the wrong, seemingly confrontational foot. One question: what is the difference having an Orthodox project and a Progressive project? Best, A Sniper —Preceding comment was added at 21:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(copy for record) Thanks for your note and your pertinent question. I didn't start the Orthodox Project and haven't given its existence much thought until now. At one time, I think it was very active. Some of its efforts seem ok, like a weekly collaboration. But it's annoying to keep track of too many different projects, we've already got J History and Judaism (plus Israel). Indeed, personally I stopped paying attention to the projects, don't know how I recently got interested again. I certainly don't want to see one for each plausible sector of Judaism with a few enthusiastic editors. Better the energy should be used to sustain and try to keep vibrant the Judaism project -- that's difficult enough. I'd say, (along with Shirahadasha?), decommission the Orthodox project. Run any collaborative editing and tracing efforts through WP:Judaism (or J History). (There's a defunct Jewish Culture project, too!) Honestly, too, I think it's been difficult for the Orthodox and non-Orthodox to collaborate because of certain POV-oriented folks (esp among Orthodox newbies?). Instead of walking away from the mess, as I admit I've done myself, I think we should try to make the Judaism project itself a better working environment for everyone. If anything, the Orthodox Project may have given some folks the impression that they should have a free hand w/their topic area, which isn't quite on spot. Do you catch my drift? In short, I'd be inclined to speak some "tough love" to both you and the Orthodox, tell folks to chill out and get back under the big tent. If this means that the tent-keepers, like IZAK, need to be more welcoming and flexible, so be it. How's that for a long response? Would be glad to hear from you. Thanks. (HG | Talk 22:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for taking the time to offer an even-handed answer, even if I'm not on board yet with your reasoning. With all respect to IZAK, if his/her recent (read: in the last 24 hours) edits are any indication, even with all the knowledge and dedication on earth there is a huge gulf that remains. When does a tent simply grow too large? Keeping one Judaism project, to me, would be like keeping one Christianty project (I actually have no idea if there is one or ten), since the form of Judaism I personally live and believe in isn't Jewish to some users, newbie or not - and that's FINE. I don't have any comments one way or the other on the Orthodox project - then again, I don't have any thoughts on the Global Warming project, if one exists. I hope that the contributions & edits I make across the board enhance Wikipedia, bringing forth sources that previously did not appear. However, there are so many subjects, so many related theologians & players, and so many adherents that it is indeed a tent of its own. Anyway, I do appreciate what you had to say and thank you for it. Cheers,A Sniper 18:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

Hey, your welcome and thanks to you, too. In case my big tent rhetoric is misleading any readers, I'm not referring to religious or philosophical pluralism, just editorial tolerance & cooperation. HG | Talk 00:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Countering systemic bias: Egfrank requests intervention

Hi HG: Please take a look at this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks#WikiProject Judaism needs help - geographical bias concerns. I have asked for clarification [6]. Thanks for looking into this, IZAK 10:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please spare a moment to check this reference

Hi HG - do you have any comment on this reference? I'm not happy that we're using anything from it. PR^talk 17:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi PR. You're linking to note 22, Scharfstein, Sol, Chronicle of Jewish History: From the Patriarchs to the 21st Century. I don't have a copy handy. From the web, it looks like a popular work, maybe geared to teenagers(?), so it would certainly be preferable to find a higher quality, scholarly (pref peer-reviewed) work. However, I wouldn't assume that the source is wrong, so if you find countervailing data, say so in Talk and give the editors some time to find a better reference. You could mark it with the "fact" citation tag. However, in this instance, I'm not sure what your concern is with the underlying text. The whole paragraph (before n22) is fairly common knowledge and presumably backed up by the links. Are you doubting the population numbers? Is this helpful? Thanks, HG | Talk 18:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Homo Sacer

Leave it to you to be talking theory in the middle of a mutiny. I love it. If the world were like you, peace and reason would prevail, and people like me would have nothing to do but twiddle our thumbs. But I think you meant to wikilink to the sovereign state of exception, which is the mirror image of homo sacer – one above, the other below, as it were, the law. Though Agamben would surely be amused/confused/bemused/delighted by the idea that Jimbo Wales is to Wikipedia what Guantanamo Bay detainees are to international law.--G-Dett 22:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Since homo sacer is the person banned, a smidgen of irony & insight would be diluted by linking to the state of exception alone. Anyway, I'm touched my your gracious words and that (how?) you happened to notice my posting before the discussion was closed. Be well, HG | Talk 22:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah! The homo sacer reference was to Miltopia? You are as clever as you are courteous; what a nuisance to have to explain jokes to laggardly brain-sluggish fans.--G-Dett 22:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I was thinking of ZScout, too, though maybe that's not technically a ban? HG | Talk 23:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I better stop while I'm ahead.--G-Dett 23:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)