Talk:Kahan Commission

message: No, I changed my mind. I am not going to give in to bullying. Why should I continue to waste my words if my concerns are not being addressed by someone who persists in editing items in dispute? I will issue a request for the Arbitration Committee to intervene, unless Fuzheado is to cease from seemingly engaging in an edit war prior to consensus being reached on the contested passage. It would read:
---User:Fuzheado---
I requested for a discussion to be facilitated so as to avoid a looming edit war on a disputed passage (grammar, not content) in the Kahan Commission article, but User:Fuzheado continues to revert and to revise, and seems inclined on only joining the discussion after making editorial changes which he then announces as foregone conclusion to the afroementioned dispute. El_C
:I suspect the arbcom's response would be "try mediation".  Prior to that, would you agree to a poll on which version of the lead sentence(s) should be used? — Kate | Talk 15:48, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)
:: El_C, I'm glad you've decided to stay and not leave in anger. However, please try to be more calm about this. Arbitration, et al. is engaged when the three revert rule has been violated and when there has been bad faith. "Fuzheado continues to revert and revise?" How can that be? I have made only one real edit to this article (two consecutive edits which I consider together). You'll also see all the comments here are in the spirit of being constructive and cooperative. You won't get the attention of any arbitration or mediation committee on that, I can guarantee. Meanwhile, please see your talk page. Please see how Wikipedia works and try to take in what the community hath built through positive collaboration. Fuzheado | Talk 17:32, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-Arbitration Committee:

message: It is more accurate to say that I am frustrated and dissapointed. How many experts in the English language do you think it will take to change my mind? Really, not many. But I was trying to arrive at a consensus with respect to the stylistic form of the article's opening sentence through a dialogue that is reciprocal. [As an aside, you will notice that I reverted your quotes back to italics, that was in fact my first choice, but I found italics give it a better look; trivial stuff though.]
But not a single person has yet to address my European Commission example. I don't see why we would need a poll, or mediation, not to mention arbitration (which I only really stated as such to stop further arbitrary revisions to a contested article), if people just engage in dialogue. It just dosen't seem like a two-way thing here. If people refrain from condecsending demanour and speak to me as a human being, without obliquely sending me to the Manual of Style, without the pedgogic lectures, etc., then they might find that I am not that difficult of a person. The discussion is already underway, and useful things have been said, it is unfortunate though that it needed to consist of such an adversarial tone.
That Village Pump thread should only serve as a notice, it is too distracting having the same conversation in two diffrent pages. I am going to paste with abandonment from there -to- here. All further comments on the Kahan Commission article should be directed here, at Talk:Kahan_Commission. I think that makes sense.
Let us deal first with the Commission's formal name. In the Village Pump discussion, Niteowlneils wrote:
[M]y doubting of whether that is a formal name is largely due to the usage at www.mfa.gov.il, (which at the moment times out) (which I believe is one of the sources you provide in the article) ... [T]hus my preference for 'also known as' [as opposed to formally known as]
* Yes, it indeed often times out which -is- why I cited also next to it the same report hosted by www.caabu.org (why would I list two sources for the same identical report? ).
* And, the one in print (with an introduction by Abba Eban) is from 1983, so it is unlikely to have been influenced by the IMoFA's website (www.mfa.gov.il). In Weldon library, UWO (one the largest libraries in Ontario, Canada), it lists it in their databse as (quoting, from English) :
" Va‘adat ha-hakirah la-hakirat ha-eru‘im be-mahanot ha-pelitim be-Berut.  
Din ve-heshbon ha-Va adah la-hakirat ha-eru im be-mahanot ha-pelitim be-Beirut. English. " (וועדת החקירה לחקירת האירועים במחנות הפליטים בביירות i.e.)
This translates into: the commission of inquiry into the events at the refugee camps in Beirut. Obviously, it is not a literal translation (which would read ...the investigation into the events in..., which would make no sense and is simply bad translation). Of course, feel free to call the IMoFA to clarify, but for now it is safe to assume that this is indeed the formal title of the Commission - with the informal one named after the Commission chairperson, which is a common practice (i.e. The Warren Commission -known officially as The President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy) - of course, we acknowledge that people search for the official TPCotAoPK title/description far less than they do WC, but an encylopedia must have both. As for their respective order, I adress that bellow.
Derrick Coetzee writes:
Also, it makes vicious overuse of capitalization. 
* Perhaps ecessive. But vicious, now that is a excessive. What I attempted to accomplish was to highlight the words that matter most: Commission - Inquiry - Events - Refugee - Camps - Beirut (there are no capitalizations in Hebrew, so it is somewhat at the translator's discretion), and if it is the consensus that it is incorrect, then it is changed accordingly. 
Derrick Coetzee also writes:
[I]t tells me nothing about said Commission
* With all due respect, the name the Commission of Inquiry into the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut, is quite descriptive in and of itself.
Derrick Coetzee also wrote:
I'd say rewrite anything this person wrote from scratch, and tell me if they keep reverting it.
* I took offence to that, but s/he explained it was in jest. I do appreciate the clarification and I retract my hitherto statements (though I admit that I remain unamused).
Back to Niteowlneils, who writes:
[T]he uncommon name shouldn't lead anyway (2700 hits to 190). 
* The reader already most likely came across the article by searching the common (informal, shorter, etc.) name. Wikipedia dosen't need to be exactly like Britanica et al. (though it is a seminal basis), there's flexibility and then there's inconsistency. The reader sees a title which reads: Kahan Commission and now s/he either sees Kahan Commission again followed by the formal name in the opening sentence, or the formal name followed by the informal one. Why is one way so superior to the other? The en.wikipedia is in simple english, but it isn't simple.wikipedia, and we are likely assured that the reader will figure it out either way. One could say formality precedes commonality or vice versa, it makes little difference, as baffling as it may appear, my argument to retain this order is based exactly on that (stylistic freedom).
Finally, Niteowlneils writes:
[I]t is not complete enough for the first sentence of an article.
* If this ends up being the consensus here, then it is changed as such. Already last night, I left in (supplanted) the comma and abandoned the period as it became obvious I'm in the overwhelming minority with regards to that (sole person, in fact). 
My main charge, and the principal reason I am no longer inclined on seeing this dispute taken to its logical conclusion, is that many here (I'll leave it as that) wish to have their word (and even unilaterally impose their will) without getting entirely involved. They are too impatient to read and respond to contrasting views. It is not equitable treatment. I placed a lot of thought into the manner in which the article was written, and I do not think I am asking too much of people who wish to change certain areas in it which I object to, to deal with my objection(s). I am always open to persuasion, logical, science, etc., it should work both ways. El_C
----
Some responses, though I think we're finding middle ground.
# Your European Commission point. I'm not sure what the point was. That article starts out with a proper English sentence, which is what I (and others) have expressed as desirable.
# It has indeed been a "two way street" here, with copious dialogue and explanation of views. I've complimented your work, we've discussed things, and I've made really only one edit to this article. 
# Your characterizing things as "obliquely sending me to the Manual of Style" and providing "pedgogic lectures" is unfair. You say you are "always open to persuasion, logical, science, etc." However, when someone tries to explain something and says "See X for more information" you quickly find it offensive. Meanwhile, blatantly inaccurate statements like "Fuzheado is engaging in an edit war," I have let pass without comment. A bit thicker skin is required on Wikipedia. 
# If you think this is acrimonious, you would be appalled to see a real edit war on Wikipedia. :) On the Richter scale of "edit wars" this one rates less than a 2.0. For 6.0 or higher, see Gdansk, Fox News or John Kerry.
Fuzheado | Talk 02:05, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Please read closely.