User talk:86.163.1.210

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] December 2007

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not on User talk:Okedem‎ . Thank you. Not assuming good faith and making baseless accusations are taken very seriously on wikipedia. I suggest you attempt to behave in a more civil manner, people will take you much more seriously if you do. Newtman (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to List of states with nuclear weapons. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Newtman (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Shouldnt you assume good faith instead of claiming his edits were vandalism? perhaps they were good faith edits that were made without consensus.172.213.64.230 (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Israel

There is much that's objectionable in the Israel article, but it would be better to add material, such as other unique features of the place eg legalised torture and apartheid-like differences between citizens and nationals. After all, others have invited comparisons by including: "Unlike most countries in the Middle East, Israel is a liberal democracy and a developed country. It has also been ranked as the most progressive Middle Eastern country in terms of freedom of the press, economic competition, and human development.", so they can hardly object to less flattering comparisons being added.

Similarly, the existing account traces the length of time different peoples have controlled the area - some guide to the different time-scales would be valuable. By some accounts, the proto-Israelis only ever controlled it for a few hundred years. Whereas Muslims controlled it for some 1300 years and even the Italians did so for some 600 years - both of these governings being more recent. (The Bible is wrong - they didn't start governing it in the 11th C BCE, more like the 8th C BCE according to the now well-accepted archaeological evidence).

Whether anyone would take seriously the work of an anonymous editor is another matter, of course. PRtalk 15:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

well you see the "israel" article is a clear violation of peacock terms. the editors, who objected to my observation that they were all hebrew speaking users that has links with Israel personally, are not allowing anyone to be frank, and state the facts, it is certainly clouding there judgement. i think the article, is therefore suffering from one-sided views, that only shows Israel in a good light, and try to promote it as a tourist destination, which is not the purpose of wikipedia. Frankly there is nothing that we can do to rectify the mistakes, as all the editors that seems to be bullishly censoring the page, do not like to see any controversial issue being discussed, though more thought is given to lesser topics.
is there not anything we can do to eradicate this bias, and un-NPOV as it is becoming hostile, with users verbally attacking. i think if a neutral editor looked at the page, and saw the information that is missing, or given priority above others, it would certainly make their eyes roll.86.163.1.210 (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Pull yourself together - it's perfectly proper for encyclopedia articles to be fairly complimentary to their subjects, and it's "wrong" of you to try and undo the work of others. Needless, to say, your own work won't be treated with any respect and it will be a struggle to protect it from undoing - but you're on much stronger ground adding (for instance) that Israel is the only nation in the world to legitimise torture (see this discussion for details), or that modern research strongly suggests that there was no Empire of David and Jonathan - they ruled, at most, over a small town.
Actually, you're wasting your time on this particular article - there is much more important work to be done on the various 1948 articles. Supporters of Israel are awakening with horror to the fact that Israel is now generally recognised to have ethnically cleansed the Palestinians for the purpose of robbery, to have been beaten militarily in Gaza and Lebanon (twice) and to be bleeding to death, 2007 the turning point when emigration exceeded immigration. Do you have a copy of Benny Morris "Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited"? It's an eye-opener what really happened, now lets write it into articles. PRtalk 21:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
well you see the "israel" article is a clear violation of peacock terms. the editors, who objected to my observation that they were all hebrew speaking users that has links with Israel personally, are not allowing anyone to be frank, and state the facts, it is certainly clouding there judgement. i think the article, is therefore suffering from one-sided views, that only shows Israel in a good light, and try to promote it as a tourist destination, which is not the purpose of wikipedia. Frankly there is nothing that we can do to rectify the mistakes, as all the editors that seems to be bullishly censoring the page, do not like to see any controversial issue being discussed, though more thought is given to lesser topics.
is there not anything we can do to eradicate this bias, and un-NPOV as it is becoming hostile, with users verbally attacking. i think if a neutral editor looked at the page, and saw the information that is missing, or given priority above others, it would certainly make their eyes roll.86.163.1.210 (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
There are huge problems all over the project, and having the article on Israel as "tourist blurb" is a trivial one. If you're serious about improving the encyclopedia, then register yourself as a user, get yourself one or more books on the subject and start inserting good information. Otherwise you're wasting my time and yours. PRtalk 23:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello?

Hey Im another anon IP that noticed your comment on this Israel article, I did have an account, however I lost and could not retrieve the password and cant really be bothered to make another account as I barely edit this article anyway. Regarding your coments, unlike what this user Newtman says above , having been looking at the Israel article for about roughly 1/2 years I support your accusations. I have been looking in on the talk page about once every 6 months or so too see whether it has become just slightly more biased or ridiculously bigotted in the time since I have seen it last, and to try and support those who wish to make a change for the better. I have written quite a long and mispelt comment regarding what you have been writing about disputed territories. I agree basically what with you have been saying, unfortuantely for me this is a matter I take a personal stance on and often can get annoyed and irritated regarding the topic, and so do not like to edit the talk pages on the middle east in anger otherwise I make the subject too personal. I, however, think as you seem to be one of the rare people who are actually tyring to improve the article rather than make it into a commercial, that you deserve support rather than be hidiously outnumbered by the seemingly interlinked group of pro-Israelis eiditng these pages, who will not allow you to mae this point yourself (why you have been warned at the top of this page I presume).172.213.64.230 (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. I see no reason why you MUST assume good faith for Okedem, or for many editors of Israel-related articles I find personally have an agenda (I would name names, I can if you want, but it is probably innaproproate), from what I have seen Okedem write he is perhaps one of the least deserving editors on wikipedia of good faith. Note this isnt meant to be a 'personal' attack nor a 'official' complaint, but just what my opinion is. I am also dyslexic if that helps explain any bad grammer, bad proof reading or bad spelling.172.213.64.230 (talk) 04:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)