User talk:RolandR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 60 days are automatically archived to User talk:RolandR/Archive/Archive 01. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Welcome!

Hello RolandR, 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  JFW | T@lk 22:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

Israel Shamir

RolandR, I have wikified the opening of this article to indicate his year of birth. As far as I can tell this does not appear to be in doubt. Obviously, if you know otherwise... Philip Cross 18:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

====Regarding reversions[1] made on {{subst:currentmonth}} {{subst:currentday}} {{subst:currentyear}} (UTC) to Steven Plaut====

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. If this is an IP address, and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning, but aviod making any reverts within 24 hours of this warning in order to avoid any confusion. ST47Talk 23:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Counterpunch Article

RolandR I don't understand, why are you helping some mad Zionist fool bias the article on Counterpunch. The article already contains links to accusations of anti-semtism from that moron Steven Plaut, why does this extended diatribe of a paragraph need to be there which is obvious POV pushing. There is absolutely no evidence to support anything in that extended paragraph and the only purpose it serves is this fool going on an extended rant. RolandR, I was under the assumption that you and I were on the same page and I would think you would to help me block this fool, not restore his delusional edits. Annoynmous 20:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Because Counterpunch is playing a very dubious role here, and in effect undermining the anti-Zionist position. It is publishing articles by characters like Shamir and Atzmon, which deliberately blur the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism and attack Jews in the stupid belief that this somehow helps the Palestinian cause; it has published false and malicious attacks on anti-Zionist activists (including me and my friend Tony Greenstein), but refuses to publish our response; and it is lending credence to the argument of reactionaries like Plaut that opposition to Israel is necessarily and automatically antisemitic. If we do not respond to this, if we cover it up and pretend that everything is alright, then we are ourselves aiding this deception and strengthening Israeli propaganda. The paragraph is true, no matter who wrote it -- and, as you will see from the article on him -- I am certainly not a fan of Plaut.RolandR 22:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

First off your assumption that the article is true no matter who wrote it strikes me as an extremely arrogant thing to say. The fact is that there is not one link or corroborating source in the unkown users paragraph. From the way it's written it's obvious that this is just his own biased viewpoint that he wants to get across and not some carefully researched point. I have read the article on counterpunch that mentions your friend Tony Greenstein and as far as I can tell the criticism in the article was simply Mr. Greenstein's suggestion that Atzmon not be invited to a convention sponsored by the SWP. I think this is a valid criticism and this whole support for the annoynmous user smacks of the personal rather your thinking he has a legitimate point. I agree that Atzmon is a controversial figure and that one can legitimately criticise statements he's made, but those should be made on his article, not counterpunch's. Counterpunch as you also no publishes articles by Uri Avnery someone who is far from an anti-semite. You need to look at the wording this phantom user used in his article describing Atzmon and Shamir, "explicitly anti-jewish rascists", who knows I may come to agree with that assumption after some more thorough research on both men, but it would still be my opinion and not absolute fact. I think most people agree that both men have rather ambigous arguments that could be interpreted both ways. As for the nonsense about Ernest Zundel, do you really beleive that Cockburn and St. Clair are neo-nazi holocaust deniers as the user claims. Alexander Cockburn may be anti-zionist, but he's also written articles bashing christopher hitchens for holocaust denial comments he's made in the past. Why can't the passages of counterpunch being accused of anti-semitism suffice instead of this hastily written piece of opionated garbage. RolandR I have great respect for you and have silently cheered you on in your attempts to show up that douchebag Plaut and I sincerely hope that when your ban lifts for that article you go right back to fighting the bastards. However, I beg you don't let whatever legitimate grievance you may have with Atzmon contaminate this article by unwittingly being sucked in by zionist garbage. annoynmous 01:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

RolandR I hope that I haven't come across as overly harsh, because I have the greatest respect for you and hope that we could be allies in the future. I would hate for this incident to lead to a prolonged antagonism between us. I'm sure that you are sincere in your beliefs and I am in no way accusing you of "betraying the greater cause" or some nonsense like that. I hope thats not how my comments came off. It just that I read Counterpunch regularly and it is one of the few refuges we have here in America from the insuferable corporate media. It is one of the the few publications here willing to take up the cause of the palestinians, and I fear that because of this paragraph there going to come off as a bunch of neo-nazi rascists. I just think what ever criticism's of Atzmon and Shamir need be made should be made on there pages, not on Counterpunch's. Even if I did think some mention of them on this article would be appropiate, I would rather you right it than the zionist moron who wrote this paragraph. annoynmous 02:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i accept your point, and have added a sentence and refs to the article detailing the criticism from anti-Zionist activists. Counterpunch are of course not a bunch of neo-nazi racists. But I am very sceptical of some they work with, and I think that their refusal to publish -- or indeed even acknowledge -- responses by left activists attacked in their pages is reprehensible. RolandR 13:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well know I'm a Nazi apologist according to the unkown user. I warned you about this RolandR, this guy isn't doing this because he's concerned about the blurring between anti-zionism and anti-semitism, he's a mad zionist who hates counterpunch because they criticize Israel. To him, everyone is a neo-nazi holocaust denier. I still think the critique of Atzmon should be on his page and not on counterpunch's, but I have respect for your opinion and won't press the matter any further. My edits to your writing were simply trying to give it a more neutral sense in that it is only your opinion that Atzmon blurs the lines between anti-zionism and anti-semitism. I happen to think your wrong on Atzmon, he may be rather harsh in his wording sometimes, but I don't think he has any great overiding hatred against jews. Israel shamir is a another matter, and I do agree that Counterpunch may have shown poor judgement in running his articles. However, we can discuss that at another time and for now I won't make any further edits on your writing. I must however stress that the unkown user is seriously starting to piss me off and I will continue to revert his edits if he keeps trying to add in his biased paragraph. I really don't like banning anyone from an article, but if he persists I would suggest you try and ban him from the article. annoynmous 06:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

RolandR I don't if you been reading the discussion page lately, but suffice to say it's gotten pretty ugly between me and the unkown user. I frankly don't like the guy, but I'm gonna try and put aside by anger and try to embrace a mutual compromise that both he and I would like. Will Beback has lifted the ban and I have suggested that you do another rewrite that this time include Israel Shamir as well as Atzmon. The unkown user also wants some mention of Alan Cabal article on Ernest Zundel, but I think that should be left out as it is only in the print edition of counterpunch and can only be referenced through blogs that mention it. However, I guess you should probably talk more with the unkown user directly about coming to a compromise in that area. Despite our dislike for each other we both seem to trust you and feel you would be a good mediator for both our viewpoints. We are both holding off editing in wait of your new contributions.

annoynmous 21:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have been following the battle there. Although I haven't intervened directly, I have posted warnings on the editor's talk page not to make personal attacks, and not to threaten legal action. I've replied more fully on the article talk page about my reluctance further to amend the article. RolandR 22:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
RolandR would you please come and talk to this guy again. Frankly I don't care what you say to him as long I don't have to deal with him anymore. I frankly don't blame you for not wanting to change the paragraph you've written and agree it is sufficient for now. I'm not asking you to do that, just do something so he'll go away.
I literally can't stand this guy anymore. I don't know why, but every time I make up my mind not to talk to him I keep coming back even although it makes me upset. As you can see on the talk page I posted another post after I said I wasn't going to post anymore. This guy just irks me so much that I can't help but respond. I'm not asking you to commit to anything with him, just talk to him for a little while so I don't have to. Then maybe he'll go away and my blood pressure can go back down.annoynmous 22:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Racism in Israel

Hi Comrade, Have a look at [2] and Talk:Racism by country. Our Zionist friends are trying to purge any reference to Israeli racism from Wikipedia. And so far they are succeeding. regards, Abu ali 20:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.... Abu ali 10:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

New sockpuppet

I just blocked User:Rolandshat indefinitely, for obvious reasons. Also, I've added that blogspot site he keeps vandalizing with to Shadowbot's blacklist, so I should be able to keep tabs on him in the future. Shadow1 (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there no way to write a bot that automatically reverts any mention of Roland beind added? --Duncan 10:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong edit apology

Dear RolandR - I am sorry about the mistake, however I cannot remove my text as the article has gone from the wiki. Kotovasii 19:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

New Sockpuppet User:Dorightnik

I have reverted these [3]. Let me know if I can be any help. See you soon. --Duncan 21:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism

Maybe you help here [[4]]? ابو علي 15:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

indiginous or minorities?

I see there is another edit war on Arab citizens of Israel. Are the Beduin and Druze indiginous? Or are the only indiginous those who live in Brooklyn? Who knows. The amusing thing is for all the waring on the beginning of the sentence, noone is challenging the statement at the end of the sentence (that relations between the community and the state are warm). Try telling that to the Al-Ataika family [5]. Also [6] is worth reading. ابو علي 17:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This issue was discussed months ago, and several editors explained why the word was POV, and why the source did not support the claim being made. User:Tiamut has decided to renew the edit war over this, which I thought had been settled back in December. If you wish to participate in the debate, please do so on the Talk page of the article, but making blind reverts as you have been doing is not acceptable. Isarig 18:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
That is not an accurate account. Only one editor -- you -- even attempted to explain why this factual and sourced statement was POV. Sevreral editors agreed that it was a valid term, and at least six different editors have reverted your continued removal of the term. User:Tiamut has clearly been taking a break from Wikipedia, and came back to discover that an issue which she believed had been settled by consensu, had subsequently been reverted by you. If there is an edit war here, then you are clearly one of the nmain combatants.
No, you need to read much more carefully. I refer you to archive 2, section 46, where in addition to myself, Zeq and Jaygj agreed that it was POV, and to archive 2, section 32, where an anon editor first raised this issue. So, 4 different editors found it POV. Isarig 06:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
That's not the case. In section 32, an unsigned comment asserts, without any reasons, that this is a POV term. (Is there any way to see the page history of an archived page?) Section 46 doesn't deal with this at all, I think you mean 45. Again, you, Zeq and Jayjg assert, without any evidence, that this is a POV statement. You can shout as much as you like, but unless you can provide some backing for your argument that this neutral and factual term should be ethnically-cleansed from the article, it should remain there. RolandR 09:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
In any case, it is ridiculous to imply that the Palestinian Arabs are not indigenous to Palestine. This is characteristic of the fake scholarship of Joan Peters and Alan Dershowitz, and carries unfortunate echoes of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1947-8 and subsequently. The term is accurate, neutral, appropriate and used in the source cited, and it should stay in the article. RolandR 18:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
That's all very nice, but here on WP, we are not out to pick sides and decide which arguments are valid and which are not - we are here to accurately describe both POVs. If you insist on including the POV claim that Arabs are indigenous, we have no choice but to include the opposing POV, that they are recent immigrants- no matter how much you personally dislike Peters or Dershowitz. Isarig 06:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Roland. Your sum-up is much more accurate than that given by Isarig. When objections were raised to the term, I defended it use, more than once (I believe successfully, since no one attempted to remove it immediately after those discussions). As you have quite accurately pointed out, I have been on a hiatus (and was not involved in the "edit war") and was rather disappointed to come back and see that the word was removed again despite the source defending its use and the quite obvious history of Palestinians in the region. I would finish by saying that I am disappointed that Isarig sought to misrepresent my actions, and on your talk page no less. Thanks for alerting me. Tiamut 19:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
PS: Could you check out Al-Aqsa Intifada, the debate over the tactics section? Thanks. Tiamut 21:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Another one, Law of Return. Am I way off base? Tiamut 21:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For identifying a poem (A Life) that I was looking for. Bless sins 22:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's very considerate of you.Bless sins 22:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That reminds me

Before I took my hiatus, you translated volumed of material from Hebrew into English to help improve the Arab citizens of Israel article. I have not forgotten your hard work, even though I could not include all the material because of persistent edit-warring from parties with rigid POV. I intend to get bak to it one day, but until then, I wanted to award you:

The Barnstar of Diligence
for your contributions, including extensive translations of source material, and a voice of reason with attention to detail, all beautifully displayed on talk pages and in your edits Tiamut 12:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the tea RolandR. It totally made my day, really. It's so nice to open your talk page and be greeted by people with kindness and intellect. Take care. Tiamut 18:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Block on political grounds?

see [[7]] ابو علي 23:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


  • Hey Roland, have you checked out the above link lately? Tiamut 22:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Indigenous Palestinians

Hey Roland. I though you might want to contribute your thoughts at [8] considering your lengthy dicussion of the issue at Arab citizens of Israel. Tiamut 03:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There is clearly ambiguity about the meaning of the term "indigenous". I have already been taken to task on Talk:Arab citizens of Israel for "not knowing the meaning of indigenous". I do indeed know the meaning, and refer to Chambers Dictionary, which defines it as "native born; originating or produced naturally in a country, not imported, opp to' 'exotic. In this sense, Palestinians are inarguably indigenous to Palestine, and I was reacting to the repeated removal of the term from the article. It would appear, from comments in the Edit summaries and the Talk page, that the main reason for removing the term -- which actually appears in the source cited -- was not any argument about Palestinian indigenous status, but rather a belief that mentioning this somehow challenged the claim of Israelis/Jews (it is not clear which) to indigenous status in Palestine. But the inclusion of the term in the article has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits, or otherwise, of this claim, which can be debated if the need arises.
It appears that a second debate has now been opened, on the status of Palestinians as an "indigenous people". This, it seems to me, is a separate scientific debate; not having any training (nor much interest) in anthropology, I do not really qualified to contribute. But I would suggest that this is, at present, a distraction from the original issue, which was maintaining the integrity of the quote in the original Arab citizens of Israel article. This relies on the normal, dictionary sense of the word "indigenous", and not on any specific anthropological use. Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine, whether or not they qualify as an "indigenous people". The repeated references to Joan Peters make it clear that some editors here dispute this fact, and promote the false history that has them immigrating as a result of Zionism. I believe that the quote I brought from Ahad Ha'Am should help to nail this falsehood, and I will find a way to introduce it into the article itself. RolandR 12:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Very good point. I will support your efforts there of course, but will continue painstakingly making the case over at the Indigenous Peoples page, because of the burgeoning involvement of Palestinians in Indigenous peoples forums, a phenomena that is bound to have implications for future status negotiations on key issues like refugees (if we ever reach that stage). It's been educational for me anyway to explore the difference betweent he meanings of indigenous and learn more about the fora available. I hope to provide a similar service to those interested in understanding the issue of Palestinian indigeneity, from all of its angles. That said, on a personal note, I believe all people should live wherever they feel most comfortable and that boundaries are ridiculous lines in the sand that shouldn't have been drawn in the first place. But that's fodder for another discussion in other times, hopefully those to come in the near future. Tiamut 14:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course I agree with you on boundaries. Some years ago, I was an editor of Border and Territorial Disputes, which confirmed for me the arbitrary and irrational basis of all borders. Meanwhile, have you seen the proposed Democratic Constitution from Adalah? We need to include this in Arab citizens of Israel. RolandR 14:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That looks very cool. By the way, the discussion at the RfC is getting very interesting now. You might want to look it over. Also, these links might help in clarifying some problems in the Arab citizens of Israel article. I came upon them researching for the RfC. [9] and [10]. Plus, there's this great article on Palestinian Bedouin identity and issues [11], though it would be prefereable to find the Journal it was cited in, to put to rest any WP:ATT challenges. (Did you hear about this policy change thing by the way? WP:RS is upgraded to policy from guideline and merged with WP:V to become WP:ATT. As long as it is applied evenly, which it is not unfortunately, but here's hoping for better days:)Tiamut 16:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Adam Keller

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits, such as those you made to Adam Keller, have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

despite your eagerness to claim "hostile POV editsd, as per talk"[12], you've made the error of not inspecting both on the edit made and the fact that conversation on the talk page seems to be me & adam keller himself who does not deny any statement par the pro-hezbollah tag which was not reintroduced.

i consider your edit to be a well minded mistake but i suggest that in the future you pay better attention to both the text edits and the talk page before you make accusations. Jaakobou 22:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so patronising. Of course I read the talk page; you are distorting its content here. The truth is that there was an edit war going on, in which you played a prominent role; that Adam Keller objected to many of the political characterisations in your edits; that the article was protected as a result; and that, as soon as the protection was lifted you again made many of the same disputed changes, introducing objectionable material while deleting relevant information. RolandR 23:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Adam Keller, you will be blocked from editing.

apparently, you decided in advance that i am sticking to the same edit as before[13], i suggest you go over the new/current version of the article and dispute the tags you think are not well sourced or unbalanced rather than resort to a blind revert "war" over materials you havn't taken the time reading.

i add that I had the article protected in order to cease the intrusion of an annon. user who cannot read hebrew who was disputing every edit. once the page was blocked and "his version" happened to be the one that stayed, he did not resume talks on the talk page. Jaakobou 07:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to Adam Keller, will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. asside from other activity, you have removed the criticism section of the article under the claim that the information is not cited in the refrence[14] - due the this being not your first "mistake" on the article you get a 3rd level warning rather than a 1st level warning.

here is the citation as appeared in the article: "The influential dovish commentator Nahum Bar'nea wrote in today's "Yediot Aharonot": "Except for the lunatic fringe leftists".

the raticle has been reverted to it's original status.

p.s. "apartheid wall" is not WP:NPOV. Jaakobou 23:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

i am waiting for quite some time for your response on the talk page. Jaakobou 18:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no comment to make on your unfounded and ad hominem diatribe. You have decided that Adam Keller is a liar, and therefore automatically disbelieve any statements by him unless they conform to your preconceived positions. I cannot discuss this rationally with someone who takes such an irrational stance. RolandR 19:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
(1) pretty much all the sources for the article were published by keller or friends of his group.
(2) numereous innacuracies were found - i.e. "lunatic","alongside" etc...
we should come to some agreement of how we handle criticism on the keller article, and no, censoring criticism on such an article which is so obviously criticizing israel is not good wiki editing. Jaakobou 21:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ezer Weizman quotation (:he: source)

I appreciate your providing the link to the full quotation in context. As it turns out, the whole thing including its parenthetical explanation needed correcting, which I've done. The result is perhaps "less punchy" than a blatantly "notorious quote" but disturbing nonetheless. We'll see what other Users may have to say (or not) in subsequent edits. Anyway, good pickup! -- Thanks, Deborahjay 23:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet?

In light of your actions at Tanyasucked, you might want to look at User talk:Misses giggles for more vandalism of a similar nature. I've even set out the diffs nicely for you! Best wishes, Bencherlite 13:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at the list, my previous comment now looks rather flippant - sorry. I'll keep my eyes open for this type of vandalism in future. Regards, Bencherlite 13:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I saw this guy's edits. Dancing on Tanya's grave after her untimely death by vandalising her article. Very nice! But it does say something about the personal and moral callibre of our opponents.
Please accept my condolences on the death of Shimon Tzabar. May his work be continued. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 15:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ralph Schoenman

Hi, wasn´t there a Ralph Schoenman article earlier that was deleted? Well, there is a new article about him now, anyway. I seem to recall that there was an article about one of his books, too? Wasn´t one of his books fully published on a web-site, or something? If so, I think it should be linked from Schoenman article. Regards, Huldra 10:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC) PS: I´m sorry to see the harassment and wiki-stalking you are subjected too; I have never, ever in my time here seen any other editor been harassed as badly as you have been.

There were serious problems with the previous article, which was accused of copy-violation, and I think Schoenman fought to have it removed. There has already been similar edit-warring over this article, which has now been protected. There was previously an article about his book The Hidden History of Zionism; this appears to have been deleted, though the Talk page is still there. Personally, I think it is a very unreliable book, with misleading and even false references -- every time I have tried to trace one back to its source, I find that the original does not say what Schoenman claims it does. So I would prefer not to provide a link to it, or even to be involved in editing artivclkes about it. RolandR 11:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I see. I know very little about him; the only thing I had heard about him before I came to Wikipedia was Doris Lessings comments about his association with Russel. And those comments were...eh, "not positive." Regards, Huldra 11:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Informal mediation

Mediation has been requested for the article Adam Keller. Please indicate on the case page if you will accept my assistance as an informal mediator. Thank you! Vassyana 13:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am closing the case since you do not accept mediation. I would suggest possibly seeking other avenues to resolve the dispute. It might be helpful to solicit a third opinion, for example. Thank you for taking the time to respond and explain your rejection. It is appreciated. Take care. Vassyana 14:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/l/User_talk%7ERolandR_dc41.html"