User talk:Urthogie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 10 days are automatically archived to User talk:Urthogie/archive/. Sections without timestamps are not archived.


Contents

[edit] Those are very short questions

That could prompt me to write a long response. (and I did once on Okedem's talk if you want to look it up if you want the extenda-version).

I will just say that I don't believe in religiously or ethnically defined states of any kind and I'm not a nationalist (though I love many aspects of Palestinian cultural life and am a bit of politics buff). I'm pretty much against all "isms" as well. I hold a live and let live kind of philosophy that doesn't jive too well with the meta-environment I live in.

But I'm also a bit of a senitmentalist and I love knowing that my grandfather and his grandfather and his grandmother and her aunt and so and on walked these same paths, and touched some of the same doors (stuff is old here!). I don't think I have more of a right to be here than anyone else because of that, but it makes me happy to think about it.

I think that probably answers your questions is a connect-the-dots kind of way. :) Tiamut 23:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

An exercise in reflection . . .

You wrote:

I would support a non-ethnic pure liberal democracy too if I felt it would be a safe Jewish homeland, but this seems extremely unlikely, considering the history of the Palestinians before 1948, and also recent developments with Islamism. Perhaps one day these negative changes will be reversed (although I doubt it), but I'm forced to support a two state solution until the Palestinians practice consistent non-violence

Now if I write:

I would support a non-ethnic pure liberal democracy too if I felt it would be a safe Palestinian homeland, but this seems extremely unlikely, considering the history of the Israelis before 1948, and also recent developments in Jewish fundamentalism. Perhaps one day these negative changes will be reversed (although I doubt it), but I'm forced to support a two state solution until the Israelis practice consistent non-violence

How do you feel? Tiamut 23:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question though. How does it make you feel? (and I've changed Judaism to "Jewish fundamentalism". Zionism isn't an equivalent. It's more of a secularly-based political program with some religious adherents). Tiamut 23:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I guess that's where we fundmentally differ. As someone for whom Palestinian is a key part of a complex identity, I don't want to be separated from them. And as a human being who believes all others are innately good at base, it never makes me happy to hear that people do want to separated from one another. It's a huge failure of communication manifested at a system level. And it can be resolved. But not by pretending there is a good people and a bad people. We are all just people and we have to share the earth together. The stronger system can't just build walls around an entire people with a weaker system and lock them up and throw away the key. That's called collective punishment. And it doesn't help to build mutual trust and understanding. In any case, thanks for clarifying. I now understand where you're coming from. Tiamut 00:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Palestinians were not always suicide bombers. It took four decades after their dispossession and displacement in 1948 before the first sad and twisted soul perpetuated that kind of act. I would argue that we are where we are precisely because of a refusal to acknowledge one another's grievances or understand each other's historical and present-day sensitivities. Making blanket arugments about an entire people doesn't bode well for the future.

Is Israel going to start testing "Palestinian-ness" among its Arab citizens and start deporting those considered just Palestinian enough to walled in territories? Where does this path lead exactly? Is Israel's solution to the problem of "terrorism" and "anti-Semitism" to build ghettos? How do walls prevent home-made missiles? I think it's better to drop the assumptions about one another and accept that people and their behaviours are dynamic, not static and respond to circumstance and history and many other factors. But it's safe to say, that is you build a wall around a group of people, they're going to devote thier entire existence to trying to tear it down, and it only delays the inevitable day of settling accounts (or mutual annhilation). Tiamut 00:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zionism(?) and settler colonialism?

Hello. As it pertains to the comment on the section "Settler colonialism in Israel", I'd like to point out that Stanford is a reliable source. If you care to show me just which sources are unsuitable to be included, I'll look for alternative sources but please discuss with me which are trustworthy and which aren't.

Secondly, I don't mention Zionism in the entry (though it might be implicit), and Zionism in it's primary stage has already reached its goal, which is the encouragement of immigration, assisting the absorption and integration of immigrants, fundraising on behalf of settlement and development projects in Israel, the encouragement of private capital investment in Israel, and mobilization of world public opinion in support of Israel.

Addressing your argument about genocide and persecution, I will not endorse or censor the moral right Jews (or any other people of the earth) have to go back to what was/is/should be their homeland. As a mexican, I'd say that the condition of a practical scapegoat argument raised by the people who persecute jews can raise sympathy for the jewish people, but to jump from sympathy to uncritical endorsement of everything they do because it is good per se is a huge leap of faith. Also, if you cared so much about the accuracy of facts stated in the article, you would have noted that in the section "Settler colonialism in Latin-America" there aren't any citations or references. Did you read the entire article? Why not be concerned with its entire integrity, rather than just fixing what (based on what I see from your contributions) seems to be your special interest? The section referencing Mexico could be making outlandish or outrageous claims, it is funny that nobody that deleted the section dealing with Israel cared to notice anything else in the article. Did you see I've been the only one who has made edits to the article? Since when is an article in a perfect form when just one contributor has written it? They didn't change a thing apart from that section. Please, don't make yourselves look as the "Israel-related-changes" patrol.

Also, I see you have primarily dealt with Middle-Eastern topics, while the article I created is part of an effort to counter systemic bias in Wikipedia. I am not saying you are patrolling articles and new additions or anything of the sort, but so far, it has been people who either speak hebrew as a native language or have some sort of emotional involvment with the topic the ones who have reverted the article. You mentioned in one of your edit summaries that I had been spreading a link "falsely", and urged people to look at my contributions. I looked at yours and it seems you've been consistently editing articles having to do with Israel and Palestine. Why have the persons who revert the article considered I'M biased, when it's them who could be biased? Besides, in other parts of Wikipedia, Original Research and POV are tagged and dealt with in a discussion, not just deleted outright. Why not put an OR or a Neutrality tag? Don't make look your efforts to keep Wikipedia clear of POV look like censorship. --Rodrigo Cornejo 19:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You needen't worry, the article is so biased that I already nominated it for deletion. You can rest assured it'll be deleted. Cheers.--Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 01:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't every saying we should delete it... Wow. Can't we find a middle ground here and just work on the article?--Urthogie 01:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I wrote on the talk page "Please discuss any changes or additions with me, I'll be glad to see how we can improve it." and I didn't get a single positive word about additions or improvement. Instead, nobody minced words when it came to telling me how stupid the section was, how biased I am, and the idiot I am because I used unreliable sources. Seems like I wrote an authentic piece of rubbish with no redeeming value. --Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 02:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Man, I'm sorry you had that experience. People are harsh because they are used to people pushing POV's-- don't take their insults to heart. Just try to source statements per Wikipdia policies, making sure to follow WP:UNDUE. I removed what you had because it didn't comply with that given policy. If you read through all the policies you can find out how to make edits that will be relatively "safe" from reversion. Good luck man, and stay bold, don't get pissed off at this internet bullshit.--Urthogie 02:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keep up the good work

At Social construction. That article has been bothering me for awhile now but you had the initiative. Thanks. The Behnam 19:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. The Behnam 19:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] edit summary

This edit summary: "rv blanking. if the background info, presented neutrally, is "argumentative", perhaps its just that the facts themselves speak the truth out here)" [1]

was inaccurate. One paragraph had been moved, not deleted or "blanked."

In the future please attempt to give accurate edit summaries that inform other editors. There is a difference between disagreeing and misleading. Jd2718 05:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph move was illogical, as I explained in a previous edit summary-- the term in the top section is "Israeli apartheid", not "apartheid", so logically a discussion of background info on "apartheid" wouldn't fall under the former.--Urthogie 05:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That you disagreed with the move does not justify an intentionally dishonest edit summary. We should all expect better. Jd2718 05:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You've just violated 3RR on Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. Please revert yourself. Jd2718 05:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll revert myself. Please discuss though.--Urthogie 05:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. As a start, you will find (and not just from me) major opposition to changing the balance in the (minimalist) lead. (adding a new first section is effectively a lead edit). We don't have true/untrue or fair/unfair up top. The link already exists (at bottom). Does yhis info add to the article, and if so, where else can you insert it? Jd2718 05:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding "Apartheid in Australia"

You are 100% correct that my speedy tagging was unwarranted. I apologize for my error.

(If you're wondering what I was thinking, earlier today somebody created "Adobeacrobatreader" (sic) with two sentences, and it was speedied because the content was discussed in Adobe Acrobat Reader, and a redirect was unnecessary. This, of course, is a different case.)

I'll accept your request to help out. Once you've updated the article to your satisfaction, leave me a message and I'll try to look at it. By the way, you have my permission to remove the POV tag. YechielMan 06:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of Islamic apartheid

I posted my concerns regarding the article. I currently don't see the sources to support the article, but am open to you showing me otherwise. There's simply a lot of sketchy attribution as it is. I'm a little tired, so I hope I didn't sound curt; I appreciate your shows of good faith. Mackan79 05:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid&diff=118494753&oldid=118494279 Zeq 12:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of Israeli apartheid

Hi. Sorry if I removed something; I was just trying to undue the POV-izing of the text and removal of other things. I saw something on Jayjg's page that took me over there and I agreed that some of your edits were a bit POV so I reverted one of them. Again, it was done in haste so I apologize if I took out something uninvolved. Thanks for feedback. The Behnam 16:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I especially saw the changes to the first sentence as unnecessary and POV. The Behnam 16:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Warring

In the last 24 hours, you seem to have reverted

Is there some misunderstanding about WP:3RR? 3RR applies to partial reverts, and applies to the whole page, not just reversions of the same material. Will you please stop editing so contentiously? If you want to make a lot of changes to the page, you should do the noncontentious material first, and then discuss the matters that people contest. Mackan79 17:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment left for you on Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Mackan79 18:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Following moved from Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid.Mackan79 19:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, I disagree with this revert, which is about your 4th violation of WP:3RR today. Will you please revert yourself and discuss it on the talk page? Mackan79 18:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not a revert. It's the first time I removed that uncited statement in the lead, meant to build consensus, not edit war.--Urthogie 18:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I am content to let Urthogie have the ball for a while, though I'm not sure if the article is going to need more work when he's done than it did when he started.... -- Kendrick7talk 18:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been fine as well; I think he's rather abusing that, though, when he continues to add contentious material to the lead after multiple people change it. As long as he is moving material around and trying to improve things, I won't bother him.Mackan79 19:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Reverting people over and over is not a good way to build concensus; please understand this. Have you read WP:Revert? People tend to find reverting offensive. I also just warned you that partial reverts and reverts of different material qualify, after which you reverted two or three more times without responding. I assure you that if someone adds material and you delete it, that counts as a "change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article" the first time you do it. In any case, I'm giving you a second chance here to stop and revert yourself. Can you please do so? As I said to Kendrick, if you want to keep moving stuff around the article, that's fine by me. Mackan79 19:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, Urthogie, the problem with your version of the lead is that it now changes it from a statement of the proponents and then the opponents to trying to make it a statement of the theory, and then a statement of how it is rejected by most scholars as propaganda. This does not abide by any sort of NPOV. You remarked earlier about how people were trying to insert material into the lead with subtle biases, so clearly you must see this. Either way, this is why I am asking that you revert yourself and discuss the matter here before trying to insert it again over others' objections. Mackan79 19:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

How is it biased to remove an unsupported sentence that supports my views?? The fact is that I've been a mainly positive force on this article even if I am an asshole and I will take all of you into account, because if I don't I'll get blocked for 3RR... The statement about the journalists and academics rejecting it is supported by a book which doesn't take their POV. How could you asser that this is POV? It is a verified claim.--Urthogie 19:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Urthogie, when you keep reverting like this, you are forcing a culture of edit warring, or forcing others to report you when you do so. I don't want to edit war, so my only option is to report you when you do so, unless we're simply going to let you write the article however you want. Incidentally, I am only asking you to abide by WP policy here, which is extremely clear, and which does not have an "I'm an asshole" exception. Can you please do so? If you don't do it now, I have no idea why I should expect you to do it in the future. I am showing you extreme patience exactly because you're actually making an effort to improve the article, but you're also playing dumb about not knowing the rules, and about a lot of the arguments that are being presented.
Regarding your argument, you have cherry picked one statement here and placed it at the top of the second paragraph of the lead. When you do that, there are a lot considerations, not simly whether the statement is from a reliable or neutral source. What we had before was 1. Exposition, 2. Proponents, 3. Opponents. What you have changed this to is 1. Exposition, 2. Rejection by scholars. Please make some attempt to acknowledge the issues of neutrality here. Beyond that, this is my last request for you to revert yourself. Mackan79 19:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you're right, I still don't care. You're lucky, though; I ended up blocked twice for about a quarter of what you've pulled in the last 24 hours. Such is life... Mackan79 20:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Allegations of Israeli Apartheid

Why are you placing one individual's "quote" in the lead like that? I think it's inappropriate and POV. Thanks.

Also, why are the lead to Israeli Apartheid and Islamic Apartheid inconsistent?Kritt 22:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of appartheid in Australia

Sorry, but I disagree about why there are so few references.

Move it back to the main page and expand it until it is clearly notable in isolation of the international page.

Sub-pages don't exist in article space, every article has to independantly assert individual notability - and this one doesn't, only one of the references provided shows a direct allegation of appartheid in Australia the others imply that South Africa got the idea from Australia, which is a totally different issue regarding the history of Appartheid in South Africa - or History of Apartheid in Australia if you wish. But it isn't an allegation of appartheid existing in Australia.Garrie 01:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli apartheid

You need to garner consensus for your changes. Please do not remove requests for citation tags. Catchpole 22:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are disrupting the article and please try to work with other editors. I see that Idi Amin has taken a prominent position in the article over Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu, two Nobel Peace Prize winners. Don't you agree we have to be neutral and fair?? Kritt 07:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/r/t/User_talk%7EUrthogie_6318.html"