User talk:Brian Tvedt/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Brian Tvedt/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Welcome also to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics on whose talk page the mathematicians talk math related issues. Hope you like it here. Oleg Alexandrov 01:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, welcome, and glad to have you here to create a new reality-based community! linas 05:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

Occupied Territories

Brian, while I am not going to participate in Wikipedia any longer, let me clarify what I think ought to happen with regard to the various "Occupation" articles:

  • occupied territories should be merged into Occupied Territories (Israeli). The former is a profoundly meaning-deficient article, and in an NPOV encyclopedia "Occupied Territories" should be about the Israeli Occupied Territories, with just a section to mention other territories considered occupied around the world, and possibly a section on primarily pejorative uses of the term, as America-as-occupied-territory.
  • The article on OT(I) might best point to something (or even two somethings, for the opposing viewpoints) like the Occupation of the Palestinian territories page that would present in more depth the disputes and varying viewpoints regarding the OT(I).

Unfortunately, I think you are taking up a thankless and ultimately fruitless task. Jayjg et al have no real interest in clarifying the entries regarding OT(I) nor in making them more informative and useable. Their interest, based on their actions, seems only to be to obscure as much as possible the fact that Israel is almost universally considered an occupying power in the OT(I), as by insisting that the terminology proposed only by supporters of Israel be considered NPOV.

Here is what I'm afraid you will have to look forward to if you try to move forward with the effort to improve the OT(I) articles:

1. Your efforts at discussion will be ignored or will receive weasel-y non-commital responses, no matter how directly you ask for specific thoughts.

2. Eventually you'll decide that you've given ample opportunity to everyone to comment on changes that you've suggested, and that you've sufficiently addressed every reasonable objection, and that the people making unreasonable objections have failed to respond to your requests that they explain themselves (this may take weeks).

3. At this point, if you go ahead and make the changes you'd proposed, Jayjg et al will revert them to the extent that they don't like them, insisting that the discussion on these matters had not been completed.

4. And then you can either get into a revert war which you will not only lose, but which will also get you labeled as a "troublesome editor," or you can admit defeat.

5. Repeat as often as you can stand it, but note that, given the times of his edits, Jayjg seems to be employed to edit here, and probably in part to keep the NPOV OT(I) position from seeing the light of day.

Best wishes! ;)

Marsden 17:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Marsden, thanks for the good wishes. I understand your frustration, but I hope at some point you will reconsider your decision. I still think you have much of value to contribute to Wikipedia. Brian Tvedt 10:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

quotes

Those were quote quotes, not scare quotes. Thought it OK to use Israel in that context as the cable was after the name Israel was taken, but I don't really care. I put up a link to the cable at the 48 war article.John Z 11:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

John, I apologize - I should have assumed good faith, and in any case didn't realize it was you. Still, I think it's better not to have the quotes, just because quote quotes are rather unusual on Wikipedia, but scare quotes alas are not. Brian Tvedt 01:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Territories under Israeli control

The entire world, with the exception of the Israeli government and its supporters, who are not numerous, calls the territories that Israel is occupying the "occupied territories". It's Wikipedia's established practice to name articles with the most commonly used name in the English language for the thing they describe. The policy on neutral point of view makes it crystal clear that we should not give undue weight to small minority views. Naming an article to comply with a minority view is definitely unduly weighting that view.

Just in case you're not wholly clear why "territories under Israeli control" is not "neutral", you must ask yourself why the Israeli side prefers "control" to "occupation". Generally, you control your own territory. You occupy someone else's (in this case Israel relies on the fact that it's not totally clear who that someone else actually is). The title you are preferring strongly prefers the POV that Israel is not occupying someone else's territory -- a POV that is only held by a very small minority. It carries the rather fantastic implication that Israel just happens to be "controlling" the territories. Naturally, you'll be aware that it invaded them militarily and holds them by force. As I said, it's not clear whose territory it invaded, but that doesn't change that it wasn't Israel's.

Any article on the occupied territories should include a discussion of Israel's opposition to the term. I think that's important and I don't believe at all it should be omitted or downplayed. But I do not think that the fact that Israel opposes its use should mean that we do not use it. Compare, if you will, the discussions on other geographical areas whose name is under dispute, for example, Liancourt Rocks or Sea of Japan.

Please don't facilitate POV pushers. I know you are trying to win a compromise but it should not be the case that a minority can have its way in Wikipedia, running roughshod over our policies, simply because it can muster the numbers. Would you be moving Sea of Japan to East Sea if sufficiently numerous Korean editors reverted it enough? Grace Note 03:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Whenever there is doubt, Brian, there is no doubt. Your "scolding" of Jay was cute, but ultimately too heavy handed. Marsden 12:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Brian, your compromise suggestion was in fact a great help, and it has allowed things to move on (whereas Marsden and Grace Note would, it seems, prefer the conflict to continue ad infinitum, rather than reach a compromise). The article is partly about the extent to which the words "occupied" or "disputed" are appropriate: it would therefore not be appropriate to have one or the other in the title. We're supposed to choose neutral titles wherever possible, and the one you came up with accurately reflects the situation, while not begging the question one way or the other. Thank you for doing that. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
It's a funny sort of "moving on", Slim, that we now have a title (and will doubtless have an article) that reflects a minority point of view and cutely pretends that the majority view, as I said, held by the overwhelming majority of opinion in every sphere: political, press, legal, does not actually exist. The areas in question are not "territories that just happen to be under Israeli control". They are the territories Israel currently has under military occupation, as the entire world, bar your faction, agrees. -- GN

I do see your point of view, Brian, but editors like Slim and Jay rely on other editors feeling there's no absolutely no way past their obduracy. They know they're in the wrong but they realise that if they keep on reverting and keep on refusing to give an inch -- while pretending to "compromise" by allowing you to suggest answers that meet their concerns but do not answer your own -- they can win; they simply wear down editors with good will and infuriate editors without it. SlimVirgin's comment here is typical of her intransigent POV. You can give her examples of articles that do not have minority titles until you're blue in the face and she'll still insist that "we" are "supposed to" choose "neutral" titles where possible. She knows perfectly well that the title you came up with was entirely not neutral. It's one of the preferred wordings of her minority view. (The neutral title is the one that is most widely in use, as I discussed, because this is the one supported most broadly -- the consensus, if you like.) Her idea of a "compromise" is to be obdurate until she gets her way, and then to gracefully allow you to give it to her. -- Grace Note

No, GN, that isn't fair. You and I have both objected to the use of the word "terrorism," for example, with reference to certain Palestinian and Islamist groups, even though it's widely used. The article in question is, in part, about the issue of occupied versus disputed, and it would therefore be absurd to have occupied in the title. Brian's suggestion comes from neither of the factions and yet is completely accurate. The term "military occupation" is defined (in part) by the Geneva Conventions, and Israel's situation in the West Bank does not clearly fit that definition. If it did, there would be no dispute. You're just annoyed because your POV hasn't bagged the top spot. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not interested in your original research about "occupation". By all means source that opinion in the article. Brian's suggestion is certainly not neutral. Your (tiny) faction describes the territories as being under Israel's control, but the rest of the world (nearly all of it) says they are "occupied". Your OR about the word, particularly as it concerns the Geneva Conventions (!), is neither here nor there; it simply does not affect the fact that the overwhelming majority opinion is that the territories are called "the occupied territories". The article should reflect that, just as the articles on Liancourt Rocks and Sea of Japan do. They are exactly analogous (no amount of OR that analysed "of Japan" and pointed out, for instance, that "of" is the marker of the possessive and the sea does not in fact belong to Japan, blah de blah, would change that it is correctly titled). Anyway, I'm off to move Yom Kippur War to a "neutral" title. I expect you to support me, because you know that one of the "factions" does not call it that. Grace Note 07:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Six-Day War

I agree the article is improving steadily as we include more (and more reliable) sources. I'm just tracking down a number of primary sources in the Public Record Office and the Johnson Presidential Library. Readers should find this combination of primary and secondary sources genuinely useful. --Ian Pitchford 13:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk:White Paper of 1939

Hi, would you care to take a look at this page? I just don´t understand what they mean. Also, do you know how we can get Edward Said into Category:Palestinian people -he is in the Pal. writer category, so he should be in the people category too, should´t he? (I just don´t know how to do it) Thanks, & regards,Huldra 22:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Would you consider weighing in?

Jayjg has been belligerantly restoring a statement on the Golan Heights having Israel's only ski resort at the Israeli-occupied territories article. You are aware of the fuss he made about how references to anything as trivial as water resources don't belong in that article. My relationship with Jay is such that there is no point in my trying to discuss anything with him, so would you leave him a message at his talk page requesting that he refrain from putting information he apparently considers "crap" back into the article? If he continues to misbehave, your action would complete a step in my formal complaint against him. Marsden 14:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Requests for adminship

Just FYI: Ramallite is nominated for adminship: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ramallite Regards, Huldra 17:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Dirichlet problem

I like what you did for the opening sentence, and the problem statement. I was trying to get to that, but you've done it better than I could! D'n 00:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

1948 Arab-Israeli War

Hello. I suggested a first trial for a new background for the article. All your comments would be welcome :-) Christophe Greffe 16:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Operator topology

Thank you for the Introduction section on operator topology. It was much needed and a nice read! - Gauge 04:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian territories

I agree in principle with your remarks, and I also note the remarks above on your talk page by another user, to the effect that certain editors rely on others feeling that there is no way past their obduracy. However, do you think there is any real prospect of getting an articles on Palestinian territories, at that title, that isn't disfigured by the constant efforts to turn it into an article about an item of terminology, to spend the first three paragraphs discussing how inappropriate the title is, etc? Not to mention certain editors persistently going around breaking links to it wherever they find them, as currently happens? I'm all for standing up for the current title, in principle, and in a fair and balanced encyclopaedia there wouldn't be any problem having it there, but does the alternative not offer more of a prospect of having a decent article in the conditions in which we are working? Palmiro | Talk 11:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just Noticed This

(From Palmiro's Talk Page)

I admire the stand you’ve taken against Ed Poor, et al, but I think moving the page to WB&GS would giving too much ground. I made a compromise in the past with Jayjg and Slim Virgin on a different article (which can be found last year’s discussion in Israeli-occupied territories, or my talk page), and came to regret it. The evidence compiled by Gregor Samsa, particularly the speech by President Bush, provides very strong support for concluding that PT is the majority term, accepted by the world political establishment. In fact it took an enormous struggle by the Palestinians to get to that point. It think it’s obvious why editors like Ed Poor and Sangil, who have difficulty acknowledging the existence of Palestinians in the first place, would like to rename the article WB&GS - they would like it to appear that these areas are up for grabs. If they are allowed to prevail on this, I don’t expect them to give any ground in return, in fact the page move would probably be a push to delete the article altogether, on the grounds that we already have articles on the geographic areas. Brian Tvedt 03:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

As I suspected, you really were being dishonest. Asshole. Marsden | Talk

Gaza

I have been trying to have the Gaza Strip included in the List of concentration and internment camps article. After another revert war the article has again been locked down. Could you please take a look at my sandbox and make comments as to how the material may be improved? User:Carbonate/Sandbox Carbonate 06:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/r/i/User_talk%7EBrian_Tvedt_Archive_1_3991.html"