User talk:G-Dett/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello, G-Dett, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 04:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

My Rfa

I'm going for adminship! Take a vote, please :) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MiddleEastern‎ -- MiddleEastern 14:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't let Jayjg BS you

South Africans apply the term of Apartheid to Israel and nobody else. Their expertise should be considered. They know the facts and what the conditions are when they encounter them. Jayjg is a Israeli POV editor that seeks to distort the truth on this subject.69.209.222.112 08:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this is Kiyosaki. CJCurrie 09:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning

I left a note at talk, but you did not respond. Unless you self-revert soon in Allegations of Israeli apartheid, you may be reported for violation. Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. At any rate please do not do more than three reverts in a 24h period. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on December 12 2006 to Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 09:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Re your mail (why do people never talk on their talk pages?)... you missed [2], which is odd, cos its one you were reported for William M. Connolley 13:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response William. I didn't post on my talk page because I assumed the block on editing extended everywhere. The edit you bring up was not a revert. It posted the same material with a different source. This is an essential distinction and not a quibble, because the material itself was never in dispute; only the sourcing was. As I can't imagine you'll be checking my talk page to continue this discussion, I will send a copy of this post to your mail. Thanks again for your prompt response.--G-Dett 14:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Its a revert, by the definition of revert William M. Connolley 16:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It added no previously disputed material. It's pretty contentious over there. Other editors objected to a source being non-RS, so I gave a different one. I was counting reverts, didn't know that this could qualify as one, and wouldn't have posted it if I did know. I generally discuss edits at great length on the talk page, as you'll see from my contribution history.--G-Dett 16:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll accept it as a genuine mistake & unblock you. In future, you're better staying on the safe side though. Try WP:1RR. Dont edit the article until your time would have expired William M. Connolley 18:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No I won't... the block has expired... William M. Connolley 18:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks all the same William.--G-Dett 19:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Getting rough at Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid

Hi,

The current engagement doesn't look to me to be too productive. Best to stick with the points, (especially when you are right) and let the changes come slowly. If you think you see double standards, it won't do to argue against them. Simply argue what is right in each case.

AGF they say. Really, you can assume as much bad faith as you'd like, but you need to act as if all was in good faith. That keeps the tone surprisingly civil. So, if you find an edit summary to leave out crucial information, and it looks like it must have been intentional, just complain about the missing information and keep the intention to yourself. If it is so obvious that lots of other people must see it, then they will, without help.

Sorry, I don't mean to lecture. But I'd hate to see you get in trouble when you could be productively editing. Jd2718 01:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Years. I often give advice that I wished I could follow. A small part of my job is adversarial; if I could follow my own advice, I would be more effective. But New Years resolution? Nah. I am as nice as I am, not more, not less. I'm just learning to be careful of all the rules around here. It's easy to get goaded into breaking them. And, for the record, I thought you were arguing a bit at the editor, not the topic. That seems understandable, though unnecessary, but certainly not bitchy. Jd2718 23:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi G-Dett -- Just curious if you had any thoughts regarding my suggestion at the bottom of Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid. I think you share my concerns, but I'm not sure if you've offered another solution. Best, Mackan79 16:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year to you as well. I have noticed a less negative tone to your comments; let's both work on that. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

NPA Warning

This [3] crosses the line. You need to cease making comments like this and adhere to WP:NPA. FeloniousMonk 19:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You're mistaken, FeloniousMonk.[4]--G-Dett 20:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Apartheid

Hey, thanks for the support on the Apartheid page. I think we've made some good progress. Your comments, also, are spot on, as well as informative (you clearly know more about it all than me).

You probably didn't see I got blocked the last couple days. You might want to check out my talk page -- word of caution, at least. Best, Mackan79 15:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Cole Mediation

Hi - thanks for your comments and kind words - I've directed the users on the mediation to your comment, and will try to incorporate it somewhere if I can find the time (or just copy-paste onto the mediation :)). Thanks again, Martinp23 23:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia community

Your recent discussion on the Cole mediation page contains some pretty strong language:

• "the Karsh slur"
• "ten words of puffery for Karsh's academic position"
• "rank propaganda"
• "smear campaign against Cole"

Please note that there are editors who in good faith feel that Karsh's statement is NOT a slur, but a valid criticism of Cole's blog work, that Karsh's academic position is not irrelevant and describing it is not puffery, that we don't view his words as propaganda but as a valid critique, and that valid criticism of Cole on his page in no way consistitues a "smear campaign". Even on a talk page, it would be nice if you could use more neutral langauge when characterizing other's beliefs. Wikipedia is about people with different beliefs and POVs coming together to edit articles which will ultimiately contain a variety of POVs expressed in a neutral way. It is difficult for me not to be distressed when my beliefs and POVs are characterized in such an insulting way.

Also, an inaccuracy. You also say that there is, "no mention of the name of the publication that printed the slur," while it is clearly there in the references for anyone to see and has in no way been obscured.

Finally you say that, "there is no response from Cole," on the page as it stands now. Had Cole written a letter to the NROnline replying to Karsh's points after Karsh actually made them, then that certainly would have been included in the article without any difficulty. The fact that he only replied on his blog, MONTHS after the Karsh piece came out, only AFTER the quote was put on Wikipedia, and with a preface that made it clear that he was replying to his Wikipedia entry as well as to Karsh is what made the inclusion of the reply problematic:

"Wikipedia, Karsh and Cole: An encyclopedia article should be an objective accounting of a person's life and work. The wikipedia entry on me is constantly being distorted by a small group of far rightwing activists who put the comments of my ideological critics up into the body in an attempt to discredit me."

.

Clearly we disagree, but honestly there's no reason to disagree in a way that is so hostile and judgemental of other POVs. Elizmr 00:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that Cole is a renowned blogger, one would have thought that a response on his blog could be taken seriously. He explains in his blog why he didn't respond to Karsh's smear. Why should he have? It's transparently bullshit to anyone with the least acquaintance with Cole. Writing a letter to the NROnline would only legitimate it. In any case, Karsh is not actually so far as I can see an expert on Cole, nor even an analyst of antisemitism. His academic background is of no relevance at all so far as what is described in the article is concerned (even though in the wider context, his attack on Cole's credentials makes his own of note). I'm very much opposed to the notion that "experts" should be allowed as sources for areas in which they do not actually have any expertise just because they hold a doctorate and an opinion. In this regard, Karsh is just some guy with a grudge against Cole. No balanced biography of Cole would bother mentioning that he smeared Cole. Why would it? It has not garnered much attention elsewhere. I'm afraid that there is every reason to disagree strongly with those who want it included, and I do so in much the same terms Cole himself does. It is a major weakness of Wikipedia that a determined and quite small group of editors can strongarm an article into presenting its subject in a particular way. Grace Note 07:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that someone who believes claiming that the Protocols resonate in Cole's writing is a "valid criticism" is deserving of if not hostility, then contempt. It's a quite outrageous thing to say about Cole. Equating a respected liberal commentator with neo-Nazis and the worst kind of antisemites is disgraceful. I don't believe there is any need to describe people of that kind with "neutral language". Blackening a man's name by linking him to the worst is precisely what a smear is! Grace Note 07:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to parse substance of your views (however you might note that National Socialism was considered a liberal movement at its time), but please note that Wikipedia guidelines about neutral language are there for a reason, and we all need to follow them. Elizmr 11:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Elizmr, it'd be nice if you'd keep the reductio ad hitlerums off my talk page. You want me to use neutral language, and tell me to avoid words like "smear." The neutral word for a smear is a smear, whether it's the kind Karsh unleashed in the New Republic, or the kind you're trafficking in right here, right now.--G-Dett 18:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I never heard of that one. I was only responding to GraceNote who left a note on your user page about my reply to you. I found her reply to be very attacking and troubling and should not have even replied back and I apologize for doing it on your user page. However, what I said was true, the national socialists did consider themselves liberal and therefore there is nothing mutually exclusive between being liberal and being antisemetic. Elizmr 22:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries Elizmr. Anyway I retract the pompous admonition – you can write whatever you like here. After all, one of the first and still most prominent things on my user page is praise from some crank's sockpuppet after he got kicked off of Wikipedia for antisemitism. My first and only fan, yikes.

You're right that there's nothing mutually exclusive historically between liberalism and anti-semitism. These are historical variables; their trajectories have crossed paths in the past and may do so again. "Nazi" and "neo-nazi" on the other hand are more firmly anchored in historical contexts, and don't travel well outside of them. When one starts throwing all these constants and variables and real numbers into loose association, however, and comes up with crazy rhetorical equations between Juan Cole and neo-nazis, or between human-rights-based criticism of the foreign policy of modern states on the one hand, and paranoid-conspiratorial hoax-mongering about a vulnerable ethno-religious minority in the 19th century, on the other, then what you get is sophistry. History as collage, rooted in specious arts of persuasion borrowed from the advertising industry, rather than any serious dialectic. And if you're a professor who's looking for a market for this kind of concoction, don't bother with the peer-review journals – send it right to the New Republic. They pay better and they're uh, liberals as well after all.--G-Dett 23:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines

A quote from the NAS page talk page, "I must say I'm accustomed to special pleading, double standards, and aggressive wikilawyering from these editors; what seems new however is the persistent shoe-horning in of bad-faith misrepresentations". Please see WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Elizmr 11:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks for your message. I see what you mean; I should stress, though, that I didn't mean my comments criticise the three editors whose edits I mentioned. It was more just to bring out that there were hasty words all round, and a good start would be for everyone to take a deep breath and start again. I've been in the same position, so I'm not trying to take some moral high ground; it's just that it's always easier for someone outside the debate to make that kind of point.

Anyway, I hope that I can be of help in this. There are obviously good editors on both (all?) sides of the debate, which is a good start. It's just a matter of finding compromises, or even agreement. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Progressive" Jewish Thought & The New Anti-Semitism

Hi G-Dett. The paper with the title "Progressive" Jewish Thought & The New Anti-Semitism may deserve it's own article. There is a lot of discussion about it even though it is such a recent publication. Over 10K google hits and many commentaries. Maybe you could get a few others to help flush it out. --70.51.230.180 23:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You really should create this article, because you can further the discussion you want to have more easily around this article than on the New Anti-Semitism article. Remember that time is precious and you have a choice on where you spend it. --70.51.230.180 00:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good point. Some of the disputes on the NAS page are so ludicrous, and some of the objections raised so obviously doomed to fail, that I wonder whether draining the energy of specific editors isn't part of the point.--G-Dett 01:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

IJV

Hi G-Dett -- Thought: Maybe someone should just write up a proposed section on the IJV formation, and then we could talk about whether the section was relevant. That might help focus the debate. Would you be willing to do that? It sounds like you've read much of the material. My feeling, as I suggested in the new section I started, is that it's relevant simply by presenting the primary criticism of the NAS theory, and particularly in response to alleged stifling of Leftist, and possibly Jewish Leftist voices. It strikes me as a very clear response to the "New Antisemitism" concept (the topic of the article), whether or not to the specific phrase. Anyway, if we had a proposed section, I simply think it might be easier to discuss. Your thoughts? Best, Mackan79 18:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to give input, I just haven't looked at it that closely yet. Also I think I'll be out till later this evening, but I'll check in then. As I think I said over there, I'd put it in the responses section, as one more response. E.g., "Some groups have responded by arguing that the concept improperly conflates fair criticism with antisemitism," etc. I'll try to look through the material more carefully tonight. Best, Mackan79 19:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Input wanted

Since you was active in the original discussion that motivated the branch-out into it's own article you may want to have a look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 22#Antisemite (epithet) and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 22#Category:Pejorative political terms. // Liftarn

List of references

By the way. Do you still have that list of references about the use of antisemite as an epithet? // Liftarn

Nevermind, I found them. // Liftarn

Thanks

Thank you for your support regarding SlimVirgin's and Jayjg's traducing of my comments. I have asked both of them on their talk pages to discuss the matter in an attempt to resolve the issue. —Ashley Y 03:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

(Also, I'm a "he", though it doesn't really bother me...) —Ashley Y 20:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks here as well for the continuing kindness. Also, though, did you see that Slim and Jay are trying to delete your comment about their conspiracy allegations?[5] If they continue I think I'll file an AN/I, but I thought I should let you know about it first. Best, Mackan79 13:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, how's it going?

So I finally decided to put my two cents into the Israeloi apartheid debate. I wanted to ask you, bsed on your long history of working on that pagem what we would have to do to get Allegations of Israeli apartheid moved to its proper title Israeli apartheid. Can I just go ahead and start an article under that name? Should we move the existing article to that name? How cna it be done, because this "allegations" bs in the title is so weasal wordy, it's just got to go. Tiamut 14:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Taimut. My thoughts on the title of that article are here.[6]

--G-Dett 23:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There are at least 5 or 6 of us that would be willing to propose this, I say we all declare our intent and then move the page! This has gone on for far too long, Israelis like User:Okedem cannot be allowed to censor Muslim, Socialist and Arab editors! --MiddleEastern 14:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey G-Dett. Your comments were really well-articulated on the talk page, and while I fully see your point on the use of "allegations" actually making it seem like a legal issue (which it is), I just can't abide by this kind of weasal wording. And not because of the potlicis, but because if Wikipedia really wants to produce a serious encyclopedia there has to some standards that are applied evenly across the board. I'm going to support the page move (I know you have said you will too, despite your preference to focus on the content for now, having been through that debate earlier). I hope this time, reason rather emotion, prevails. Tiamut 17:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My support is assured.--G-Dett 18:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit by User:MiddleEastern

As you surmised, I reverted this user's edit to your talk page because we do not allow candidates for adminship to advertise their RfA in that way. Since User:MiddleEastern's RfA has now closed it doesn't matter if the edit remains here or not. Thanks, Gwernol 15:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg removed my warning on his talk page

Hello, since you are (involuntarily) involved in the dispute regarding jayjg's accusations of antisemitism (on the Talk:Israeli apartheid page), I would kindly like to ask you your opinion of this. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 15:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

and now its my turn

I believe you once invited me to join the discussion at Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Now I would like to invite you to join in developing Separation policy (Israel), if you are interested. During the course of the discussion at the allegations of Israeli apartheid page, it struck me that the evidence indicating that there is a "separation policy" (reliably sourced and in English) is readily available. This naming of the thing is also less controversial (apartheid isn't in the title) and easier to document. That is not to say that Allegations of Israeli apartheid should go. No. There should be an article outlining the use of the term Israeli apartheid (per the model we discussed for Islamofascism), and perhaps there should even be another page called Allegations of Israeli apartheid that explores the apartheid system as it extends beyond what is documented of the separation policy. Anyway, thought you might be interested. Tiamut 19:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I merged the information in Separation policy (Israel) into the Hafrada article where I should have added it in the first place. Take a look and let me know what you think. Tiamut 04:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's as if this one were designed with you in mind (though others no doubt await to be bestowed upon you as well

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		for considering almost everything and everyone with the same respect and critical judgement while eloquently and throughly putting forward your contributions and keeping everybody smilingTiamut 21:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

PS I loved your Alice-related observations. Tiamut 21:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the good work and don't let the Zionist POV pushers mess with you too much. 72.88.150.237 06:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong semi-protection tag on your user page

Sorry about that. I am most embarrassed, I put the wrong template on there. Now fixed. Best, Gwernol 19:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

New Antisemitism

Hi G-Dett and thanks very much for the work I can see you have put in on the above page. I think you may be co-ordinating the work of editors of a particular viewpoint that I am associated with. This is just to flag up that whenever the page is unprotected attention needs to be paid to the mentions of the positions of MPACUK. Currently there are statements attributed directly to the report of the All-Parliamentary Inquiry, whereas in one case they are from evidence submitted to the inquiry. And I don't think it should be implied that the organisation is straightforwardly "Islamist", when the Inquiry report makes it clear that it is keen to occupy a mainstream position. If I need to elucidate these points elsewhere, I'd be happy to do so. Thanks. Itsmejudith 10:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'll make the points to CJ. Itsmejudith 15:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Request For Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/David Irving, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/David Irving. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

The image on your userpage

The article for Tura Satana states that this is a screenshot from Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!. As such, it's mislabelled, may fail fair use policy, and is in any event ineligible to appear in userspace. Do you knwo whether that is indeed the case? -- Y not? 18:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is precisely what I am questioning. This dude put that down - doesn't mean it's true. This implies that he was there in 1965 to snap the picture, because photoshopping something doesn't give you the copyright to it. Is it possible he was there? Yes, but not likely. So all I am asking is, do you know otherwise? Because if you don't, then I am relabelling this as a movie screenshot. -- Y not? 18:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have relabelled it as unfree, and it's got to come out of userspace. I am sorry you're losing your image - I hope you can find a suitable replacement. -- Y not? 19:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

arabs in israeli society

I'm completely aware of how they are looked at by racist Israeli's. They're seen as "niggers" or "sand-monkeys" by the Israeli racists. Arab racists portray Jews as hooknosed monsters who seek to dominate the world and drink the blood of gentiles. Holocaust denial, blood libel, etc. these all find a place within the arab/muslim media.

But first off, to claim that either of these racist factions represent the mainstream of either side would be pushing it way too far. Secondly, to claim that either Arab racism against Jews or Jewish racism against Arabs has the same pathology as European or American racism is also a falsehood-- the hatred and false stereotypes stem from a feeling of victimhood on both sides, not from theories of racial superiority.

I oppose both such racist views, of course. But, I also oppose ascribing racist views and policies to the Israeli government where they don't exist. It seems like you were trying to make a criticism of far-right Israeli society and fundamentalism and ended up falsely slandering the entire Israeli state and its policies.--Urthogie 23:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Jewish only roads" in this context, then, I wouldn't really disagree with. But the connotation of the phrase is that Israel arbitrarily separates its roads by religion. In the end the only criticism that "Jewish only roads" amounts to is the fact that Jews are the only people going from one far-right settlement to another. So the problem here isn't "Jewish only roads" but rather, the existence of the settlement-- so to focus on the former seems rather deceptive, as if there's an intent to paint Israel a certain way to make it look racist (unless of course, Palestinians truly want to have lunch with some of the crazies in these settlements. Although that might be stockholm syndrome). Between you and me it perhaps makes sense, but for an uninformed onlooker it makes it sound like Israel has some kind of segregation policy that extends beyond the roads from one far-right settlement to another.

I think you have to recognize that the settlements exist because of a positive auto-catalytic process:

terrorism/voting for hamas --> increased support for settlements --> terrorism/voting for hamas --> increased support for settlements.

But the way I see it, Israel has unilaterally disengaged from Gaza. Most Israelis want a two-state solution. Israel doesn't elect people who want all the settlements to remain-- even the right wing of Israeli politics has made positive steps towards the two-state solution (think Sharon's disengagement plan). On the other side, the Palestinians have elected Hamas, who have racist views of their opponents ingrained into law, glorify attacks on civillians, and wants a religious state covering the whole region-- everything the far-left would have you think Israel supports, but in reality actually doesn't. The far-right culture you criticize in Israel is a substantial minority, but in the PLO it's the mainstream.

Now of course Israel--like the Palestinains-- could end this auto-catalytic process by voting for the right people. But Israel is a democracy, meaning change can only happen when people are ready to vote for it. Israelis feel that Palestinians take an all or nothing attitude-- giving them the west bank would just be another victory for Hamas in their quest to take over the whole region (which they already think they own all of) as an Islamic state. Hamas makes voting for complete 1967 borders peace impossible with both its rhetoric and its actions so I can't help but blame the continued existence of the settlements on Hamas, and in turn, on the Palestinian public for voting them into office. While the two-state solution has a plurality of support among Palestinians, it doesn't yet have a majority. When it get's a majority, and they recognize in larger numbers that a two-state solution is the way to go, peace will come.--Urthogie 13:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't how it looks from the perspective of Palestinians, and those who have spent time within their communities in the West Bank (as journalists, activists, NGO workers, friends and family, whatever).

That's because Palestinians who call Israel or its policy "apartheid" tend to think all of Israel is illegimate. Even some of the most centrist Israeli-Arabs I've talked to don't even think there is an Israel-- they take the Iranian view of a Zionist "entity" with no legitimate moral justification in historic Palestine. From this perspective--whether extreme or moderate-- there is no such thing as a political barrier, only differences in how people are treated in a place called "Palestine." Hence, not recognizing Israel is tied intimately to this analogy. Most journalists don't agree with the Palestinians who use the analogy, by the way.--Urthogie 15:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Remember, this conversation began as an explanation for what animates the apartheid metaphor in people's minds. Regardless of how laws and policies are worded on paper, what people see in the West Bank is Jewish-only roads.

A rational person sees settler-only roads. They are all Jewish, yes, but why is that the focus here when it's clearly a political issue of boundaries and where settlements should not be?--Urthogie 15:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The settlements don't exist because of terrorism, but of course you're right that terrorism fuels a rightward slide in the average Israeli. Naturally. The converse, which you overlook, is also true. Support for Hamas on the eve of the second intifada was around 7%.

Because Israel is a democracy, and also because the world sees palestinians terrorism on the news so much, the settlements exist indirectly because of terrorism. Support for Hamas was low in the Oslo accords, yes, but you don't need major support to blow up a bus. The terrrorist attacks increased immediately after Oslo was signed. What is needed is opposition to Hamas among the Palestinians. This is the only way to stop a mass movement of terrorists.

Peace won't come when Palestinians elect "the right people." This is a purely rhetorical statement with nothing to recommend it descriptively or prescriptively. Palestinian elections are not taken seriously by the U.S. or Israel as an expression of the will of the Palestinian people, for one thing, but more importantly, the idea that an extremely asymmetrical war can be brought to a close through electoral decisions made by the weaker and occupied side is absurd.

No, it's not absurd at all. It's rather simple logic. If the Palestinians oppose terrorism the support for the settlements would collapse. To claim that because they are the weaker party they have no obligation to stop violence is the only absurd thing here.--Urthogie 15:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Israel and the U.S. hold the cards, and despite all the ridiculous rhetoric, it is Palestinians who are fighting an existential war (Israel will exist in ten years, and in 100 hundred years, but the same cannot be said with certainty of Palestine).

There is no Palestinian war for existence. In fact, the war is the only thing preventing their existence as a people with a state. If they renounced terrorism, as a people, they would have a state in no time. I tell this to far-leftists and even they agree with me-- if the Palestinians ceased terrorism, the settlements would collapse.

Also, I'm not sure Israel will exist in 10 years or 100 years. I'm really not. I think it's likely that the of Islamists in Iran may nuke the country. And I don't think the world would do anything to that faction once Israel was gone.

So, no, this isn't an existential war for the palestinians. They stop terrorism, they have a state for centuries. It is an existential war for Israel, and it holds the cards only in the short term.--Urthogie 15:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Peace will come when the moral, diplomatic, political and economic costs of the occupation are too much for Israel to bear.

Yes, why don't you tell that to the people shooting rockets at Israel from Gaza.--Urthogie 15:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, people often overlap and contradict in their opinions, this is true. There's a phrase in Israel-- talk to two Israelis and you'll get three opinions, and I bet this is likely true for Palestinians as well. But the key factor for me is that you rarely hear in the mainstream Israeli rhetoric today an opposition to a Palestinian state-- hell, in the Holocaust you didn't even hear opposition to a German state from most Jews, so there is likely cultural factors involved here too-- or at least I think so.... Well, anyways, nice talking to you and I'll keep many of the things you said in my head while I reflect as well. Peace, --Urthogie 16:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the greetings G-Dett

It's good to be back. And very good to see you are still here and still in good spirits. :) Tiamut 21:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In this Wikiwonderland, we don't really get to make the rules ... but the times they are a changing.

WikiProject Palestine is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of members at WikiProject Palestine. Ahlan wa Sahlan! Welcome!

Tiamut 20:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You've been temporarily blocked from editing for violating 3RR at Pallywood. Please use the time off become more familiar with Wikipedia's policies. FeloniousMonk 03:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That only took half an hour. You should be more careful of the tag-team editing, they do it on purpose, as you can see here --Coroebus 10:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not, in fact, violated 3RR, though given SlimVirgin's deliberately deceptive summary of the situation, which is part of a general low-level campaign of personal harassment on her part, I can see why FeloniousMonk believed that I did.--G-Dett 13:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How have you not violated 3RR? It certainly looks like you have at first glance. But hey, happens to the best of us, but bear in mind that people do count and will jump on you if you do it during an edit war. --Coroebus 21:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The "fourth" revert was not a revert at all: Jay objected to my inclusion of a quotation translated from German, and suggested that it was better to paraphrase foreign-language sources, so I did. When I followed Jay's suggestion in an effort at compromise, Slim reported it as a violation of 3RR. Her report took care to elide the distinction between quoted material and paraphrase – the very distinction that she and Jay cited as grounds for edit-warring over the material in the first place. Have a look at the dispute here. --G-Dett 22:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that's kinda arguable, Jayjg did say that his disagreements with your edit included that it should be a paraphrase rather than quote, so your edit inserted a paraphrase rather than a quote, but he also raised other objections (e.g. saying it wasn't relevant), so they'll fall back on those to justify the block. I have a hunch that even if he hadn't raised other objections, you'd still have been blocked anyway. --Coroebus 07:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I dunno; the question I see is normally about whether you replaced specific text, not an idea. If she'd avoided using any of the same words, for instance, I don't think it could have been called a 3RR. So she did use three of the same words, but in an undeniably original sentence. (Slim clearly saw the problem, since she kept stating that the words were inserted over objection, as if those words were the issue, which wasn't true). Considering Jay's suggestion that the material be summarized, that's why I suggested it wasn't necessarily either a technical or a spirit violation. Mackan79 14:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The 3RR rule works in two ways, only the first of which was intended by its architects: 1. it helps to prevent edit wars, disruptiveness, and editorial intransigence; and 2. it creates a sort of chess game for dueling editors. With regards to the case in question, #1 was not served well. It's pretty clear how cooperation and intransigence, constructiveness and disruptiveness, sorted with regards to the two sides in the dispute. As far as #2 goes, theirs was an elegant knight's move and I have renewed respect for their strategy. My sense of their intellectual seriousness and editorial good faith remains what it was.--G-Dett 14:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Totally empathize having been blocked in very similar circumstances with the same players myself once. Very little in the way of recourse. Policies seem to have implementory variability - both letter or spirit are malleable to some administrators and others don't feel like taking those rhetoricians on. Live and learn, and keep on keeping on. Tiamut 16:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, please keep in mind you have again reverted 3 times on the page, though with more complex reverts. I would hate it if you were blocked again, so please take care not to revert any text in the article. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad you asked. Your edit undid, for example, this edit (and several similar ones). All the best. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Pallywood

You do realize that only about 3 wikipedia articles link to Pallywood and that the term is the providence of racist sites like Little Green Footballs. Maybe it is just me, but I prefer not too put too much effort into transparent propaganda, especially propaganda that is preaching to a racist choir and is based on the assumption that all members of one group are deceptive (which is the foundation of prejudicial thinking.) I read through some of the discussion there and the obvious undercurrent over there convinces me not to get involved. There are better uses of your time elsewhere such as Education_in_the_Palestinian_territories and United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. --Abnn 19:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The insistence on inserting one completely non-notable 2002 Usenet reference into a Wikipedia article seems calculated to waste the time of good-faith editors. PalestineRemembered 17:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole Pallywood article is a waste of time. There are things of orders of magnitude more important to work on, see Portal:Palestine/Opentask. --Abnn 18:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Animal acceleration

Well there is actually more than one way to measure an organism's speed, simply measuring m/km per hour is really only about as popular as another way which actually takes the creature's body length into consideration. But even if one ignores this detail, I still think the supercar reference was misleading since while Cheetahs are the fastest non-flying animal (many birds can actually fly much faster, look at Swift for example), they aren't exactly the quickest. Many of their prey may be able to reach 0 to 20 mph or so faster. Anyways, I don't know why I'm making such a big deal over this argument, I guess I just have too much spare time today.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Your comments at Flying checkpoint were much appreciated. I will try to keep track of developments there but I have really had it with Isarig (talk · contribs). I have been going through the edit histories of articles I have been working on and he has followed me to no less than 10 articles since the 3 May, beginning with the Sabeel article. Invariably, he has deleted much sourced info I have added using dubious argumentation, all the while accusing me of POV pushing. That is not to mention our previous run-ins at Law of Return, Arab citizens of Israel and elsewhere in the past. Do you know what I can do or where I can go to report this kind of wikistalking, harassment and violation of policies? Are there any other remedial options available to deal with user problems of this kind? Thanks. Tiamut 19:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

PS. I should also mention that I have similar problems with Tewfik (talk · contribs) and that they often seem to be working in tandem in their efforts to "regulate" my contributions. Tiamut 19:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Evidence

In brief, I found ChrisO's comments to be extremely misleading, leaving out key details. One of my contentions was that he is not actually uninvolved, and shouldn't present himself as such (as I haven't presented myself). The diffs, in context, attempt to demonstrate his lining up on a specific side in support of that contention. I'm sure that if I had brought evidence against someone that others thought was misleading, they would have attempted to show that as well. Let me know if you have further questions. Regards, Tewfik^Talk 20:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you that most or all of us often line up. However, it seemed to me at least, that ChrisO presented himself as neutral and outside that "lining up", which along with [in my view] leaving out key details about his interaction with Jayjg, presents an unfair and misleading image. While I agree that responses and responses to responses can ultimately be disruptive, I don't know that it would be fair to simply accept what is written. Tewfik^Talk 21:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You go, girl!

(Pardon the title, but I couldn't help myself after you revealed your gender here. Hope you don't mind too much.) This for your bravery standing up to certain "POV" bullies in the arena of the Alex Cockburn article. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Your note

I don't remember but I suppose it has the same explanation as this edit that I just saw on the same page, by an admin. [7]--Mantanmoreland 22:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop harassing me and do not post on my talk page.--Mantanmoreland 16:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking to request a Checkuser but need edits more recent than Tomstoner's, consider requesting a check of User:Doright and Mantanmoreland. Just a thought. --70.192.31.108 00:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This interesting couple put in a recent but brief appearance over at Wikimedia Commons [8] . See the immediately previous section over there as well. Thincat 13:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For your courageous defence of PR which prevented him being unjustly banned. And for defying all those who tried to intimidate you into silence. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 05:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[I briefly skimmed over the said incident] Here, here. Scarian 20:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

You put forward powerful agruments with great clarity. A pleasure to read. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

New article

Hi G-Dett could have you have a look at this? PalestineRemembered 13:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

We may not agree on very much, but I do appreciate the spirit of cooperation you strive for. --GHcool 00:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

response to your question on my talk page re:Allegations of Apartheid TfD

I think the answer is obvious: "See also" is a fundamental part of the content we offer readers. A navbox is a way to navigate among different pages. One is a content issue, subject to content rules in wikipedia. The other is an optional navigation box, provided by editors as a convenience, that allows readers

There have been two POV concerns raised with the template:

One is that it is limited in scope to the "Allegations of apartheid" article and specific pages of allegations specific to countries, but not all countries listed in "Allegations of apartheid". I vigorously objected this POV, because navboxes are useful only insofar as they link to content, and by including a link to "Allegations of Apartheid", we de facto provide a direct link to the content for countries that lack sub-pages. This POV was both a bit disruptive, and a form of crystalballing, which presumed all content in "Allegations of apartheid" would at one point become sub-pages. I am sure you can read my responses in this regards if you see fit to.

The other concern is the one put forward by you and others that joining the articles in a navbox is in itself POV. Is this a fair representation?

This is a more direct concern, and a more valid reason for a TfD: it doesn't dwell on the contents of the navbox (I oppose resolving editing disputes by deletion), but the existence of the navbox idea itself.

I object this on a simple basis: the consensus in wikipedia is quite clear in only one thing around all these articles, that there is a parent page and all other similarly titled articles are sub-articles.

Now, I do understand that you and others object this consensus. Perhaps even you are right in your opposition (although quite ineffective in convincing others, I would say). However, this consensus is a clear one. That means that since there is consensus, and there is a significant list of subpages that makes for cumbersome "See Also" sharing, an ideal situation for a navbox arises. An naturally, wikipedia hates a vacuum.

I feel you and others that support this deletion are trying by bureaucratic means to cripple the existing consensus by robbing it a natural means by which to express itself: a navbox.

All of the points raised by you and others who support your POV are not real reasons for deleting a navbox template, but might be relevant reasons to raise an opposition to the "Allegations of apartheid" article and sub-pages, which is were the points should be raised in order to be more relevant. If the underlying reasons for the navbox disappear, it becomes useless, and hence I will support its removal. However, to put it in sympathetic terms to your POV: you are attacking the symptom and not the disease.

My own view in the consensus is that it is rather thin in some parts: certainly the allegations with regards of Brazil and Israel are much more relevant that the one around China. However, I am very keen on sourcing and notability, and all sub-pages are good on both counts, so I do not feel compelled to do anything but ensure they are well edited, and that our readers can access all content (hence my support for the navbox).

Since in all of these cases (including Israel) we are dealing with analogies (no country to date has been formally accused of the Crime of apartheid), we cannot set rules as to what constitutes analogy and what doesn't.

I draw the line on the use of the analogy to indicate the behavior of a non-State entity: apartheid is by definition not just discriminatory policy, but a State policy.

There is no use possible of the analogy that is not as an inflammatory, epithet if it is being used to describe discrimination within a non-State entity, and hence the encyclopedic value is very near the event horizon for null.

I suggest you read my contributions around "Allegations of Islamic apartheid" (whose successful AfD/merge with "Criticism of Islam" I supported) where you see I am consistent in this position: Islam is not a state, and the use of the analogy acquires encyclopedic value only in so far as it applies to States.

Hence I support the existence (although it has quality issues) of Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid, because it is a very notable well sourced set of allegations and counter-allegations, in some respects of even more quality - whatever the reasons - than Allegations of Israeli apartheid.

I hope this answers your question. Thanks! --Cerejota 02:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Hi G-Dett: Would you mind refactoring the added section as a comment? I noticed previous sections at the bottom were confusing people on where to post, and therefore moved them on to the talk page. I think your added section might work better as a comment though. Just a suggestion, but I think it might help. Cheers, Mackan79 18:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. Mackan79 18:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please comment

This is a message for all regulars at the “apartheid” AfD series. I believe there may have been a breakthrough. Please share your thoughts here. Thanks. --Targeman 02:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

switched my vote to merge on allegations of jordanian apartheid

--Urthogie 19:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR on Allegations of apartheid

No I'm not; consecutive edits count as one edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, I won't explain. If you can manage to go a full 24 hours without referring to me in any way in your Talk: page comments, or making any other comments about editors, not article content, then I'll start responding. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You're a troll, Jay, and increasingly, a vandal.--G-Dett 05:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Cut out the personal attacks, please. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please review the situation before commenting, thanks.--G-Dett 05:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hola amiga!

I see that tweedle dum and tweedle dee have been giving you a hard time again. Just thought I would pop in to say that you have been doing a great job in trying to balance the need to achieve consensus with core Wiki policies that address the issue raised at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid. In fact you deserve another barnstar for that which I will place it on your user page. Tiamat 14:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of French apartheid

I see you're quite al lot onto the Allegations of... articles, and I'm having some troubles in this one. I'd like your help please !

The events :

• I made, in my sense, some improvements to that ... I'll say inaccurate article for now : [9]
• I wrote long explanations on the talk page : [10] and Talk:Allegations_of_French_apartheid#History of allegations
• Jayjg came in and reverted all my changes answering me in the talk page in one line [11]
• I wrote another long explanation of what i did, using other sources, etc, [12], and asked keenly Jayjg to answer to it, insisting on the fact that i will wait for his views and his consensus before doing anything more on this article [13].
• He logged in, worked on others articles (Special:Contributions/Jayjg), but did not answered my message.

I see this as a deliberate choice to block the progress of the article, and I'm afraid that if I do any furthermore edits, all will be reverted, without any efforts to understand the facts.

What should I do ? NicDumZ ~ 06:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Social apartheid

I've created an article on social apartheid since it's a term I've heard used recently in social development circles. I don't want to get enmeshed in the debates that seem to be swirling around use of the term outside of South Africa but I do see a need for an article. What do you think?

Your response to poll

Hi G-Dett. Could you please go to the Talk:Palestinian_people#Poll section, and clarify what you would like your response to be? There is currently some disagreement about your intent based on your specific past comment. It's not that you did anything wrong, it's just that we are trying to compile responses into one place. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 18:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Apartheid

My attempt to change the names of two articles to the more accurate "Social apartheid in Brazil" and "Urban apartheid in France" have been undone despite the fact that these are more accurate. There are no such terms as "French apartheid" or "Brazilian apartheid" and the titles are far too broad considering the content. What is the proper procedure for getting an article name changed? There is a preliminary discussion of changing the name of the French article to "exclusion sociale" as that is the proper term. See Talk:Allegations_of_French_apartheid#Factual_title

I also think the Saudi article can be deleted since it's almost entirely quotations and there's nothing there that can't go into Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia#Women.27s_rights or Status_of_religious_freedom_in_Saudi_Arabia. How do I propose deletion? Thanks. -- LOTHAR

Oh, Steely One

Sorry, but I couldn't resist responding to what you wrote (and can't really do it on the talk page since Mackan (probably rightly) deleted the relevant section). You may well be made of steelier stuff than, but CJ missed (and you apparently would have missed) cues that Kiyosaki was an antisemite and a troll. I think it is, as you say, no big deal--not everyone has a knack for this. But it was pretty obvious to me at the time, and to others as well. To say that a source isn't credible because it is "Jewish" is cause for concern, concern CJ seems not have engaged in. I note also your defense of Cerejota. I might be inclined to take you seriously on that point, were it not for Cerejota's reminding us all that you were "tainted" by the whole Kiyosaki affair. Too bad, and I was just beginning to have hope for you... ;) IronDuke 04:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, G-Dett. Sorry it took me so long to respond, busy in RL. Not entirely sure what to make of your message, especially the dogpile part. If I read you correctly 1) I admire your compassion but 2) I have little use for folks who disrupt (an already tense) discussion.

You may have been speaking tongue in cheek, but I would give myself credit for a knack for sniffing out antisemites. Sometimes I leave them be, hoping to dialogue with them (which I think I’ve had some limited success with, long story). I (truly) don’t know what you are referring to when you talk about good editors who have been smeared. (I assume it’s not Homey!) I think some folks on your side are happy to have antisemites with them, as long as it helps them “win.” Speaking only for myself, if anybody wants to express anti-Muslim/Arab/Palestinian sentiment here, I’d like to be first to show them the door. I do not want them on my side, not for any reason, I wish others sympathetic to your views felt the same. IronDuke 02:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD Allegations_of_Chinese_apartheid

Hi. I appreciate you taking the time to write such a detailed response. I will probably comment there. But I did notice one point, maybe not worth discussing there. You said "It's also original research to classify all these different verbal and rhetorical acts as 'allegations.' No reliable source has ever called them that,...." Well. Are you absolutely sure about that? Your claim implies an incredibly high standard of NOR for using classification terms in WP. It seems to me that journalists and encyclopedias constantly have to make judgment calls about how to classify and describe statements. What is an "allegation", what is a "minority view" (see WP:FRINGE on levels of acceptance), etc. I understand that we rely on reliable sources for statements, but isn't how we classify the statements partly our judgment? Isn't that what the FRINGE and UNDUE etc policies expect of us here? Thanks again for listening. HG | Talk 18:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and generosity w/your time. It may surprise you, but think I agree with your substantive critique of the use of the Dalai Lama and Jimbo quotes. However -- and this is crucial -- I don't think you are putting your substantive findings in the correct WP process categories. Those quotes should be omitted from the article because they misinterpret, misquote, etc sources. It's not a matter of original research. If all quotes are misinterpreted, then there's no article content. Empty article. But there are clear, scholarly studies that use the word apartheid to describe China policy. Anyway, I replied on the AfD. I think the key question here is how hard we are willing to work to find NPOV language for the TITLES. Force the parties to negotiate on the title they can both live with. This title will drive the content. (E.g., is it an article about policies or about rhetoric?) Then, within the article, they need to hash out how to use loaded, POV terms like apartheid. IMO. What do you think? HG | Talk 20:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if I got it, you don't prefer "allegations" as the term. But here's what I hear you saying: You can live with allegations in the title, because you main objection is notability. Right? ... In your initial response, you mentioned how they are pretending notability, and I said people pretend. If you look at the text, or if you do a Google Scholar search (which was what I did), I'm confident you'll find that there are highly notable and substantive statements that clearly refer to (aka allege or analogize) Chinese programs. Really, I think the Notability objection is a non-starter. So what else is a plausible basis for deletion? Thanks. HG | Talk 21:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If I'm reading him correctly, Ideogram himself agrees that Hokou at least is analyzed as apartheid, in a notable enough way for inclusion in WP. Let's drop allegations for a sec. Do you agree that there is notability for: Analysis of [some] Chinese policies as apartheid?

Ok, now I'm about to drop a load of text. Please glance at it and remove it, so I don't seem rude on your Talk page. This text is what I found, followed by Jayjg's cites. Thanks. HG | Talk 23:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

<snip by HG>

Please delete the preceding, thanks!! HG | Talk 23:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again! Thanks so much for your kind words on Friday. Since you are the nom, I hope you will seriously consider an idea I've floated on the talk page. The idea is to first focus on the NPOV requirements for the TITLE ONLY. Some key keep-voters already support such name changes for some other of these apartheid articles, so you may get consensus for a MOVE & Rename. Second step is to deal with your concern with NOR, which may become less relevant after the rename. I would appreciate your identify which statements (G1-5, H1-3) you like, reject, or would amend. If the whole idea is a non-starter, well, just let me know, ok? BTW, I've thought more about what you've said about the word allegations needed to be verifiable, and I feel partly persuaded. Thanks for reading this. Take care. HG | Talk 03:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for another gracious note! You are clearly working hard and trying to do what's right for wikipedia. The AfD is not yet settled and, since I think you are amenable, I would like to prod you a bit. Your recent barnstar says you don't give up hope, so let's not presume forced mediation. Also, as nominator, despite your anger etc over ulterior motive, you have a responsibility to continue trying to achieve consensus on your AfD. There are two proposed modified votes explained under my Note (H1.a and H1.b). While these are not your first choice, could you live with either one and prefer it to a "no consensus" closure? Could you live with Delete, or failing that , then (H1a) or (H1b)? ....... Thanks again. Take care, HG | Talk 14:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on the acceptance of your AfD! And your (and others) NOR argument carried the day. So now I feel guilty about prodding you, above, and hope you'll chalk it up to my earnestness. Take care. HG | Talk 02:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 04:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Middle East Media Research Institute

You may wish to take a look at the RFC for this article.--NSH001 21:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD notification

Just a note to let you know that Allegations of Chinese apartheid, which you nominated for deletion, has now been deleted following the closure of the AfD discussion. -- ChrisO 01:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid

G'day, G-Dett. 3 q's, if you don't mind. You stated: "some of the most interesting material on the Israel-South Africa comparison does not focus exclusively or even predominantly on comparisons of state guilt or on how to fairly characterize human-rights violations". I think here you're claiming that the scope of Human rights in Israel and Israeli-occupied territories would be too limited. (1) Would you mind giving me very brief examples (i.e., names of categories not covered)? (2) Not having see them (ie judging for myself) would this material fit under Israeli policies, govt, or the like? (3) On the claim that it's so interesting, is this a personal view, a view held widely by Keep-Voters for the Article, and/or a verifiable view? For 3rd q, at the risk of sounding a bit impolitic, I'd also appreciate knowing your level of confidence in your estimation.

Since I imagine that many people involved already know the answers here, I prefer if you'd reply to my Talk page. I appreciate your indulging me yet again. Best wishes. HG | Talk 20:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm grateful for the information. And the encouragement, which helps too! I appreciate how you handled responses to my Talk and the Article Talk. Based on your information/advice, I've raised a follow up question to Tiamut. Does that seem responsive, and possibly fair and neutral? It'd be great if you reply, though perhaps under your own main comments on G1-2. Thanks! Oh, for my Talk page, am I allowed to put in headings like "Response by Tiamut" Response by G-Dett? (ignore all rules?) HG | Talk 09:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm wondering if any of the people who feel comfortably with the grounds (G1-2) we've discussed, might entertain the possibility of proposing a Requested Move. That is, provided we can narrow in on a better Article Name. If you might entertain this possibility, what else might be helpful in deciding? Thanks for replying when you have a chance. HG | Talk 17:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC) cc: Tiamut, Cerejota

Thanks for your note, good to hear from you. One q is whether there's anything constructive I can do before I leave town for 2 weeks. I feel like I've tried to encourage an orderly conversation. My question about is this. You've just mentioned that "Many of the title suggestions that have been made are acceptable to me." Plus, you have strong policy grounds to want a Move to an acceptable title. So, what would it take for you to submit the request for a move? Do you need to draft and get feedback on the argumentation? A straw poll? Others to endorse the name? (If you don't want to over-emphasize a particular formulation, I think an RM can be worded as "Request Move to XXX, YYY or ZZZ title, something similar.") Look forward to your reply. HG | Talk 18:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

BYT's proposal might act in your favor, while securing compromise

BYT's proposal would simultaneously focus the page on the rhetoric rather than a debate over supposed "apartheid" while at the same time changing Israel's "apartheid allegation" article to no longer fit the series, thereby furthering your efforts to eliminate the templates and the non-Israel allegations articles in it. It could possibly be a win-win. Thoughts?--Urthogie 20:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A reply

G, thanks for the note. Yes, I am aware that the Forward is a Jewish newspaper. So why is it bad to say so? In context, Kiyosaki was saying that Carter was a better source than the Forward “which is a Jewish newspaper.” I’m not saying that he should have been permabanned for that comment. Obviously, no one complained. But for sensitive editors, you look twice at a remark like that. You combine that with his generally trollish lack of ability to present anything like coherent arguments, and his relentless inability to concede any point, and a pattern starts to develop.

I appreciate our providing examples of what you were talking about, but it’s a bit hard for me to comment on whether the attacks (specifically against Mackan) were warranted. I can say that he appeared to have followed Slim to at least two articles, which is never going to get you on the right side of someone. I also think Jay’s right when he points out that there was a pattern to Mackan’s edits that could make people uncomfortable and give him a long, hard look; a lot of antisemitic editors get their toes wet in just the way Mackan seemed to be doing. Which is not to say that I think Mackan is an antisemite: I honestly have no opinion on the matter. It’s just, when one’s edits seem to follow a pattern of minimizing claims of antisemitism, one is going to be scrutinized, perhaps to an uncomfortable degree. As for Chris, I agree with you that the comment you linked to was objectionable. And again, I have no specific reason to believe ChrisO is an antisemite. However, I don’t think that one remark comprises some sort of cabal against him however. I would, by the way, say it’s pretty clear Chris abused admin powers in deleting an article in the apartheid series: he’s an editor who’s made no secret of the fact that he hates all of them but one. (And I think I’m right in saying this isn’t the first time he’s done something like that.)

At any rate, I appreciate having the opportunity to discuss these issues with someone who a) seems to disagree with me about a lot and b) is almost as smart as me. ;) (As smart as I?) IronDuke 01:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

An Islamofascism moment

Re:

As this is an IAR moment, I am not keen to do the same with Islamofascism. If others want to pursue a change of this sort for Islamofascism, that is their business, but I would urge everyone to abstain from linkage.

Point taken, and I will so abstain. Consider my proposal amended to relate only to the Israeli apartheid article. I will support Israeli "apartheid" controversy.

On a separate point, may I ask for your thoughts on what constitutes a responsible next step for Islamofascism? BYT 15:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The term is notable, we agree there. I'm not saying there shouldn't be an article. (I did say that for a while, but it now seems like arguing there shouldn't be an article for Lindsay Lohan.)

I'm saying that the inherent bias in the title, and the blatant violation of naming policy, is appalling and embarrassing, and that someone should propose a responsible rename. BYT 15:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,Newyorkbrad 18:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)