Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:07, 11 January 2012

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Legal statement

Hello. You have a new message at MichaelNetzer's talk page.

Communities

Second Intifada & photo

Hi. Hope you enjoyed the holiday, if you celebrate, that is. (don't mean to be presumptuous). In any event, is this okay? Does it satisfy the criteria for restoration to the article? Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I think there are some problems that need fixing first. The 2000 Ramallah lynching article includes the line "The picture of one of the lynchers waving his blood-stained hands from the window shocked and outraged many around the world, and became another iconic image of the conflict." I'm sure it's true but it's unsourced. That probably needs a decent source first which I assume isn't difficult to find. There may already be a source that says something like that being cited for something else in the article. A similar line about its iconic nature with the same source could then be used in the Second Intifada article. That would then tie in better with the FUR. I think it's the iconic nature of the image in the context of the Second Intifada that justifies it's presence in that article. You could take the issue to the article's talk page and try to get consensus but the atmosphere in the topic area isn't exactly conducive to collaboration at the moment. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

For example, this AP article gets close. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight Sean. I'll open a discussion on the corresponding page soon enough but I'm a bit busy with RL at the moment. I will notify you when I do and welcome your participation and continued insight.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You might be interested in Framing terrorism: the news media, the government, and the public ISBN 978-0415947190. Chapter 4, Framing the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict (pages 59-74), compares and contrasts the reporting and imagery associated with the Dura and lynching incidents, how the various media outlets handled it, how both the Israelis and Palestinians tried to exploit or contain the impact of imagery. It contains quite a lot of detail and analysis. It's quite interesting. It might be useful for the main 2000 Ramallah lynching article and perhaps the Second Intifada article to a lesser extent. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Heyo--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on the Fair Use issue.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Naming conventions re: Jerusalem

Hi Sean: If, as you indicate, the question of conventions for identifying Jerusalem as being in Israel or not have no consensus and conflicts over this point crop up in a variety of articles, wouldn't it be a good idea to seek some kind of centralised consensus on this question? Do you know if there are any means for doing so within Misplaced Pages or is each article essentially a universe unto itself? BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think this should be standardized across Misplaced Pages with a guideline similar to WP:WESTBANK. I doubt whether it's possible to resolve though as it's such a sensitive issue for many editors. Discussions about how to handle the description of Jerusalem in the main article usually get bogged down. The place to raise the issue for a centralized discussion is at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I've put up a proposal re: Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem here (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Naming_Conventions_for_Locations_in_Jerusalem) and would very much appreciate any comments you have on this issue. BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

A bit surprised

You were way out of line with this comment. You have absolutely no idea who left you those hateful messages and you painted a rather broad stroke with that brush of yours. Those incendiary messages could have been left by anyone and it is certainly not out of the realm of possibility that it was left by someone whose views are diametrically opposed to the people you just maligned.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I am just about the reply to Michael. I'm not out of line. He asked about the abuse. He was told about the abuse. My stroke is very precise not broad. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Read your comment. Never found you to be an extremist like some of the others. I believe that your edits (many of which are diametrically opposed to mine) are sincere and despite our vast differences, both of us have managed to work rather well together (at least I think so and I hope you do as well.) There have however, in the past been cases (some infamous and some less so) where the perpetrators of an attack hurt their own in a misguided attempt to rally for a certain cause or to gain sympathy. I can provide you with examples if you'd like. Similarly, those people who left those despicable messages on your page had to have known that their IPs would be blocked and their edits Revdel'd. So what purpose is accomplished by doing that other than the fact that it makes one side look really bad and silly. Not saying that this is one of those cases but keep an open mind about it, eh?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The way I look at it is that whoever they are and whatever motivates them doesn't matter in the end. They really are completely irrelevant in every way. I've not filed a complaint about it or reported it because it doesn't bother me and I haven't discussed the comments left for me or the emails I receive before it was raised on BHBs talk page. The comments are removed almost as soon as they're posted and the emails are sent to an account I only look at about once a month. I don't think they make anyone look bad and silly apart from themselves. It's possible that it's people just trying to stir up trouble but ultimately it doesn't matter. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

And we agree yet again.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the best one so far has been "I'll break your fingers so you will no longer be able to type." I have always tried to think of creative ways to not have to go to work, that just may be the best one yet. -asad (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Nah, the workplace will buy you a graphic tablet then. Today one have to break both arms (at least) to stay at home. -- ElComandanteChe 18:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the email messages are generally of higher quality although there was a good comment here about digging my grandmother up and doing something I assume was meant to offend me. Research is where they fall down though since I never met one of my grandmothers and I have no memories of the other one. I enjoyed the email "Prepare for an unpleasant visit. Thailand is an easy place to hire a hitman" because of the positive way it presents the outsourcing opportunities here and the availability of skilled workers although in reality hitmen are generally frowned upon in a Buddhist culture and in practice a hitman presents less risk than snakes and traffic. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)