Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:54, 16 September 2006

1st Archive

Good Job

Keep up the good work in Lehi. The narrower your criteria for truth, the better the quality of the article will be. Just be careful and be curteous even to users that you do not agree with and take a break if its gets too tense. Also get an email address.

Regards,

Guy Montag 17:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Guy Montag Derex 00:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

infrastructure

Hi amarouso, sorry to drop in uninvited. I changed the controversial thousands of buildings entry in the leb conflict section of the Israel page. The source you quoted said 6000 claims for damage, not 6000 buildings destroyed (the grauniad article I mean, the other source only deals with the human casualties) an insurance claim for damage could include a wrecked pool, a broken window or any other less serious incident. 950 Katushas may have been able to destroy thousands of buildings, i dont know, but if you provide a source that shows they did, please post it and change the article back. Boynamedsue 120604

Revisionist Zionism

Please see my recent comments at Talk:Revisionist Zionism. - Jmabel | Talk 22:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Lehi

It really is a fascinating group. Thanks for getting me interested. Derex 07:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"Peaceful" was actually a quote from Uri Davis in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. Now, I hope you'll be a little less smug and condescending in the future. And, that you will quit removing well-cited sources. But, I doubt it. I'll be watching; your attitude has ensured that. Derex 16:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't care who said it... you must grasp the issue of balances and not pushing one version over another. The article in question is articulate and complicated enough for you not to choose one random source and depict it as fact telling an incident. And your negative attitude is uncalled for, I don't know where your general animosity and belligerent approach comes from. It's a shame. Amoruso 16:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Samir Kuntar

no problem to add pro stuff. There's a section for it.. Amoruso 11:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I know it's tricky to find anything pro- on a person like this - well, tricky might be an understatement - but (and I know this sounds bad) just because he's a child killer and a terrorist, doesn't mean we shouldn't treat him fairly, surely? Tricky, as I know next to nothing about this man, but phrases like 'smashed in the 4 year old girls head' and the like don't really add anything to the article compared to something slightly more neutral, like 'bludgeoned the girl to death'. We can add the 'four-year-old' bit in earlier in the article. Also, why 'burst into', as opposed to 'entered' - did they burst into the building? Is that an opinion? Where do you draw the line between entering and bursting into? - and AFAIK 'suffocated to death' isn't grammaitcally correct! Finally, why did you remove 'by the Israeli authorities' from the phrase 'Kuntar was tried and convicted for the murders of Danny and Einat Haran by the Israeli authorities.'? HawkerTyphoon 12:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Could you reply to my talk page? thanks.

My friend . :

• Him being convicted by Israel can be added if you wish, but I think it's redundant as it's obvious who convicted him from the article. Authorities is what - police ? It's Israel's court of law (not military).

• As for suffocated to death, well, suffocated doesn't mean to death is it, so if it's not correct - suffocated and she died... something like that.

• burst into means they went in by force... they didn't just enter as the building was closed you know. They broke the door. This was used by kuntar himself, I saw in his site link in the external links. ((((I see you already changed it though now....which is a shame. I think "enter" implies walked in...}}}}

• as for the daughter's death description - I really think that it sounding horrible doesn't mean it's not WP:NPOV - Kuntar himself talked about the incident this way, he's the one in the interrogation that from his words the whole incident is made clear. I don't think we should omit details that aren't disputed by anyone, from the article. If someone would say that he didn't do it in this way, then it can be disputed, but his supporters don't dispute the event, just the cause or motive maybe, not the details of the killing which he recounted himself.

• it might sound a bit WP:POV, but it's one of these cases when it's impossible to treat it differently I think, since both sides acknowledge the facts for the full extent. Look at other articles here : - this is what child murderers in cold blood are described like.

Amoruso 12:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've removed thge Israel phrase totally, as it was a pro- section that didn't really need any anti-sentiments in it.

• As for suffocation, generally you can die of suffocation, but the phrase 'suffocated to death' sounds like 'drowned to death' - I'll try and rewrite this bit totally.

• As for entered/burst in, how about 'broke in' or 'entered by force' or something?

• The daughters death description is a tricky one. I feel it can be rewritten from a stand-off viewpoint, using more neutral words - we don't say things like 'obliterated' about 9/11, we say 'destroyed', even though no-one disputes that the buildings were obliterated.

• Some people would dispute that he murdered the child and parent, they might consider it part of a 'holy war' or the like, and that the deaths were unavoidable collateral damage. You can see the trouble with NPoVing an article like this, and I'd appreciate your help. HawkerTyphoon 12:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

E-mail

Well, if you set yourself up with an e-mail account, then I can e-mail you instead... Jayjg 22:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Any luck with that? Jayjg 15:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Borderline 3RR violation on Mount Hermon

I will not block you because I think this is due to mis-understanding of policy, but make sure this does not happen again. Even excluding your edit as an anon, when you made that edit just inserting "Israel" without re-inserting the category, you were still on the same POV side, and this is just ganging up against one user. Though there is nothing on the 3RR page about this, I consider this enough reason to block for its violation. I have fully protected that page until you, Viewfinder, Isarig, and anyone else who's involved, come to some agreement or compromise on what should be on that page or at least come to some state where you can agree to stop edit warring. In his email to me Viewfinder has expressed that he is considering applying for mediation on this matter, I think this might be a good idea (have a read of Misplaced Pages:Dispute Resolution if you are unfamiliar with methods to resolve disputes). Please note that even though the page is protected in the state you left it, this is not an endorsion of your version, and unless you reach some agreement there is 0 guarantee that it will not escalate into another edit war once it's unprotected.--Konstable 06:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

licence

Hello Amoruso. Could you tell me under what licence is the image in the wp:en ? . Thank you in advance ! Alithien 22:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"This is a picture that's originated in the knesset website. The evaluation is that one can use it in the article that deals with the parliament member in it and only in it under the fair use terms"

Amoruso 23:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting balance

I find it interesting that you remove the word "terrorist" about Lehi murders, in the interest of "balance" and NPOV. Yet you then replace the word "gunmen" with "terrorist" to describe Palestinian murders. You also seem to believe that only Palestinians are capable of "massacres", while Israeli groups engage only in "battles". This selective language, depending on who is doing the murdering, leads me to question whether you are truly interested in promoting neutrality and balance. Or are you perhaps here trying to promote a particular point of view? Andalusian1 23:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The answer is quite simple. A terrorist is like a murderer a person who killed someone innocent. That's why I have no problem to call Jews that murdered civilians terrorists (in fact, I considered it in the past and later even tried to insert the terrorists into some of these entries so your accusation of bias is out of place and wrong). But Lehi like PLO in general is a political organization, so it can either be a designated terrorist organization or militant/etc. However a person who kills a baby or children in school, the actual one that shoots that is, in cold blood can be called a terrorist I'm sure you understand the difference. Amoruso 00:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)