Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:43, 26 September 2006

1st Archive

thank you amoruso-for contacting me about MA. I find it disgusting that people do not consider him an anti-semite-but since when have people cared about the jews. Thank you for contacting me. --Max 22:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Thank you very much for your help ! If you see a picture of Ben Gurion that is free, please don't hesitate to tell me ! Alithien 08:12, 16 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)

I see we agree; killing innocent children is terrorism. I assume we also agree with that sentiment, whether the murder is from reckless indifference or from cold-blooded intent. You deleted the following sourced quote from a Jewish Israeli scholar "they murdered over 200 people, half of whom were women and children". Moreover, is Count Bernadotte guilty of something, or was his murder not terrorism? That was planned and executed by Lehi leadership. If that isn't terrorism, is it even _possible_ to have a "terrorist" group, because one can always simply state that a particular member was the terrorist? At any rate, you certainly didn't take any effort to describe the individual Lehi gunmen as terrorists.

Bottom line your claims to be of superior balance and neutrality have little credibility. That's because your editing changes when the names of the subject change.

A final word on our point of agreement, that murdering children is terrorism (whether through depraved & reckless indifference or direct intent): "A third of casualties in Lebanon are children, says UN relief chief". Andalusian1 20:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree. I didn't delete anything, I just replaced it with material from the article which is more established and researched. The thing is the allegations of murders of children in Deir Yassin are BS, it never happened. And the sources in the article depict that myth very well. Of course if there was a Lehi member specifically who killed an innocent child then he would be a terrorist - he himself, no doubt. As for Bernadotte, he was a British representive. I specifically, perhaps you missed it, underline that politicans/soldiers and anyone in office of some colonial power is a legitimate target, he's not a civilian. And about a terorrist group, indeed nobody calls anyone a terrorist group in wikipedia. Your last note is ridicilious since children aren't supposed to be where armed men are in battles according to the geneva convention. A state that defends itself and targets those military targets might hurt those civilians used as human shields but it did not target them, I'm sure you can understand the difference. A final note - times have changed through the years. Britian bombed civilian areas killing 10000's of civilians in WW 2 and also bombing children hospitals in occupied Denmark and other countries. That's no longer justified and acceptable, and terorrism is also much more frowned upon. This is just a historical note since international law has indeed developed. I'm sure you can see the difference between actions taken during the time of WW2 against the British who were here on a temporary mandte and between attacking civilians of a 58 years old country. You can twist it around but you can't around that the British weren't civilians in the area. But a person who murderes a 4 year old kid in cold blood, admits it, and mind you he came from some other country, went into an apartment, broke in, took the kid and smashed her head on a rock - that particular person can be called a terrorist, yes. Oh and one final note, a legal note. "reckless indiffrence" if something really is that - it's still not murder. Murder requires intent and not just intent but premedidated intent, and not just that, but also not under influence of momentary rage for instance - that's a doctrine in itself and so on. It's a specific charge. I'm more familiar with the hebrew terms, but there is man slaughter, negligent killing and levels. This is just to correct your defitinition mistake so you know. So whatever your political or moral position is, you can not ignore a difference between a premedidated killing of a child and a collateral damage from a bomb shell for instance. Amoruso 22:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

A rose is a rose. Dead is dead. Immoral is immoral. Terrorism is terrorism. You can't make it pretty no matter what you call it and no matter who is responsible. But you can make Misplaced Pages POV. If you have the same principles, regardless of the names, then editing differences are good faith. The evidence I've seen is to the contrary for you. I'll leave it at that. Andalusian1 22:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What's bothering you is what one can see in the discussion of the palestinian political violence. A user, Jayjg responded there very well. You need to understand that there can be actually a differnece. The fact that these specific palestinians are terrorists doesn't mean that Jews and Israel have to be autuomatically are to maintain some fake NPOV. Same thing with Al Qaida and U.S.A for example - it doesn't have to be that way just because "the world is always balanced and everything is the same". No - dead is not dead, terrorism is not terrorism. The job of people who take things seriously enough is to look at who's the culprit and to define acts in as much accuracy as possible and point out to the differences when and if they exist. They don't always exist. Certainly one side wasn't always an angel. The Kfar Kasem massacre for instance was horrible and unjustified and done by Israeli in the 1950's and the court punished them for it. Same with Americans and certain massacres in vietnam , iraq and so on. But one can't just say that every thing Israel does equals what hamas do just for the sake of npov, no matter how it can be annoyed for those politicall supportive for the palestinians for instance. Just as one can safely side that was the nazis did was evil and without precedent, and it won't be pov. not every murder, killing, not even genocide is the same - there are details, motives, ideology, factors, considerations, perspectives, timeline, and many things. Amoruso 22:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in the details of this debate, but I just want to point out that both of you are using the term "terrorist" much more loosely than is generally accepted. Killing civilians is of course murder (as is killing any human being), but there has to be a specific kind of motivation behind that murder for it to be called terrorism. For the sake of accuracy in your edits, it should be noted that accidental civilian deaths in open warfare isn't terrorism (from a NPOV perspective). Markovich292 01:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

חברון

I understand. However, we must keep in mind that all these people played a part in the history of one city: Hebron. As divided these people may be, keep in mind that Shmulevich is not famous for being Jewish, and al-Manasra is not famous for being Arab. These people are known for what they did, what they contributed to this world. That's why List of famous people raised in Houston, for example, categorizes by occupation, not by ethnicity. —Khoikhoi 04:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please

---> my comment:(the Markovich complaining his harrassment being removed issue Amoruso 15:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC) )

Do not remove warnings like you did here. The concerns of Markovich292 are perfectly legitimate. Discuss it with him before removing his comments. Otherwise, what you did comes off as incivil. Woohookitty 12:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed what was legitimate to remove after uncivil and bad faith behaviour including lies from him. He removed my comments as well. Amoruso 14:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no WP rule that all warnings must be retained. A user is certainly not obliged to keep a "warning" from a nonadmin that is not in good faith and is trolling. However, if it is later found to have merit and to have been made in good faith, it can be held against one. You can't, for example, engage in a 3RR and then remove a 3RR warning as "trolling." But very often users charge "harassment" and the like to intimidate other users.--Mantanmoreland 15:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

(markovich's comments and further discussion removed per policy). Amoruso 02:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Proving the negative

Hey just wanted to let you know that I've responded in my talk page. Let's discuss it there.UberCryxic 17:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Fascism

Take a look at Neo-Fascism and at the POV edits that Will314159 has been making there Isarig 04:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Something to Consider

I once saw an episode of a television show called "Becker" that really is worth mentioning to you. Just wondering, have you watched this show? Anyway, in this episode, Dr. Becker was accused by a writer of making racist comments. When confronted about it, it was revealed that it was the writer who was at fault for assigning racial overtones to an ordinary conversation. On thing in particular involved Becker's use of the phrase "those people that grill on the sidewalk." The writer assumed that Becker was talking about Puerto Rican's because he knew it was mostly Puerto Ricans that do that (in the show). He just ignored that Becker was refering only to people that grill on the sidewalk (because it gets in the way he says), and not Puerto Ricans.

Hopefully that illustrates the situation. I made a comment directed at all the people that were not dealing with the issue and making personal remarks/arguments/attacks instead. ThuranX saw something that was not there, and both you and he will not recognize that he was wrong. You both are in the position of the writer, and the only decent thing you can do is let go of your false assumption and drop the attitude you have because of it. Markovich292 05:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Is Dr. Becker the show with that guy from "Cheers"? Amoruso 06:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed...never seen Cheers myself though. Markovich292 16:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Smile

Shamir1 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

--Shamir1 06:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

From Scott Adler

I wonder why there is no "Siege of Jerusalem (1948)" article. Was it removed? Or never written. My view is that it was at Jerusalem that the Arab pleading collapses. Jerusalem was not to be included in the Jewish state, so why besiege it? Unless you are the aggressor, that is... Scott Adler 10:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought.

Good question, I don't know. I suppose it wasn't written. You can expand it and of course make it also a whole article in itself. Amoruso 10:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Population of Ashdod

Can you please provide a source for the number you inserted as the population of Ashdod? If you are sourcing their official website, then the number is probably an unreliable estimate. -- Ynhockey 11:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

these are the new israeli statistics : Amoruso 11:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC) and already used in hebrew wikipedia.

The article you linked to seems to be based on CBS data, which does list Ashdod as having over 200,000 residents in 2005 as provisional data.

This however is still slightly above 200,000 and not the 212,500 figure you posted. The Hebrew Misplaced Pages is almost always wrong on these issues because they quote the city websites which always exaggerate figures. A while ago I found out that they exaggerated the population of Eilat by over 20% (at over 57,000, while the real population is about 45,000) and brought it up in talk and they corrected it. So unless there's a better source than CBS, we should use their statistics alone. On a side note, I'm confused as to why CBS lists 2005 statistics as provisional data and 2004 statistics as normal data, considering the last census was in 1995 and all population data since then has been provisional.

-- Ynhockey 20:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanations. And sorry for writing a non accurate figure. Amoruso 20:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I haven't see there any city population numbers, only the dencity. As ashdodian I'm very intrested in this statistic, so were is this number from? Shmuliko 13:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The news articles on various news sites says the denisty and that the population passed 200,000. I looked at hebrew wikipedia, saw that it says this number and assmued they looked at the latest one that the article referrs to. Amoruso 13:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, about your message - I dont recall having seen this, Ill go check it out. Maybe you clicked my talk page by mistake? Stick to the Facts 20:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I gotcha - I hadn't seen the new edits, only the revert by Brimba.

They will never go for any statement that characterizes posts, even if it pertains to a quality shared by the vast majority of posters or threads. I've tried before. This is why it is a matter of time before another edit war and probably why the thread should be scrapped.

I'm not sure if you saw the lengthy debate about the genocide reference. I demonstrated that since genocide includes 'merely' trying to force the expatriation of a people through mental anguish, and is not limited to mass murder, that pretty much the WHOLE SITE is a big genocide fest. I asked for, and was not presented with, one single means of achieving a 'white nation' that didn't involve genocide within the legal definition of the word - they did not or could not produce one. Stick to the Facts 20:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, but my point is that until the sock puppets are banned you won't be able to make it stick. They'll keep yanking it back out. But you have as much right as anyone to your opinion so I don't see why you shouldn't make the change if you think it is appropriate. Stick to the Facts 21:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

NAS People

Whoa! Fraid I'm not with you on this brother. Two thoughts: first the name is ambiguous ("new people" or "new anti-semitism") but most importantly I don't agree with yr comment that this is in any way a compromise. None needed. MA is anti-Semitic by any measure, and not just an anti-semitic from the standpoint of "new" antisemitism. Jes my humble opinion but I think this might be construed as weakening the case for including him in the antisemitism cat as he richly deserves.--Mantanmoreland 01:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm I tried to go to the link you sent but it didn't work - neither did it work when I typed it in nor when I clicked on another link for it. Is it already deleted? I saw the deletion category entry tho. Stick to the Facts 02:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the category being protected, that is not an endorsement of the current version. That measure was just taken in order to prevent edit warring. I think that using the NAS category as you're suggesting does not help matters and also is not likely to be accepted as a compromise by those unwilling to see MA as antisemitic. --Mantanmoreland 02:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

West Bank

I was wondering if you can help me out with the West Bank. There were possible reasons provided in the article, and then a user deleted them. I then completed it, had it better written, and added it again, adding some of the sources on the Talk page. THEY STILL DELETE IT. You can see the section I added when you click history, I am sure you can see it is all true! --Shamir1 02:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Use article talk pages

Hi Amoruso, would you please use the article talk page for People's Mujahedin of Iran rather than engage in an edit war. I recently cleaned up the article and put amore than a little work into making sure everything I did was factual well referenced. If you persist in removing factual information because it does not suit your POV I will feel obliged to get an admin involved. Feel free to discuss the ussie in the article talk space, but pleas refrain from deleting factual information without talking about it first. --Dave 05:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

the article was in violation of wikipedia policy. You can't say an organization is terrorist, only that's it's called / designated as such. any adminstrator will tell you the same. Amoruso 05:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Lehi

Hello Amoruso. I saw you read French. You can maybe get some more information about Lehi on the wp:fr article : fr:Lehi. The article should soon be categorised "featured article" (article de qualité). His author is fr:user:Christophe cagé. He should be able to help you (nb: he speaks English - French but not Hebrew). Chavoua Tov, Alithien 17:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources

Hi Amoruso. You don't seem to quite understand the full implications of WP:CITE. I suggest you read it through thoroughly. If you are making a claim, you need to cite a source that backs up that claim, e.g. for the claim that Mark Twain has been taken as the primary source for Ottoman Palestinian demography you will need to find a reliable source that says that, not just sources that quote him about Palestinian demography or sources that say that he has been quoted about it. Similarly, if you wish to imply that the reason Abu Ali Mustafa was killed was related to any particular government's claims that the PFLP was a terrorist organization, or to Israeli claims that he was responsible for killings, you will have to find a reliable source to that effect. You can't just include information without a source, even if you are sure it is true - after all, you might be wrong! Palmiro | Talk 01:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No reason to include a citation for mark twain being used by various scholars simply one can see all the scholars who quoted him. You misunderstand the idea of WP:CITE and I suggest you brush op on it. As for Abu Ali Mustafa, there is no OR there - you have vandalised the page by deleting sourced material concerning the designation of the organization. Please don't do that. Amoruso 01:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Hello friend. I thought you might be interested in my rebuttal to A student in history's comments in the talk page Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I have long been trying to protect the article from bias and misinformation. My comments do not make a difference to anything, I just thought you might like to read the last couple of responses (primarily the last/most recent). Thanks. --Shamir1 01:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Notice

Your vandalism at Folke Bernadotte is the last straw. I'm out of town at the moment but when I get back I'll be presenting a case to the Arbitration Committee to get you banned. I should have done that months ago but I foolishly hoped you might improve. --Zero 03:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)