Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:06, 6 May 2013

Old discussions here

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two

Hello. This is to let you know that we have now started step two in the Jerusalem RfC discussion, in which we will be deciding the general structure of the RfC. I have issued a call for statements on the subject, and I would be grateful if you could respond at some time in the next couple of days. Hope this finds you well — Mr. Stradivarius 16:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two question

Hello everyone. I have asked a question about having drafts versus general questions at the Jerusalem RfC discussion, and it would be helpful if you could comment on it. I'm sending out this mass notification as the participation on the discussion page has been pretty low. If anyone is no longer interested in participating, just let me know and I can remove you from the list and will stop sending you these notifications. If you are still interested, it would be great if you could place the discussion page on your watchlist so that you can keep an eye out for new threads that require comments. You can find the latest discussion section at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Step two discussion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 04:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ravpapa. Maybe you noticed it already, but I have just redacted parts of your comment in the step two discussion. I don't really regard those parts of your comments as incivil or anything - I just think it is better not to group editors together by their position, and especially not to assume that they are not open to compromise. If we assume that editors are unwilling to compromise, it has the effect of polarising discussion and making it harder to reach an agreement. Of course, what everyone really wants is the opposite, where all the editors can work together to find an agreement. I hope this explains why I redacted what I did, but please do ask if you have any questions about it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour 00:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. Probably for the best. As someone who has been long involved in this dispute - too long, in fact - I am constantly reading the subtext in editors' comments, looking at how their suggestions are in subtle ways strategies for promoting their positions. Perhaps my involvement has made me too Machiavellian. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't go as far as to say it was Machiavellian! At this point, I could get really deep about the reasons that I am so keen on avoiding labelling editors and avoiding opinions in comments (see also my post on Dlv999's talk page). However, I will just say that it is very easy for people to slip into a mindest of "us-versus-them", and that doing so isn't actually at all helpful in getting everyone what they need. People are bound to slip into these kinds of patterns given the nature and length of this dispute, and breaking this pattern of thinking is precisely the reason that I'm here. (Well, that, and to organise the discussion in a logical way, I suppose. :) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour 08:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. This is just a quick message to let you know that unless there is significant ongoing discussion, I intend to wrap up step two in a few days, probably on Thursday 31st 28th February. I invite you to have a look at the discussion there, especially at question five where I have just asked a question for all participants. — Mr. Stradivarius 13:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

"He was Jewish."

Hi Ravpapa-- Is it just me? I looked at Fredric Wertham earlier tonight, being reminded of the comic book controversy by my new NYTimes Headlines email, and there it was again: "He was Jewish." What relevance could that sentence possibly have to his career, or to the controversy? I deleted it, with the edit summary (del "He was Jewish" as irrelevant - would we say "He was "?)

I'm not generally aware of the religion (or ethnicity, if that's what it is) of Gentiles being always mentioned in articles as a matter of course, unless it's pretty relevant. I have no idea who is Jewish or not, but if so, it seems that I can always rely on Misplaced Pages editors to go out of their way to tell me about it. I do not get the impression that it's Jewish pride; and I must say it's starting to leave a bad taste in my mouth. So is it just me? Have you ever noticed anything to this effect? Milkunderwood (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no opinion one way or the other. If he were a Kyrgestani or an American Indian, I suppose you wouldn't object. Jews are a kind of borderline case - they are a minority but not a very minor one. In any case, he was a psychiatrist, and among psychiatrists Jews might well be a majority. Ravpapa (writing from a foreigner's computer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.236.31.112 (talk) 11:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know. Maybe it is just me. It's a hard question. Just for the hell of it I looked up Merrill Moore just now, because he was the first psychiatrist who came to mind; and there's not a word about his ethnicity or religion. Milkunderwood (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

note re discussion

Hi. I expressed some comments on some of the ideas which you expressed at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion. feel free to drop by if you wish, and to add any comments further if you wish to do so. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

yes I saw your comments. Thanks for the support. I have nothing more to add at this point - prolixity simply adds obfuscation. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Your Dissertation Challenge

Dear Ravpapa,

I'm a third-year Ph.D. student studying journalism at Ohio University who would like to pursue a dissertation topic along the lines that you laid down in your very eloquent essay, "The Politicization of Misplaced Pages." My initial challenge is narrowing my focus to a half-dozen (or thereabout) of the most relevant controversial articles for my case studies.

I hope you can help me with the following questions:

Does it make sense to limit my topic to the ongoing battle over the Arab-Israeli conflict? If not, what other topics should I consider?

Should I choose from among articles with a disputed POV or those that led to requests for arbitration, or both?

A little about me. I'm a veteran journalist of 30 plus years who retired three years ago to pursue a second career in journalism education. I'm fascinated by the potential of Misplaced Pages to be a democraticizing influence but also aware of its limitations. I would be proud to advance in any small way I can the open, egalitarian process that Misplaced Pages has set as its goal.

Sincerely,

Jim DeBrosse E.W. Scripps School of Journalism Ohio University jimdebrosse@yahoo.com 937-307-9111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.82.204 (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step three

Hello all. We have finally reached step three in the Jerusalem RfC discussion. In this step we are going to decide the exact text of the various drafts and the general questions. We are also going to prepare a summary of the various positions on the dispute outlined in reliable sources, per the result of question nine in step two. I have left questions for you all to answer at the discussion page, and I'd be grateful for your input there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 08:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding Jerusalem RFC

A request for clarification has been submitted regarding the ArbCom mandated Jerusalem RFC process. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: finalising drafts

Hello. We have almost finished step three of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, but before we move on to step four I would like to make sure that all the participants are happy with the drafts that we have chosen. The content of the drafts are likely to dictate what ends up in the actual article, after all, so I want to make sure that we get them right.

So far, there hasn't been much interest in the process of choosing which drafts to present to the community, and only three editors out of twenty submitted a drafts statement. I have used these three statements to pick a selection of drafts to present, but we still need more input from other participants to make sure that the statements are representative of all participants' wishes. I have started discussions about this under question seven and question eight on the RfC discussion page, and I would be grateful for your input there.

Also, there have been complaints that this process has been moving too slowly, so I am going to implement a deadline. If there haven't been any significant objections to the current selection of drafts by the end of Wednesday, 8 May, then I will move on to step four. Questions or comments are welcome on the discussion page or on my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 03:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)