Talk:Human rights in Israel/Archive 3

message: In general, one a citation is given a name in the ref tag as so  Blah , further citations only have to bring . Less complicated that way. -- Avi 15:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for fixing the ref formats, Avi.  Elizmr 16:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation format 

message: I moved the state dept report stuff into relevant sections and then deleted it.  I put all stuff related to Israel proper in the top section, and all stuff related to the territories in the territories section and labeled it as such.  I think this makes the article more NPOV overall.  Elizmr 16:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oiboy, please look at the article carefully, and especially at footnote 4, before jumping to conclusions. -- Avi 18:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems to work/clarify things right now.  The only pitfall I can see is that there will be duplicate subsections on areas that are of concern in both territories.   I guess we address that when we get to it.  Sarastro777 18:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: reorg

message: Sarastro, if you look at the text, that is in quotation marks, that means it is a direct quote, which you may verify for yourself here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Establishment_of_the_State_of_Israel
So that must stay in the quote. Thanks. -- Avi 18:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eretz-Israel 

message: I recognize that the justifications I added are small and in no way serve to balance out the one-sided nature of the section on human rights in the occupied territories. Still, I hope they can serve as a starting point for building some context in this section. Israel's actions don't seem quite so heinous when viewed outside of a vaccuum, and we have a responsibility to provide some degree of context so readers can come to informed conclusions. Schrodingers Mongoose 03:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't realize a purpose of a Wikipedia article was to make Israel's actions seem "not so heinous outside of a vaccuum."   Sounds like agenda pushing.  68.6.254.16 03:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So despite what the facts bear out, you have a need to write the article in a way to make things "not look terrible" or as you also call it, "balanced" ?   Do you think that is a reasonable approach for academic articles on subjects like Josef Stalin or HIV?  As you originally put it "...the justifications I added" -- "Justifications" attempt to justify behavior, not provide NPOV facts documenting events or conditions.   I find that troubling.  68.6.254.16 03:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A bit of balance

message: user:Sarastro777, similar to the debate here in the US, if a constitutional amendment is passed defining marriage as between a man and a woman, then ipso facto there is no violation of civil rights for the refusal to allow same-sex marriage. It is a matter of law, not religion. he current legal statutes of Israel have to be investigated before such a statement is made. By defining it a violation prima facie without looking at the statutes pre-supposes a "civil rights" code that supersedes the legalities of the state, and is classic NPOV. Who defines such a code? Not you, not I, not anyone. So it is not a religious POV of mine that is behind my reversion, but a lack of evidence from a legal standpoint for your opinion-based claim of “there can't be "full civil rights" if there is no marriage allowed. It's second class status compared to heterosexuals” which I believe is based on nothing more than YOUR POV re: same-sex marriage. We both have to take care to make the edits reflect FACT and not OPINION. -- Avi 17:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might also be easier without "a hundred thousand Jewish activists from around the world" trying to make it look great, coordinated through "Operation Megaphone." (see above).  If things are given citations from reliable sources, it is not the editor making the subject look bad.. it is the source or the subject itself for warranting such a source.  Please don't shoot the messenger. Sarastro777
Oh please. The same few editors are editing this article, and all of us have wiki histories much older than that piece you quote. Personally, I find it insulting. If anything, it is you who are the new editor here (with Oiboy) and it is you whose edits are predominantly, if not exclusively, on Israeli-Palestinian topics, with an agenda as clear as day. Please treat your fellow editors with the respect you would like to be treated with. -- Avi 23:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What is my agenda?   What was my agenda when I said "they do have significant civil rights compared to other countries" (above), removed "Alleged" from the Anti-Israel bias section, or translated Eretz to make the Declaration more understandable? Moshe has broken 3RR and I am not reporting it, because I try to be fair.  What is my agenda there?  I have more sources for one paragraph of my edits than most entire articles have, and without a doubt they are deleted by Israelis saying POV.  A whole slew of properly documented additions were all deleted below.     Let's quit playing like I am the biased one here.    We all know what is going on, this article is full of people that don't want to see any documentation for anything that could be perceived as negative about Israel -- whether or not the country has really done the things.  One way to rationalize this is to accuse people like ME of having the agenda.  Look in a mirror (not you personally, I consider you among the more level-headed of the others).    Sarastro777 23:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil rights 

message: I think a see also or an article template specifically for the PNA belongs at the top, since the two are much more closely linked than Israel with Jordan, Syria, etc. Humus, you disagree? -- Avi 18:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would much prefer that the relation (if any) is explicitly explained or simply listed at the bottom. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: “Christians frequently point to the Israeli Government's lack of protection…” One incident is frequently? Just curious, how manysuch incidents a year are there? -- Avi 20:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christians 

message: Why is it 'skewed' to list that he was arrested for making 'pro-hezbollah' statements in the 'freedom of speech section'?  It's sourced from a human rights article section on freedom of speech.  There's obvious relevance, and I basically lifted the wording from the report.   I don't understand what the problem is, unless you are upset it is an obvious limitation on Israel's "Freedom of Speech" ?  Sarastro777 23:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was skewed because it said nothing about making public statements in support of the killing of Israeli citizens.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: LOL! I was not adding original research or anything for that matter! I was deleting a pov addition that was inappropriatly tied to human rights issues when in fact in was nothing of the sort. If I wanted to add anything about Azmi Bishara I could easily find such sources since I have the advantage of working on a previous project where someone was attempting to do something quite similar (although with more competence) to what you are trying to do now. You seem to have a bad habit of quoting the exact same policies that you constantly disregard.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Azmi Bishara 

message: Moshe, it looks like you are in violation of 3RR.  
Also reverted were the following additions, updates to the older Dept. of State bulletin points.
It was stated that the were no political prisoners.  I followed with:
However more recent data shows the Government of Israel arrested more than 40,000 Palestinian prisoners since the beginning of the Al-Aqsa Intifada in 2000.  It continues to hold more than 369 Palestinians who were jailed before the Oslo Accords and currently holds 9,400 Palestinian prisoners in more than 30 jails located across Israel.  Of these 330 are children, and 70 are considered seriously ill due to lack of "basic medical attention." 
Also mentioned torture was illegal.  I added: 
On December 20, 2005 the Tel Aviv District Court rejected the Israeli State's petition to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Lebanese citizen Mustafa Dirani, who charged that Israeli security forces tortured and raped him during interrogations.  Another former detainee alleged he was subjected to painful positioning, beatings, long periods of interrogation, threats, and food and sleep deprivation. 
An independent rights group verified "...the complainant suffered severe back pains and paralysis in his left leg from the abuse." 
Again why are you reverting these?  
Sarastro777 23:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Palestine Center is as a reputable source as Baghdad Bob. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: really, do you have something that proves that, or is it just your opinion?   Since the article quotes Dore Gold, a anti-muslim israeli ambassador I am surprised to hear complaints about a human rights group.  68.6.254.16 15:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: We are still waiting for an answer humus.--Oiboy77 17:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Palestine Center is, by its own definition, a pro-Palestinian organization. Its articles are 100% pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. Whether or not it is fair or even accurate is immaterial...it is still a POV source. That being said, it isn't fair and it isn't accurate (lying by omission is still lying). Schrodingers Mongoose 21:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's hard to credibly take that argument when the same sort of information is being provided by Dore Gold, author of "Hatred's Kingdom", an anti-Muslim, and a career official for the Gov't of Israel.  Is that information inaccurate because Dore Gold is a "POV source"? Secondly, the source is the Jerusalem Fund which has the stated mission of "a non profit organization working to raise funds to the aid of Palestinian people."   Many make the same "anti-Israel" claim about Amnesty International and the UN and we are still cautiously accepting their statistics in the proper context.  Sarastro777 21:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah clearly the Israelis, as the potential violators are not going to label the prisoners as 'political prisoners', just as the United States calls its captives in Guantanamo 'enemy combatants.'  There's expected bias on behalf of the country, usually contradicted by the human rights groups.   Defining 'political prisoner' is unnecessary imho if the information presented is by sources that use the terminology.   If Human Rights Groups view it as a human rights issue then it becomes relevant to a human rights article  68.6.254.16 04:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal Justice Reverts 

message: User:Jayjg nominates article Israel Defense Forces using human shields for deletion.  User:Jayjg then removes the links to it from this article because it has been nominated for deletion.  But he was the one that nominated it for deletion in the first place.   At this point no voting, none of the feedback, or any of the process is completed.   In the edit notes he claims that leaving the link until the article is/is not actually deleted "causes lots of problems"   Isn't this just a round-a-bout excuse to delete something and try to keep other editors from putting back?   Sarastro777 18:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so.  What it seems to be is an effort to prevent people from using Wikipedia as their own personal propaganda blog.  This is supposed to be an encyclopedia.  6SJ7 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, after the article was nominated, the author (Striver) went around adding it as a "Main" article to all sorts of other articles, in an attempt to prove it was worth keeping.  It is Striver who has attempted to game the AfD, not me; I've just put that straight.  If the article is kept, then the links can be added again. If the article is deleted, then there's no big mess to clean up. Jayjg (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 6SJ7, I am confused by your comments.  Could you please explain how my observations of the AFD process seen here relate to people using Wikipedia as "their own personal propaganda blog"?   Were you trying to say that you thought the contents of the totally separate article which has/had a link from here is a "personal propaganda blog" and just wanted to say it here in unrelated discussion about the AFD process for sake of sharing... or..?  Sarastro777 20:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking about removing the link too....The human shields article is blatantly POV and Jayjg is going to win his AfD request, and rightly so. Thta being said, for the sake of process maybe the link should remain until the AfD is officially over? Schrodingers Mongoose 21:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for Deletion "AFD" Loophole 

message: Should we add a link to this page on [] <--Wikiportal Israel?
I think a link would be relevant--Oiboy77 06:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You would, wouldn't you 8-D -- Avi 16:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel Wikiportal

message: What exactly does this mean?  It seems like a very vague phrase, that could mean just about anything.  Is a Hamas figure who lives in a normal civilian neighborhood "blending among civilian populations?"  What about Hamas social services centers in civilian areas?  Are these also examples of "blending among civilian populations?"
The source provided seems questionable.  Is Arutz Sheva a reliable source?  Our article on it describes it as a right-wing "religious zionist" news source, which was technically illegal until 1999.   I don't like it when people seem to have found article sources based on a google search.  The article itself seems highly questionable - there is no real sourcing, just "Sources in the PA".  Furthermore, I'm not sure how this source, which describes one incident of Palestinian militants operating in a civilian area (where the IDF already was operating), can be used to support a general statement that Palestinian militants "have utilized a tactic of blending among civilian populations."  The source even seems insufficient to prove Oiboy's preferred wording that "several Israeli newspapers" have reported this.  What we have is one Israeli news source (apparently not a newspaper) reporting one incident of this.  This does not qualify as a general report that this is a normal tactic of Palestinian militants. 
At the very least, the phrase needs to be cleaned up and a better source needs to be found.  I think the phrasing "operate in civilian areas" is better than "blending among civilian populations," as it's clearer what exactly is meant.  (Unless something else is meant.) john k 11:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Arutz Sheva" was an illegal radio station. They currently broadcast over the internet. They are NOT a reliable source. They have an extremely clear agenda, and are known for it. Practically no one in Israel uses it as a valid source, since everyone knows what it is. okedem 11:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, okedem.  It looked questionable to me.  So we clearly a) need a better source; and b) need to explain what exactly we mean, and preferably have a clearer phrasing than "blend among civilian populations." As noted before, there's very different degrees of it.  I think a lot of people would agree that if militants are shooting rockets off from a civilian area, it is appropriate to respond militarily, even at the risk of civilian casualties.  Dropping a two ton bomb on a residential area because Palestinian militant leaders happen to live there tends to be rather more controversial. john k 12:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A much better source, although I still think we need to be clear on what we mean by "blending among civilian populations."  Do we just mean the kind of thing Lutf is describing, or do we mean the much broader and vaguer usage of this idea to justify the bombing of Christian neighborhoods in Beirut (not Palestine, I know, but the same argument has been used), or the kinds of targeted attacks on civilian neighborhoods where militant leaders live?  john k 15:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, I was just using that as an example.  In terms of the 4th Geneva Convention, it's always been my understanding that interpretations differ as to whether IDF actions in civilian areas are in violation of it or not. john k 16:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Blending among civilian populations" 

message: This seems to be the longest and the most elaborate article of the series, many others being substandard stubs.  Given that Israel's H.R. record is better than that of its neighbors, and that WP is an encyclopedia and not a battlefield, I wonder why certain editors are preoccupied with besmirching the Jewish state. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder the same thing, and of course it is not just in this article that this unhealthy preoccupation is exhibited, but also other articles that have been created solely for the same purpose, besmirching Israel.  You could read parts of this article and then the article on human rights in China, which indisputably has one of the worst human rights records in the world, and not be sure which has the better record.  The one on China has all kinds of nonsensical dancing-around like the part about "Lockean constructs of government existing solely for defending individual liberties" being "a notion that has largely escaped the Chinese political discourse", while portions of this article condemn Israel for isolated actions by individual people.  There is no sense of balance. 6SJ7 00:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Humus, are you suggesting that it is inappropriate to work to improve this article, because other articles are not detailed at the moment? Why don't you go work on Human rights in Egypt yourself, then? john k 19:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, is it really a cause for celebration to have a better human rights record than Egypt and Jordan?  Of course there are people who are motivated by an anti-zionism that verges on (or simply is) anti-semitism to talk about Israeli human rights issues.  At the same time, there are perfectly legitimate reasons that one might focus on Israel more than other countries.  The very fact that Israel is a western style parliamentary democracy and has a well-developed civil society and near-developed world standard of living makes its human rights problems more noticeable, and more noticed, by other people in the developed world (as most wikipedia contributors are).  Note that Human rights in the United States is also fairly long. And I'm not sure what virtue vague ad hominem attacks have here. What does this comment have to do with improving the article?  Isn't this comment's purpose, in fact, to delegitimize this article, rather than to improve it? john k 19:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One huge issue in this article as it stands is mixing up acts of individuals with acts of the government.  Sarastro's comments notwithstanding, it reads a bit like a mishmash of every thing that Israel bashers could dig up to discredit the country with.  Elizmr 18:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What the article probably needs is somebody who is willing to kind of do a complete overhaul and turn it into a well put together whole.  The person would need to be relatively even-handed, but also knowledgeable enough to know what is important.  I have no idea if such a person could possibly be found - it seems too much to hope for. john k 19:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One way to handle accusations that all Human Rights Groups have anti-Israel bias is to follow their statements with a few documented examples, this at least helps verifiability to show SOME instances.   To my reading these examples are not given on their own, at least not unless the result of editing and reorganization by many different people.   Also important to differentiate between an incident with one person, and one person speaking broadly on their perception of gov't policy as a representative of larger interests.  e.g. the "Latin Patriarch" could reasonably be presumed to be speaking on behalf of Roman Catholics, not just himself.   As opposed to a Palestinian that gets pulled over at a checkpoint and beaten, and complains about his own experience, though this may help to document claims of brutality already documented by a human rights org, etc. Sarastro777 20:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cuba, Syria or Egypt are not being run by toddlers, so no double standard please. And in a serious encyclopedia, Latin Patriarch's feelings may belong (if anywhere) only in article dedicated to himself. The Church is known for their prejudice towards the Jews and the Jewish state, so let's not inflame the matters. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This seems to be a "Chicken Little" complex. Oh no the sky is falling and everyone is out to get them. Cite ref's for your argument and then maybe you will earn some respect.--Oiboy77 01:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anything on the subject? ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As if you have anything to say on the subject, Humus.  Your comments have nothing to do with improving the article, and everything to do with trying to associate working on this article with being anti-semitic. john k 04:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's also not appropriate to keep referring to the country euphemistically in section headings as "the Jewish state."   The title of the article is "Human Rights in Israel" not "Human Rightst in the Jewish State" although that admittedly makes it easier to throw around the anti-semite label.   Sarastro777 05:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm making the personal attack??  Humus is the one accusing everyone who criticizes Israel of being an anti-semite.  He's doing it by implication and innuendo, rather than straight out, but he's most certainly doing it, and it's not a personal attack to point this out.  It's blatantly obvious that his comment here had absolutely no relevance to improving the article, but rather to suggest that anybody who wants to spend their time being concerned about Israeli human rights violations is in fact showing an "unhealthy preoccupation with the Jewish state," presumably due to anti-semitism.  How can we extrapolate from his comments any kind of constructive way forward to editing this article? His complaint seems to essentially be that people are working on this article, and not on articles about human rights in Jordan or Egypt, and thus are anti-semites.  There is nothing derived from this about how we can make this article better.  The implication seems to be that it is morally wrong to put more information into this article unless we also add information to articles about Arab states' human rights situations.  This is pretty outrageous, and I'll be damned if I won't point it out. john k 04:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It would behoove me to note here that I am passionate on this subject because I feel that the only way to make any progress with articles on the Arab/Israeli conflicts is if people are going to refrain from accusing everyone who disagrees with them of being evil.  Humus does this pretty incessantly, but I should also note that the other side has not been remiss about this either.  Sarastro's repeated accusations that anybody defending the Israeli side is a paid propagandist of the Israeli foreign ministry (or whatever it is exactly he's been saying) is just as worthy of condemnation, and I ought to have condemned it myself earlier.  But the cry of "Anti-semite" has for a long time been one of the most powerful accusations you can launch against someone, and nobody should insinuate that all their opponents are anti-semites unless they can back it up. As I've said before, there are certainly bound to be some anti-semites who get involved in an article like this.  But that doesn't excuse the kind of broad brush insinuations that HS has been making ever since this article got started. john k 04:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That soapboxing and ad homs surely improve WP. Please review my initial post. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you expect to happen when you start a talk page section entirely devoted to making insinuations about the motivations of other editors.  Your initial post involved wondering why "certain editors" are "preoccupied with besmirching the Jewish state."  That was about the extent of it.  What constructive point could possibly come of this?  And after you start from that perspective I don't see where you come off accusing other people of ad hominem attacks.  Just because you insinuate rather than stating directly doesn't make it any less of an ad hominem. You're right, of course, that this whole discussion is useless for improving the article, but what did you expect when you started it?  A constructive discussion of whether people are anti-semites or not? john k 11:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Humus after reviewing your initial post and I quote "This seems to be the longest and the most elaborate article of the series, many others being substandard stubs." If this is the case why not add to those articles? Nobody here other than yourself is drawing comparison between Israel and other countries. It seems you are the one with the unhealthy preoccupation (pun not intented) with "protecting Israeli articles at all cost". Some of us DO take offense at Israel being called a Jewish state as well, as the current mandate in Israel has very little to do with Judaism. Please take a few minutes to consider how you can make a positive contribution to this article. Labeling people on both sides is unhealthy. Perhaps we should all step back a bit and do what some writers do when editing highly controversial subjects. The people who are now writing things about Israel's human rights abuses maybe could add content on Israel's positives when it comes to Human rights, and the people who sing the praises of Israel can add to the Human rights abuses section.--Oiboy77 12:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fairly good suggestion, although I will say that I think the positives are already pretty well-covered in the article now, for the most part. Some of the negatives need elaboration on (see my review of the article below). john k 12:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the WP:NPA issue and Humus, I did think your comment was a personal attack.  "Your comments have nothing to do with improving the article, and everything to do with trying to associate working on this article with being anti-semitic."  Saying that someone's comments have nothing to do with improving the article is assuming bad faith and attacking their contributions.  I think HS is an excellent editor who is certainly contributing the the article and the talk page in a very productive way.  "Anti-semite" is certainly a loaded term---let's not use it, ok?   I think it is fair to say that many of the editors on this page are primarily interested in smearing Israel's human rights record and their edit history (ie wholesale reverts of sourced accurate and relevant material that places Israel in a good light) supports this.  It is a good and reasonable thing to be honest about what Israel has done that is not ideal or even bad.  It is not a good thing to supress what Israel has done right.  It is also not a good thing to use extreme examples in a one sided biased way to use Wikipedia as a soapbox.  HS does a credit to Wikipedia when he calls people on this stuff.  Elizmr 15:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Humus started many other Human rights in x,y.z articles which have now started to be populated by others.  YOu and I have talked on the talk page of one of those articles.  This is also a valuable and balancing contribution that he has made.  Elizmr 15:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Elizmr, I wasn't trying to imply that Humus, in general, has not contributed to this or other articles, just that his comment opening this section was entirely unproductive.  But perhaps I was not clear enough about it.  As for "Anti-semite" being a loaded term, sure, but are you saying that accusing one's opponents of being motivated by an "unhealthy preoccupation with besmirching the Jewish State" is not, in essence, an accusation of anti-semitism?  Why is it acceptable to make this accusation in euphemistic terms, but not acceptable for me to call a spade a spade?  Beyond that, I will again say that there are certainly editors who are going to be making bad edits to this article that ought to be reverted (and I will admit that I haven't followed the editing history of the article itself that closely, and have mostly followed the talk page discussion, so I may not be up on the whole thing).  But that doesn't justify blanket accusations, and beyond that, I still am not sure what constructive purpose Humus's accusation that started this mess of a talk page section could possibly have served.  He certainly didn't call anybody on anything, since he failed to make any specific points at all.  If he'd called some specific user out for out of line editing, that would be one thing, but his comment's main complaint seemed to be that this article is longer than other articles, which isn't a valid complaint.  At any rate, continuing to discuss this is likely to be completely unproductive, and I'm going to stop. I got angry and made comments that were out of line earlier, for which I apologize, but I still think that Humus's original post was out of line as well, and that his follow-up posts where he complains that other people aren't being productive in their responses to his unproductive post are hypocritical. john k 17:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  John, thank you for admitting that you "haven't followed the editing history of the article itself that closely". Perhaps it would help if you take a look at the very first edit by the creator this article. I stand by my comment. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow, yes, that is obviously a completely inappropriate edit, and completely out of line.  Oiboy clearly has rather extreme ideas on the Israel/Palestine conflict, and in his initial edits, he was clearly pushing them to the point of vandalism.  Obviously, this kind of start is something which oughtn't be ignored when assessing his contributions thereafter.  At the same time, your comments, true or not, are still entirely unproductive in terms of improving this article.  What exactly were they supposed to accomplish in terms of making the article better? What are your specific problems with the article?  That's the real issue, specific problems with the issue.  "Being too detailed as compared to other articles on similar topics" is not a real complaint. john k 19:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: How has anything in this section said by any of us been the least bit productive towards improving this article?  When you create a section entirely devoted to questioning the motives of other editors, it's bound to be unproductive.  I'll withdraw the accusations of hypocrisy, but this section has been entirely unproductive. john k 19:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article was created as an attack on Israel and the efforts to turn it into an attack page are ongoing. John, sionce you seem to have assumed a role of a supervisor and reserved the right to call a spade a spade only for yourself, what are you going to do about it? ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you give me some specific examples of attempts to "turn it into an attack page"?  Beyond that, I don't like the idea that I'm a supervisor, or that I've reserved any rights to myself.  I suppose I have been trying to informally mediate, to some extent, but I certainly don't reserve any special rights to myself.  If you want to say "this edit and this edit and this edit are basically just unfair attacks on Israel," and back it up with diffs, you should do that.  But launching into a tirade about how this article shows an "unhealthy fixation on the Jewish state" isn't doing that, it's just increasing the level of distrust and failure to assume good faith that's making progress so difficult.  That this article was created as an attack on Israel is also unfair - whatever the motivations of Oiboy in creating this article, it's pretty plain that this is a legitimate topic for an article - there are numerous articles on human rights in different countries.  The point should be "how do we make this article into a good, balanced, NPOV article on the subject."  john k 03:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unhealthy preoccupation with Israel