User talk:Steve Hart/Archive 1

Welcome

Hello Steve Hart/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Deckiller 02:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of South-East European Jews

I have seen your most helpful contribution here. Lists of Jews are, for some reason, an extremely controversial subject. One of the editors on that List seems to be one of the main people involved [wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antidote][wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Antidote]. Would it be possible for you to e-mail me please?--Brownlee 10:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Check your email -- Steve Hart 16:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

You did a good amount of NPOV cleanup today, much appreciated :) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yhanks! Feedback always feels so good ... -- Steve Hart 01:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3O

Just to let you know, I think you forgot to remove the third opinion you recently weighed in on from the list on the page. I've done it for you now :) —Xyra e l _{/ 09:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Yes, I did. Thank you for taking care of it for me. :) -- Steve Hart 12:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Hi Steve. You seem to have misinterpreted recent edits on List of German Jews and List of Hungarian Jews. Not every change every made to a list needs a consensus among users for two reasons: WP:OWN in which users cannot keep hedgemony over a specific article and WP:BOLD in which users can freely edit pages as long as guidelines are followed in such edits. What cannot be done is the addition or substraction of names from a list without a source qualifying an addition or a lack-of sources qualifying a substraction. The only names to be removed from List of German Jews were Helmut Schimdt, which no sources exist calling him a "German Jew" despite being of 1/4th German descent (and old discussions have instituted an unwritten rule stating that people of 1/4th Jewish descent who do not practice Judaism cannot be added to lists of Jews]] and Theodor Heuss who is lacking a source all together. Thanks for keeping an eye on these pages though. We need more of that especially when some users consistently re-add the same reference-less names to the list. For any question or comments you can leave me a message on User Talk:The Jujugoe or ping me (easier for my dynamic IP and cookies issue) at TheJujugoe@yahoo.com. 16:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I understand that WP:CON doesn't mean unamity, and that edits can still be done ref. other guidelines. I got involved by giving a Third Opinion; a user later emailed me, apparently frustrated, asking for my help. I reverted after a second email, though I might have been hasty (it was pretty late). However, it's my understanding that there's a deeper disagreement about who should or should not qualify, and that should be sorted out on talk. I might very well be wrong. Personally I have no opinion (but I sense WP:BLP might come into play). -- Steve Hart 17:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I see there's a broader discussion taking place at Talk:List of German Jews, so I'll be replying over there -- Steve Hart 19:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve. Well the broader dispute is not a simple one-on-one type dispute. It's one thats been going on for months, even years, amongst many people about who to consider Jewish or who not to. Take a look at the massive discussions and changes that went on at List of British Jews over a long span of time. The problem is that Jewish seems to be the only designation thats both an "ethnicity" (less so scientifically in terms of European people than self-identification-wise) and a "religion" so the span of who's Jewish is enormous. The problem is many of the lists have started to become way too broad and inclusive in their scope. People were beginning to add people of 1/4th Jewish ancestry or 1/2 Jewish ancestry though no association with Judaism to lists, and thus a new policy of finding references indicating Jewishness before adding a name was begun a long time ago. Many users still don't follow this (users such as User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg) and add people to the lists without any sources indicating Judaism (or sometimes even the nationality in question). It seems that Jewish lists don't want to follow the same standards that all other lists do. For example, you're gonna find it hard to findsomeone with 1/4th Italian ancestry on a list of Italians but probably not hard at all on a list of something-jews (even if that person didn't ever practice Judaism). Take Marconi as an example. Most people don't know he's in fact half Irish ethnically, despite him being born, raised, and living in Italy, speaking Italian, being culturally Italian etc. etc. For all the reasons listed, we wouldn't be surprised to find out Marconi isn't on List of Irish people nor any Irish categories. However, for some reason, it's wouldn't be equivalent if Marconi was half Jewish and yet still culturally Italian. We would readily find him on the List of Italian Jews and under Jewish categories. For that reason, we need reliable sources calling someone a "something Jew" or "something" and "Jewish" in order to have them on that list. Most importantly, the sources can't be self-published, which has been a major problem. For example, adherents.com, nndb.com, jinfo.org are all self-published sites. I could buy a domain, host it on search engines, and do the same. It doesn't make me right unless I source my claim from somewhere else.

Anyway, sorry for long blab. I guess the point is we need sources explicitly saying a certain thing and can't just make up our own definitions for who counts as Italian/German Jewish/Mormon etc. Anyway, as to your comment for a username. I have one in which you can respond and I can read from User:The Jujugoe. I just can't edit from it for a reason similar to the following but more complex (I don't use Windows): [1]72.144.158.174 19:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for replying late. I agree with most of what you wrote. The main problem appears to be participants disagreeing on who qualifies. The adding and removing of names is based on that. I have reviewed the discussion again today, and I believe the next step should be either another "guideline" discussion on Talk, or a request for Mediation. (added later): Regarding sources, maybe a rule saying you need a second source to confirm the first one would be helpful, that's actually what's recommended by policy -- Steve Hart 21:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Yehuda Street Bombing

Thanks. Eixo 17:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your comments

Thank you for your comments and help. I wouldn't say I have much strong feeling about it but rather knowledge and interest. I can't help but try to fix many of the mistakes here in wikipedia. Many of the articles unfortunately are simply propaganda by Arab supporters and they don't reflect the facts. Many of them aren't WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE . What I try to do is bring serious sources which will show the things the way they actually are (as long as they're verfiable of course):

I understand that for some people, any person who is not an Arab or is called Benny Morris or Ilan Pappe (i.e New historians or Jews speaking against Israel) are in fact extremists. But it's not the case. The leftists on the boards are very eager and enthusiastic about themselves and seem to have a lot of time. That's fine, but they should learn to accept other researches.

I do not use any discussion boards, blogs etc, but only books, articles, news-sites and so on. Except for external links when it's relevant some personal sites may be used.

Thank you for handling the bombing page. I waited quite a lot of time and didn't see any objections, not that there's any reason there should be an objection according to NPOV policy in wikipedia. I wasn't sure how to redirect the page though - the discussion didn't have anything in it, but the history is indeed important of course.

The opinions I tried to put (very few) are only on the debates like you said.

This is not about opinions but about legtimiate historians and their researches. It doesn't always fall into line with the perspectives and belief that editors already established in their minds about their events, but it doesn't mean they don't have a place.

The label of the bombing just seems POV. Wikipedia should stop use the word "massacre" or name it on all massacres IMO. I saw articles being merged/deleted/moved before for name changes like this.

Thank you again for your comments and help.

Amoruso 20:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to you again. Amoruso 19:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani AfD

I fail to see how my vote is part of a "vote-stacking" conspiracy. Robcotton never contacted me in any manner, I merely stumbled upon the AfD while browsing for a videogame AfD. Also the other side has done more than its share of "votestacking". In fact, one "delete" voter tried to vote 3 times. An AfD is merely a discussion, not a vote.Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you browse the talk page, you will see that the votes hardly count. Both sides (not the good faith voters like us) have been cheating.Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mistaken. I haven't said you were engaged in votestacking, in fact nowhere have I mentioned your name, nor referenced you. I made a note on the Afd that a message (e.g. [2] ) has been dropped on multiple UT pages, as evident by the the "What links here" page. That's it. Personally I don't care whether the page stays or goes, but under its current definition it's unverifiable. -- Steve Hart 16:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Palestinian exodus. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Isarig 03:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect Isarig, you are the one who are bordering 3RR all the time. We have (or should have) a dicussion on talk and it would be nice if we can come to conclusions there before making changes -- Steve Hart 03:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"it would be nice if we can come to conclusions there before making changes" - cuts both ways. You seem to think it means your changes stay, while others' changes require consensus. Not so. Isarig 04:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. You are the one who have been reverting without engaging on talk, until today, even though I asked you to come there. The truthfulness of that source has been disputed by a majority of the editors and should be sorted out on talk first. -- Steve Hart 04:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject query

Hi there, I am doing some clean up on the list of proposed WikiProjects. I noticed that NPOV Backlog Taskforce has been listed for more than 60 days. Unless you object, I would like to remove it from the list since it is unlikely to receive further feedback. Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of South-East European Jews

Steve

Please can you look at this again. Your Third Opinion was that if someone was born in America, they could not be described as Greek unless they described themselves as Greek. I added Pete Sampras, who indeed describes himself as Greek. The other party who first consulted you now refuses to accpt your opinion when it no longer suits him.--20.138.246.89 13:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above user seems to be immensely confused by your sentence "In the case of Aniston (just an example), if she's normally referred to as an American, that's what she is (even if you could find one or two sources saying she's Greek), unless she refers to herself as Greek." in the third opinion of that list. He/she is not understanding that if someone is asked their ancestry and they respond "Greek" it is not the same thing as someone referring to themselves primarily as Greek as opposed to American. The dominant view is that Peter Sampras is American, born and bred, despite him responding to the implied question "What is your ancestry" with "I'm 75% Greek, 25% Jewish." Furthermore, if anyone wishes to see third opinions not accepted when they don't suit a user, one can view TALK:Tadeusz Kantor. 141.213.210.40 03:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above, I agree with the second poster. I would stress though that a Third Opinion is just that - an opinion. Steve Hart 00:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

compromise between Ian, Zero, Amoruso and Shamir1

Zero and Amoruso both agree (with many comments but on the principle). Shamir1 answered me but not to the questions. He told me the matter didn't only concern Katz. Ian didn't answer yet. With some diplomacy, I think there is a little chance the idea is a compromised for everybody. Alithien 20:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken my reply to the AMA page. Subsequently, I reviewed the comments on various talk pages and I'm afraid I don't agree with your assessment, but time will tell. -- Steve Hart 08:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]