Talk:Israeli settlement/Archive 2

message: "in the heart of the area that every internationally recognized peace plan considers the future capital of a Palestinian state." 
Unless the world plans on forcing a 'peace plan' onto Israel and likewise, the Palestinian Authority, (in each case deciding who will give up which parcel of land), I suggest that POV not be construed with fact.
Lokiloki, if you can otherwise reword the above into a more simpler 'Jerusalem', or "unilaterally Israeli annexed former Jordanian territory", or whatever, please reinsert an extension to the description. --Shuki 23:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Translation has been added to the image discussion page. --Shuki 09:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nof Tzion 

message: I have restored and elaborated on Carter's comments on settlement and colonization as an obstacle to peace. The man frequently travels to the occupied territories as an elder statesman and peace advocate. This, coupled with his experience with the Arab-Israeli conflict, makes him highly relevant as an analyst on this issue. Sourced reliable analysts must not be deleted.--AladdinSE 08:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Carter is an ex-president; he has no expertise in the settlements.  And you certainly can't have it both ways, as regards this article and the AIPAC article. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So which way can it be had, then?  Does that mean we remove the Duke support from AIPAC, or include the Carter one here?  It seems as though you are having it both ways (inclusion of Duke there, non-inclusion of Carter here). Lokiloki 00:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I am inclined to concur with Aladdin that Carter's comments are relevant and worth including. Palmiro | Talk 15:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  President Carter's comments 

message: P. S. Please do not mark this kind of revert as a minor edit.--AladdinSE 14:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rollback marks it automatically as minor. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Even simpler fix. Understand that it's regarded as a minor edit because all it's doing is returning to a previous version. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SV, there is pretty widespread community consensus that rollback should not be used in a content dispute. It is not very polite, really, and in my view an abuse of administrator privileges as they are being used to make participation in an edit war easier for the admininstrator than it is for his/her opponent. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Rollback#Administrator_feature_.28rollbacks.29.. Also, please review Wikipedia:Minor edit, which states, inter alia, "Reverts to a disputed page are unlikely to be minor. When a page is disputed, and especially if an edit war is brewing or in full eruption, then it's better not to mark ANY edit as minor: not unless you're sure that all other users will agree it's minor, like correcting a misspelling." Palmiro | Talk 16:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth difference does it make? Aladdin knows why the edit is being reverted, because he's been told a dozen times or more on talk and in edit summaries, so one more edit summary saying exactly the same thing isn't likely to be helpful. Palmiro, you really are just being argumentative now for the sake of it. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, I am trying to preserve fair play and courtesy. I do take your point that stating the reason has become somewhat irrelevant at this stage, but I still find use of the rollback tool inappropriate. And please try to assume good faith; over the last couple of days, almost every comment you have addressed to me has included some kind of personal attack or accusation of bad faith on my part. This does not improve the atmosphere for anyone. Palmiro | Talk 17:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your last point, Palmiro, but it works both ways. You've been lobbing a fair number of critical comments in my direction too. Perhaps we should declare a ceasefire. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Replying (not substantively, as yet anyway) on your talk page. Palmiro | Talk 17:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've made my position on well-poisoning quite clear, and I will be using rollback whenever I see this well-poisoning in the article.  I can't help it if rollback marks the edits as minor. Jayjg (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of rollback, marking of minor edits 

message: Aladdin, stop moving my posts. It's standard practice to reply inside posts when they are long like that. If you don't want people to do that, don't write such long replies. It is perfectly clear who has said what, which is why I signed all mine. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to it, so please respect my wishes. I did not move your posts to the moon, I only moved them form within my own paragraph to following my paragraph. I left a note about this on your Talk page. Please let us not get sidetracked with this. Also, in your revert, you deleted your own comments about "a relentless thorn in America's side" and my follow up question about it.--AladdinSE 20:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That I can live with. I will now sort through the reverts to fish out my response that were deleted, and place it underneath your last content-related post, so we can continue. Please note that when I reverted your segmentation of my post, I was careful to preserve your new posts. If I am not mistaken, you were one of the Wikipedians from whom I learned, by watching you on Wikipedia, that blind reverts should be avoided.--AladdinSE 20:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Optimal response-thread organization 

message: The article insinuates that Stone is bias by virtue of mentioning his support of Israel right after his opinion on the settlements, whether it is true or not is irrelevent, it is inappropriate to add that passage right after his view on the matter.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such insinuation must be backed up by specific, articulated accusations or speculation as to bias. Otherwise, any Tom, Dick, or Harry can stand up and disallow whatever he likes on WP by claiming he senses an insinuation. This is a quotation of fact from a reputable source, and moreover this source is positive and presents this fact in a positive light. --AladdinSE 10:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a classic example of poisoning the well with information that is irrelevant to the article in question. Pecher Talk 12:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Moshe, as you can see, you declaration as to what "anyone can see" is highly disputed. Therefore, you will need explicit proof in the text. It does not exist. Not one word has been editorialized. No analysis is given.-AladdinSE 16:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say that I don't think we particularly need this information here (although I fundamentally disagree with the assertion that its inclusion constitutes original research), but on the other hand the reviews of Stone's book are highly germane. Palmiro | Talk 12:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, the reviews are germane, and in my opinion (and others expressed above), so is the biographical quotation, as long as it does not include editorialization that indeed insinuates or speculates.I am open to edits or rephrasing concerning this matter, although I remain of the opinion that a simple quotation is always safest.--AladdinSE 13:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reviews are not germane because they're not expert opinions, and because you don't (so far as I can see) criticize the other legal side. If you want to include criticism, lay out both legal positions, and include scholarly criticism of both. But why are you only picking on the Israeli side to criticize, and then using book reviewers, rather than people able to address the legal points? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely it is reasonable to assume that book reviewers in peer-reviewed law journals are people (experts, scholars) who are qualified to address the legal points in books they are reviewing? If this is not the case, then academic law journals obviously work quite differently from journals in academic fields I am acquainted with. Palmiro | Talk 16:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: SV, please feel free to quote whatever reliable sources you want to criticize "the other side". NPOV is not a matter of exact equal word for word criticism for each side. It is a matter of quoting relevant material from reliable sources. It just so happens that a vast majority of the World disagrees with the Israeli position. You cannot demand equal criticism of each side, as it does not exist. Even so, you can in this instance put in reliably sourced material about accusations of systematic bias in the UN, which has been done before, and is valid here as well. I think it is in the Israel and the United Nations article.--AladdinSE 17:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insinuation 

message: SlimVirgin, please review Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Also, please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Thank you. Huldra 05:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do that if you agree to review (or more accurately, read for the first time) all our other policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, Q.E.D.. Regards, Huldra 05:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal attacs in edit-lines? 

message: In what way, Pecher, do you dispute the factual accuracy of the article? Palmiro | Talk 18:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pecher seems to want to remove mention of Jerusalem altogether, because in his personal opinion, "a mention of East Jerusalem has no place in the intro". When his 3RR was up, he slapped on the tag, still without explaining WHY s/he thinks that it doesn't belong in the intro. If one wants to just push personal opinions without explaining why, perhaps a personal blog would be more appropriate. You can easily start a new blog site with iLife. Ramallite (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is as clear as a day that there are several different disputes pertaining to the article. To see what the disputes are all about, it is sufficient to read the discussion above. Pecher Talk 19:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "factual accuracy disputed" 

message: The vast consensus of international human rights groups views these settlements as illegal. I have reverted rephrasing says there exists divergent views, as if they are in any way balanced out. I can certainly include a deluge of sourced opinions that would dwarf the Israeli side, but it might be needlessly verbose. But let us not pretend, if you please, that there is some kind of "equally divided world opinion" where human rights groups are concerned.--AladdinSE 20:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But let us also not pretend that the opposing view is so contemptuous as to be barely worth a mention without well poisoning. Also, you have violated 3RR. Please revert yourself. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you add opposing views, that creates a new synthesis, and so qualifies as OR under your interpretation.--1010011010 04:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human rights groups 

message: I just wanted to apologize for accidentally exceeding the 3RR on April 11. I was under the mistaken impression that reverting three distinct threads did not count (Stone, Golan/East Jerusalem and human rights groups), and that it was  3 reverts per disputed edit that was the limit. Live and learn. WP's database was locked for maintenance earlier and I didn't have a chance to come back before tonight. Sorry again.--AladdinSE 06:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apology for 3RR