Talk:Israeli settlement/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 Nof Tzion 2 Propaganda image 3 President Carter's comments 4 Julius Stone 4.1 A controversial theory? 4.2 Use of rollback, marking of minor edits 4.3 NOR revisited 4.4 Descriptions 4.5 Optimal response-thread organization 5 This particular information about Stone. 6 Insinuation 7 Carter information 8 Reviews of Stone's book 9 Personal attacs in edit-lines? 10 Golan Heights 11 "factual accuracy disputed" 12 Human rights groups 13 Apology for 3RR

Nof Tzion

"in the heart of the area that every internationally recognized peace plan considers the future capital of a Palestinian state."

Unless the world plans on forcing a 'peace plan' onto Israel and likewise, the Palestinian Authority, (in each case deciding who will give up which parcel of land), I suggest that POV not be construed with fact.

Lokiloki, if you can otherwise reword the above into a more simpler 'Jerusalem', or "unilaterally Israeli annexed former Jordanian territory", or whatever, please reinsert an extension to the description. --Shuki 23:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will think of something... btw, can you translate the Hebrew on the sign for me, particularly the black text? Thanks... Lokiloki 23:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Translation has been added to the image discussion page. --Shuki 09:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

--Shuki 12:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)/* Propaganda image */

Propaganda image

I dispute the inclusion of the image with graffiti. The editor who added it conventiently "forgot" to mention that this does not reflect the official position of Israel. For shame. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; anyway, you added that phrase, so I hope it is okay now. Regardless, such sentiments exist among Israeli settlers: denying their existence doesn't seem appropriate. Is it propaganda to show, for example, cartoons of Nassar kicking a caricatured Jew into the sea? Or Palestinians "boarding" a UN ambulance with guns in Al_Aqsa_Intifada. This article is about Jewish settlements, and anti-Arab sentiment is probabloy not a minority opinion amongst settlers. Is it propganda to present facts? Is it propoganda, for instance, to show the bloody hands of the Ramallah lynching? Lokiloki 08:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Nasser was an official representing Egypt. THe UN amb. was a documented incident. What you got here is a picture from a toilet door, provided by the PLO. Maybe some loony even drew it. What is the proof that they did not do it themselves, or that it did stayed there more than half an hour? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Your bias is pretty evident. Do you want me to go and question every photograph or fact provided by the Israeli government as "loony" or invented? As for the Nasser thing, that was a CARTOON. Do you think that that Cartoon was officially approved by Nasser himself? Look, you cannot have it your way entirely: you cannot present the images that you want, and then declare others as "false", "fake", or "propoganda". Are you denying that some Israeli settlers take an extremely hard-line position such as this? Come on. Lokiloki 08:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NPA. A serious encyclopedia is supposed to show official position and reflect the views of the majority, not fringe groups. There are loonies in every group of people, the question is who is in power. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not making personal attacks on you. Do you think that the lynching photograph is justified? The one that shows the Ramallah guys with blood on their hands? Do you think that the majority of Palestinians would do such a thing, or do you feel that that is also fringe? It is the FRINGEs that make news... should we not comment on lynchings, should we not comment on white supremacists in the USA, should we not comment on anti-semites in France? If you think we should ignore these issues, then I guess we can ignore the equally loony settlers in the West Bank. Lokiloki 08:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what article you are talking about. In any case, don't engage in WP:POINT.

If the election of Hamas is not a good evidence, there is plenty of statistics of supoport that radicals (evading the "T" word) enjoy among the Palestinians. When we talk about fringes, we need to be careful and clearly show that. In this case and in others, you were little too eager to blame Israel. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not disrupting anything, nor making a point. I am trying to include images that reflect the facts on the ground which, generally, is that the Israeli settlers are not, shall we say, very Arab-friendly by and large. You claimed that the photo that demonstrated this was propaganda... and I came back and said, well, if THAT is propaganda, don't you also see the caricatured cartoon as propaganda, or the Ramallah lynching photos as propaganda, or etc etc etc... Lokiloki 09:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here. One is whether the poster represents a significant opinion of the population we are referring to (in this case, settlers). The other is whether this poster is adequate to show that. The answer to the first question is "yes, of course". I'd be amazed if less than 99% of Kiryat Arba residents disagreed with that poster. Even a good fraction of Israelis in general would agree with it. (See this 2002 survey that found that 46% of Israelis supported transfering the Arabs of the OT out of there.) However, the poster by itself is below the bar, in my opinion. It doesn't by itself establish anything except that someone with that opinion put up a poster. It might be appropriate to illustrate a sourced description of the attitudes of the settlers. Finally, some of Lokiloki's comments about double standards are quite correct. --Zero^talk 10:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Lokiloki, it is very presumptuos of you to assume that that the Israeli settlers are not, shall we say, very Arab-friendly, extreme POV, and not true at all. How many settlers have you met and discussed this issue with? --Shuki 12:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Zero, if the June 2002 survey (after the Passover massacre and the Jenin big lie) would be a fair representation of Israeli views, why doesn't Israeli equivalent of Hamas win elections? AFAIK, Kach is banned from even taking part. Here's your double standard. Why the "bloodthirsty Israelis" do not blow up big bombs in Palestinian areas? Even when they make incursions (necessary because the PA doesn't despite their commitments), they do it by foot risking the lives of their soldiers. Why? According to Lokiloki and his PLO buddies, to humiliate them. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure many more Israelis would vote for far-rightists if they 1- were able to produce results (Bibi burned them on that one) and 2- if they were not as religious as they are far-right. Most secular Israelis shudder at the prospect of a religious-based government, which is why the Shinui party was a surprise second-place in the last election and why, because they turned out to be impotent, they have all but disintegrated this time around. The Israeli public has been generally shifting towards the right since the 70s (barring the (anti-Bibi) Barak hiccup), with the religion factor keeping the shift from getting further than it has. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

And the typical "right-wingers" would be Sharon who gave up Gaza and Begin who gave up Sinai? So who are they transfering, Jews or Arabs? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course the results of an opinion poll will differ according to when it is taken and exactly what question is asked. The number 46% is not firm at all, but nonetheless it proves that this opinion is a lot more common in the population than the percentage of people who vote for far-right parties. There can be lots of reasons for that, including those Ramallite listed. Another is that there are other issues in elections such as the economy, education, secular vs religious, that are important to Israelis but not very visible from outside. Also, to go back to the poll, the fact that 46% of people said they'd like to kick out the Arabs does not mean that 46% see it as the preferred option. It only means they see it as preferable to the status quo (I'm assuming people were asked a yes-no question rather than being asked to rank a list of options). It is normal for people to see more than one contradictory option as preferred to the status quo. It would be necessary to study the poll more carefully to know whether the wish to kick out the Arabs is more prevalent than other wishes. --Zero^talk 01:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

One should look at the totality of, say, Sharon's policies, rather than just the Gaza pullout. Lokiloki 23:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly because "One should look at the totality", it is wrong to imply that the graffiti on the picture represents typical/official Israeli views/policies, as certain some "one" does. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this inflammatory graffiti copied from the PLO website. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have returned the image with the caveat that you provided (and which an earlier editor deleted). Lokiloki 00:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

President Carter's comments

I have restored and elaborated on Carter's comments on settlement and colonization as an obstacle to peace. The man frequently travels to the occupied territories as an elder statesman and peace advocate. This, coupled with his experience with the Arab-Israeli conflict, makes him highly relevant as an analyst on this issue. Sourced reliable analysts must not be deleted.--AladdinSE 08:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This edit was reverted without reply to my comments above. Nevertheless, I will voluntarily limit myself to one revert per day for this Carter edit disagreement, while discussion is forthcoming.--AladdinSE 00:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Carter is an ex-president; he has no expertise in the settlements. And you certainly can't have it both ways, as regards this article and the AIPAC article. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

So which way can it be had, then? Does that mean we remove the Duke support from AIPAC, or include the Carter one here? It seems as though you are having it both ways (inclusion of Duke there, non-inclusion of Carter here). Lokiloki 00:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

He has direct expertise on settlements! Does he have to be a construction contractor to have expertise??? An American President, intimately connected with the Arab-Israeli conflict, Camp David specifically dealt with settlements, and moreover he travels to the Occupied Territories as an elder statesman and meets with the leaders, advises, and analyzes and publishes his analysis. Heaven and earth, what more do you want??? As for having it both ways, I agree with Lokiloki, you are hardly one to talk. In any case, my position has always been clear, Carter is an extremely reputable reliable source, Duke is known anti-semite and white supremacist. It is a question of reliable sources and relevancy. I am not bargaining with you here, one for the other. My arguments are separate; please keep Talk discussions separate likewise. --AladdinSE 00:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to concur with Aladdin that Carter's comments are relevant and worth including. Palmiro | Talk 15:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a FYI that I fixed up this quotation to it's original status, after it had been (incorrectly) watered-down and the cites had been removed. I wonder why this was done? Deuterium 16:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Julius Stone

Making subjective assessments of his impartiality perhaps is unwarranted, at least not without reliable citation. Nevertheless, one can certainly (and I have), added the simple phrase taken directly from the given biographical source that he had a "life-long commitment to Israel". It would be far more advantageous to the Israeli position, to be sure, if the principle jurist cited in support of the legality of settlements did not have such a connection or declared stance towards the state of Israel. However, since this is the person marked out for such prominent citation (in the introduction, no less), then his affiliations and pro-Israel position is fair game for mention, and it is done with a direct quotation from the given source. There is no editorialization whatsoever.--AladdinSE 22:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Just as in the AIPAC article Cockburn is described as a "left-wing journalist". Lokiloki 23:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to take "left-wing journalist" out of AIPAC; it's hardly poisoning the well, unlike this. It's rather surprising you would suggest this, given your spurious removal of David Duke from the AIPAC article. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever removed David Duke from AIPAC. Lokiloki 23:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've adjusted the indenting. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a direct quotation from the given source. What I find spurious is allegations of well-poisoning without the use of any editorialization. For well-poisoning to apply, there has to be "Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented." Are you suggesting that merely being an advocate of Israel is unfavorable? Also, if you would limit your comments and accusations about other articles to those articles' talk pages, it would be much more conducive to productive discourse. My edits for the AIPAC article were supported by Talk comments; let us continue to discuss them where they belong, if you please. P. S. Although not quite yet an edit war, I will begin voluntarily limiting myself to 1 revert per day regarding this Stone disagreement. --AladdinSE 00:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, this is an intro. As well, your clear intent is to discount his argument, by pointing out his support for Israel - you've said as much above. Finally, he's a world famous international legal scholar, who has published dozens of books, and who has at least a stub of an article for anyone who cares to look. Blatant poisoning the well simply won't do. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is an intro, and I find that one analyst's citation, for one POV, is a curious line to insert here. No other scholars are quoted for the other side, though they are far more numerous and in a vast consensus opposed to Stone. This is rightly so, as the intro should only summarize. Putting aside for the moment the issue of the quotation "life-long commitment to Israel", would you support moving the Stone material to the body?

That Stone is a prominent jurist is not at all in question. If it were, if he were an unsavory character, not reputable, I would advocate the inclusion be negated altogether. To poison the well, I would have to editorialize OR such as "clear pro-zionist, pro-Israeli expansionist Julius Stone". What I inserted was a neutral 100% quoted comment taken directly from your own source. And you did not answer my question, do you believe that the mere advocacy for Israel is an unfavorable fact? --AladdinSE 00:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved the Stone comment from the intro to Legal status of territories. It's odd that one analyst, moreover one holding a minority opinion, is given prime real-estate in the introduction. It it much better for flow and neutrality that the intro simply states that it is "not a unanimous view among all international law scholars." Stone is far more suited to his area of expertise, legal status. Hopefully others can be cited in that section also.--AladdinSE 11:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, I am limiting myself to one revert daily to keep things calm and cool, but I did ask for us to please continue our discussion. I notice that Jayjg deleted the quotation regarding Stone's life-long commitment to Israel which is extracted directly from the given biographical source, and yet did not see fit to also delete the pro-stone material I added to show good faith that I this was not an attempt to impugn his credentials. I added "a prominent international jurist." This was left in, and the quotation from the biography was deleted! You can't have it both ways. I ask again. Do you consider Stone's advocacy and support for Israel to be an unfavorable factor?--AladdinSE 07:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

AladdinSE, you seem to be adding that clause about Stone in an attempt to belittle his opinion, along the lines of "he would say that, wouldn't he?" This might be fair enough if Stone had been employed to advocate on behalf of the Israeli government, but he was an independent, extremely well-qualified academic: doctorate in civil law from Oxford, doctorate in juridical science from Harvard. Taught at Harvard, Professor of Law at the University of New South Wales, Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence and International Law at the Hastings College of Law, University of California, and his publications show he was a specialist in international law. You could hardly find a more qualified source in this area. His private views about Israel are therefore irrelevant, and if relevant in your view, you'll have to explain why. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You might have saved yourself the trouble, and withheld this sermon for people who have questioned Stone's credentials. I have clearly and on more than one occasion stipulated as to his qualifications. I have never advocated his exclusion, and in fact more clearly articulated his expertise in the article by adding the phrase "a prominent international jurist". It is a very curious conclusion indeed if you can still construe this as attempting to belittle the man. You are deleting a quotation from the given biographical source. You give for your reason that I seem to be belittling his opinion. I have already refuted that with word and deed in the article itself. Also your claim that his advocacy of Israel is his "own private views" is patently false. They couldn't be more public. They are published and known, therefore undeniably relevant. The biography itself makes no qualms about the matter. This brings us back to the crux. There is no justification for deleting this material. You cannot but admit that it is correct, and moreover that it is sourced. I ask, for the third or fourth time now, do you consider the fact that he had a lifelong commitment to Israel to be an unfavorable factor?--AladdinSE 07:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, of course I don't, but again I don't see the relevance, given that his legal opinion, bearing in mind his qualifications and eminence, isn't something he'd come up with because he liked Israel. I also didn't argue that his views were private in the sense of secret, but private in the sense of not connected to his legal views. But you didn't answer my question: why do you feel this opinion of his is relevant enough to be mentioned? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ms Virgin:

Are you arguing that a person's biography should not be comprehensively represented, particularly those aspects which might play a role in the shaping of an opinion, legal or otherwise? I suppose you would argue alongside Antonin Scalia when he claimed that his duck-hunting with Vice President Dick Cheney did not impact his later ruling on a case involving Cheney? In other words: a Judge is inviolate.

When Timothy Leary discusses drug use, should he just be cited as a PhD in psychology, or, as is almost always done, should we also mention his general advocacy of drugs? Should we always negate aspects of a person's biography simply because the esteem of their profession should "wipe out" any influence of their personal feelings?

Let us imagine that this is an actual court case. Judge Stone has before him defendant X. Previously, Judge Stone has expressed admiration and regard for defendant X. Would the Judge not, at the very least, disclose this fact, or, more likely, recuse himself due to a conflict of interest? Recusal exists because judges, despite their eminence, are influenced by their personal beliefs, relationships, and views.

Judge's should be DISinterested in their legal opinions. Clearly, Stone was not: he advocated for Israel. Such personal viewpoints, at the very least, should be fully elucidated in any reference to him as a neutral arbitrar of this issue.

Lokiloki 09:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There we have it, finally. You do not consider this to be an unfavorable factor, and I of course concur. Therefore, let us have no more claims of poisoning the well. To quote from that entry:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

Poisoning the well criteria are clearly not satisfied. Note that no where is there any editorialization or original research that his legal assessments are colored by his affinity for Israel. Nevertheless, you must admit that when legal scholars, or indeed experts of any field, are quoted in support of whatever precept, if they have overt political affiliations or records of support pertaining to the subject matter at hand, it is standard practice to mention these facts when quoting the source. This does not discount their scholarly record. If it did, such experts would not be quoted to begin with. We see this in journalism all the time. It's a simple matter of full disclosure. Stone's lifelong advocacy for Israel is no crime. His qualifications are manifest. Quoting sourced facts and letting readers know of his affiliations with no editorialization whatsoever is fair. Deleting the same is censorship. It fair and neutral that the readers be made aware that this eminent scholar quoted in support of an argument happens to have a long record of support for the nation making the argument. God knows we've seen enough references to the UN's perceived bias against Israel mentioned alongside citations of UN decisions against Israel. --AladdinSE 09:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for moving the discussion to the bottom. I wanted to do it, but was unsure about the propriety of taking it upon myself to determine where to make the split form the original Stone discussion. You chose correctly. This is a much easier discussion to follow now.--AladdinSE 09:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. The problem with adding people's private opinions (note: private, not secret) after their professional or academic views is that there would be no end to it. It'd be great if we could add after every reference to the UN (biased against Israel), but we can't. Or after a male philosopher writing in favor of feminism (known by all and sundry as a terrible womanizer). You may find his commitment to Israel to be the most important thing to mention about him, but I don't. I find his qualifications and the positions he held to be far more relevant, but presumably you don't want to add all those too (what you earlier called a "sermon"). The fact is that many people, I'm glad to see not including you, would regard his commitment to Israel as a negative thing about him, and so I'm afraid the well poisoning accusation is accurate, just as my adding references about the UN's bias (which I could source very well) whenever a UN resolution about Israel was mentioned would also be well poisoning, even though many people, I'm sure, believe that the UN's bias is a good thing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Another example: I did not object when Humus changed the caption below the photograph I added to this page to reference "Source: PLO". Presumably he did this to somehow disparage the legitimacy of the source -- that is: the PLO can't be trusted, so this photograph can't be trusted. I accept this as a valid concern: the SOURCE of something should always be fully explained and characterized. Why is this any different than the Stone caveat that Aladdin is arguing for? Why aren't you arguing for removal of that qualifier to the photograph? Lokiloki 09:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Another example: At least in the United States, when an article is written, say, about Time Warner, the journalist always includes somewhere, for example, "Full disclosure: Time Warner owns this publication." Do you not think that this inclusion should also be fully disclosed? Lokiloki 09:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can't see the difference, I'm not quite sure what to say. The PLO is not a news agency or a photographic agency. They are directly involved in the conflict. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to alert the reader to that. But Stone was an academic specialist in international law, not at all involved in the conflict. As I said earlier, if he had been employed by the Israeli govt, that would be worth mentioning (which is the equivalent of your PLO example), but it's his private opinion AladdinSE wants to add, which is quite a different thing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting, not least because I assume a disinterested photographer took the photograph and the PLO is using it. Much like Judge Stone wrote the book, and an Israeli advocacy agency is summarizing his opinions on its Web site and using it. The PLO reference is included when the photograph is reproduced; but we aren't allowed to reflect on Stone's biases or the agency delivering his opinions? Do you not see the similarities? Lokiloki 09:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a poor argument. First, how on earth could you know who took the PLO photograph? You negotiated for permission to use it with the PLO Negotiations Affairs Department, so they are the source. (Incidentally, we're not allowed to use photographs with permission; we need a free licence, or else we have to claim fair use if it's online somewhere.) It doesn't matter who uses Stone's books. We know he wrote them and we know who published them. Should we also list everyone who has read them? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Slim, your parallel does not apply. The PLO is making no editorial comment about that picture, as the caption makes clear. It only took it, and published it. --AladdinSE 09:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The caption is intended to indicate that an involved party made the photograph available. The photograph is an editorial comment. That's why it was added to the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to diverge too much here. Unless what is being pictured is disputed as a fake, any editorial comment not explicitly stated in words is unproven speculation. --AladdinSE 10:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ms Virgin: In re: Israel and the United Nations. I assume you have checked out Israel and the United Nations? It contains quite a bit about why the UN is allegedly anti-Israel? Must we create a Julius Stone and Israel page to explain his predilections, or can't we just simplify and include here? Lokiloki 09:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't keep repeating myself. We are not allowed to add after every single reference to the UN that it's biased against Israel. So we're not going to add after every reference to Stone's legal opinions that he had a lifelong commitment to Israel, or that he had dark brown hair, or that he preferred Scotch to bourbon. He was a specialist in international law and jurisprudence, and it's his legal opinions in those areas that matter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, in many articles when the UN is mentioned, the alleged bias is also mentioned. And there is an entire article on that very subject. There is nothing on this page, nor on the Julius Stone page, that mentions anything about his pro-Israel stance. Where might we reasonably place this?

Further, it seems specious to imply that his choice of drink or hair colour somehow impacts his opinions on Israel, or is somehow equivalent to his "long-standing support" for that state.

Lokiloki 10:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Slim, in response to your comment about the problem with adding people's private views, you are wrong. There is an end to it, because editorialization and original research is precluded and not allowed. The article on Well poisoning is clear. You admitted yourself that Stone's advocacy for Israel is not an unfavorable factor. You therefore cannot claim well poisoning. Also, note that your examples listed above: "biased against Israel" is editorialization, whereas I worded it "perceived bias against Israel" which is an oft-sourced caveat inserted into several articles on Wikipedia. Similarly your analogy re the male writer criticizing feminism, the phrase "known by all and sundry as a terrible womanizer" is blatant POV, OR and well-poisoning. Contrast that with the quotation taken from a highly positive official biography, "had a life-long commitment to Israel". A simple quotation of fact, in no way inflammatory like your example. And I do not consider this to be "the most important thing to mention about him". The most important is his actual analysis. Moreover, I more clearly emphasized his eminence as an expert.--AladdinSE 10:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I said it wasn't a negative thing in my opinion. But it is a negative thing in some people's, and so it certainly does count as well poisoning. Looking again at the philosopher example, even if his womanizing was extremely well sourced, it would be well poisoning to include it after a reference to him expressing a view on feminism. Imagine this edit: "John Doe, professor of philosophy at Oxford University, who has expressed a lifelong commitment to womanizing (link to impeccable source), said in an interview that universities need to do more to promote women professors." Would you allow that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

How is "lifelong womanizing" analagous to "lifelong support for Israel", especially since, in your example, the womanizing contradicts the very argument John Doe is making, while in the one we are discussing, the support for Israel accords with his legal opinion? Are you denying deconstruction? :)

Lokiloki 10:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily contradict his argument at all, but that's not the point. The point is that you want to include a private opinion of Stone's because a Wikipedia editor has decided it's relevant (which makes it original research, even if sourced, because it's not the source who is making the link), and because in addition it's a point that some people might view negatively, it counts as well poisoning. After all, why are you arguing to include it if you don't believe it's well poisoning? I think this is going to be my last response on this point because I'm just repeating myself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Slim, It is a quotation from a positive official biography, which in the source is explicitly used in a positive manner. It is quoted with no editorialization added whatsoever. Readers have a right to know that this scholar, while eminently qualified to render his expert opinion on a legal argument, at the same time has a life-long record of advocacy for the country making that argument. If any editorial comment were added speculating as to bias, it would be well-poisoning and not allowed. As it is, it is a quotation of undisputed fact. Loki's example of recusal of judges is perfectly applicable. The mere recusal of a judge because s/he has a record of publicly supporting one side over the other, does not impugn the judge's credentials, or call for his disbarment. Similarly, just because CNN is owned by Time Warner, it does not mean they are precluded form reporting on their parent company, but it is expected and proper that they always simply mention the connection. The philosopher/feminism example, as you worded it, is not well poisoning. If the male philosopher is making judgments or arguments in favor of a subject matter, then a simple impartial quotation of his record, sans editorial comment, regarding that subject matter is a perfectly adequate thing to include. I would absolutely allow that. I would insist upon it.--AladdinSE 10:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

See above. You're picking and choosing material from a source who does not imply that his legal opinion was formed by his commitment to Israel. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly right! The quotation does not imply that his legal opinion was formed by his commitment to Israel. If any such editorialization were used, it would be both well poisoning and OR. --AladdinSE 10:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I have to run, but will of course return at my earliest opportunity to continue.--AladdinSE 10:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Then you need to find a reputable source who does state it, preferably another legal one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

But I am not trying to state any such editorialization/OR that would require a further source. I am quoting a fact supported by the original biographical (and very reputable) source that was used when the Stone reference was first introduced, with no additional comment whatsoever.--AladdinSE 19:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

ASE, the well-poisoning won't stay. That's all. I'm not even going to comment when reverting it. It's an intro, and there's a whole article about Julius Stone. If you want to include some additional information about his 7 law degrees, or the 27 books he wrote on law, or his many awards, feel free to do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Browsing through the issue, I think the it is quite simple. The fact that Julius Stone also earlier made comments favourable to Israel is clearly not a bias by itself, it seems everyone on this page agrees on that. The term "life-long commitment" is quite ambiguous, and using it here clearly implies a that Julius Stone is biased. Hence, it should not be used. -- Heptor _talk 03:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, chapter and verse is quoted above about how it is not well poisoning. What will not stay is the unwarranted deletion of sourced quotations of fact that has no editorial comment added whatsoever. As for my adding iformation aboiut his credentials, you know I already did. I added "prominent international jurist" which you left in, but deleted the other equally factual "life long commitment to Israel". No one can force you to comment when reverting, if you chose not to. So do what you will. Heptor, quite so, no comment about bias is made AT ALL, when someone articulates such comments, feel free to object. The phrase is not ambiguous, it's simplicity itself, and the well-written biography did not deem it necessary to elaborate on such a plain statement. Perhaps you find it ambiguous because you are looking for direct editorialization of bias and/or an attack on Stone to make your case for deletion. None exists, much to your chagrin I've no doubt. It comes to this:

1. Julius Stone had a life-long commitment to Israel. This is a quotation of fact supported by the source which no one is disputing.
2. It is plain neutral common sense to let readers know that the one scholar held up as the poster-boy for in support of a legal argument also happens to have had a life-long record of advocacy for the country advancing said legal argument. Trying to hide this sourced fact is censorship anyway you slice it.
3. Julius Stone's credentials or alleged "bias" are in no way speculated about. His advocacy or relationship with Israel, or any country, is not a black mark to be hidden. Even the biography presents it in a very positive light.

Slim, in case you missed it, I replied to your comment about finding another source. It is not necessary because I am not trying to add material not covered in the original biographical source. I have never inserted any claims or comments of bias, and I don't see the need to now.--AladdinSE 14:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly, we agree that the fact that Julius Stone's record of agreeing with Isaeli interpretation of international law does not constitute a bias.

I also understand what you mean; this statement that he "had a life-long commitment to Israel" by itself does not suggest anything compromising. The problem is that it is unnatural to present it in this context. A similar situation would be "Theory A forwarded by professor X is controversial, but supported by professor Y, who supports professor X all the time". Still well poisoning. I am sorry, but I can not see how it is not, and it seems most editors agree on this.

A normal course of action would be a quick poll, or do should we put this up as a RfC first? -- Heptor _talk 22:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. My position is, Julius Stone's record of agreeing with Isaeli interpretation of international law is not a "black mark" or unfavorable fact, and that no comment whatsoever is added as to bias. Only a distinction of fact that the relationship exists.

Agree -- Heptor _talk 00:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you understand me regarding how this relationship by itself does not suggest anything compromising. It would require editorialization to suggest something like that. As for it being unnatural to include it in this context, with that I disagree. I am discussing relevancy issue with Jayjg right now under the heading This particular information about Stone. Your analogous theory-profssor formulation is incorrect inasmuch as it uses the label "controversial" which is editorialization. The closest I would word this, in the vein of your formula, would be: "University X advances theory A. Professor Y, who has a long history of supporting University X, supports theory A".

See below (avoiding a debate inside a comment) -- Heptor _talk 00:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I can tell you a poll result right now. SV, Jay, and I think yourself, have advocated deletion of this quotation. Myself and Lokiloki have argued against, and Palmiro has weighed in that it is not Original Research. I am open to requeting outside comment in an RFC. That seems like a helpful and logical progression. And then mediation, etc.--AladdinSE 23:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As to my editorization, I do have to point out that the theory we are discussing is presented as controversial. If my analogy were to get any more accurate, it would be something like "There is a controversial theory A. University X advances theory A. Professor Y, who has a life-long commitment to University X, supports theory A." Actually, it is pretty accurate now.

It seems like RfC is the only option. -- Heptor _talk 00:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Added issue to rfc: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Politics. -- Heptor _talk 00:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with "There is a controversial theory A" is that it bears no correlation to the disputed Stone comment itself. No comment or speculation as to controversy is made there. Otherwise, the formula analogy is correct, and the question would be, what is the justification for deleting the sourced fact that Professor Y has a life-long commitment to University X? Is University X some sort of internationally recognized evil institution, that would make it an unfavorable association in the way of well poisoning? The answer is unreservedly no. Even the biographical source, a highly reputable university law school, presents it in a positive light. Also, it is highly relevant in that professor Y's scholarly opinion in support of University X's theory is being touted. The disclosure of the history between them, without any editorialization whatsoever, while also accentuating Professor Y's international status, is a natural, prudent edit. P. S. Please respond below my post not in the middle of it, thanks :-) --AladdinSE 15:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

A controversial theory?

I don't understand, do you say that the theory that Israeli settlements in the West bank are legal is not controversial? It is not my opinion that the mentioned University is evil; One could better compare it with a situation where a large portion of its funding and a lot of prestige is dependent on correctness of theory A, to the point where works of University X are considered to be biased. By the way, I tried to access the biography you linked to, in order to check what exactly they meant by "life-long commitment to Israel" (Was it limited to studying Israel? Or did he tattoo a David Star on his chestor something?), but I only got the message "You don't have permission to access [...]". I'll check it out when they are back.

I sometimes do slip a short comment inside other's post, though only when the comment is short and can not start debate. I understand why some people find it annoying, I won't do that again :)

Heptor _talk 19:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not what I am saying. It is what the this article we are working on is saying. That formula you came up with, and which we have been tweaking together, does not correlate to the material in the paragraph wherein the disputed edit is being made. There is no editorialization regarding controversy or anything else in quotation being added (and deleted). The formula you came up with is supposed to be analogous to the disputed sentence, and the sentence does not mention controversy. Therefore, "University X advances theory A. Professor Y, who has a long history of supporting University X, supports theory A" is the most accurate representation. It is not that I do not consider Settlements outside 1967 borders to not be controversial, only that the formula must correspond to the disputed edit, without any added editorialization. Now, where do you want to proceed with this thread of discussion?--AladdinSE 16:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The point with this formula as I understand it is to present a similar situation, that is easier to understand and perhaps most iportantly is not emotionally envolving. The solution to the formula is hopefully easier than the solution to the main problem, and the main problem may be solved by analogy.

As such, it is an important part of the problem that the issue is controversial. I don't understand why this should not be mentioned in the analogy.

To your last question, it doesn't look like this discussion is about to bear any fruits. -- Heptor _talk 12:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Presenting a near-identical analogy is much more desirable than presenting a "similar situation". There exists a controversial theory A simply is not mentioned in the disputed edit. To add it would be editorialization not supported by the given source.--AladdinSE 11:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of rollback, marking of minor edits

P. S. Please do not mark this kind of revert as a minor edit.--AladdinSE 14:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Rollback marks it automatically as minor. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Simple fix. Don't use rollback since this disagreement is not about a minor edit.--AladdinSE 14:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Even simpler fix. Understand that it's regarded as a minor edit because all it's doing is returning to a previous version. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

SV, there is pretty widespread community consensus that rollback should not be used in a content dispute. It is not very polite, really, and in my view an abuse of administrator privileges as they are being used to make participation in an edit war easier for the admininstrator than it is for his/her opponent. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Rollback#Administrator_feature_.28rollbacks.29.. Also, please review Wikipedia:Minor edit, which states, inter alia, "Reverts to a disputed page are unlikely to be minor. When a page is disputed, and especially if an edit war is brewing or in full eruption, then it's better not to mark ANY edit as minor: not unless you're sure that all other users will agree it's minor, like correcting a misspelling." Palmiro | Talk 16:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What on earth difference does it make? Aladdin knows why the edit is being reverted, because he's been told a dozen times or more on talk and in edit summaries, so one more edit summary saying exactly the same thing isn't likely to be helpful. Palmiro, you really are just being argumentative now for the sake of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, I am trying to preserve fair play and courtesy. I do take your point that stating the reason has become somewhat irrelevant at this stage, but I still find use of the rollback tool inappropriate. And please try to assume good faith; over the last couple of days, almost every comment you have addressed to me has included some kind of personal attack or accusation of bad faith on my part. This does not improve the atmosphere for anyone. Palmiro | Talk 17:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your last point, Palmiro, but it works both ways. You've been lobbing a fair number of critical comments in my direction too. Perhaps we should declare a ceasefire. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Replying (not substantively, as yet anyway) on your talk page. Palmiro | Talk 17:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've made my position on well-poisoning quite clear, and I will be using rollback whenever I see this well-poisoning in the article. I can't help it if rollback marks the edits as minor. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Your rationale for reversion is immaterial. It is disputed, and until this matter is resolved, of course you can help what methods you employ to revert. Is it really that much of an effort to revert manually in this article's case in order to avoid marking the edit as minor? Has Palmiro not made a very good case for fairness and quoted appropriate policy to behoove you to sacrifice Rollback as a courtesy to other editors involved with you in this dispute? --AladdinSE 17:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

NOR revisited

No, you need to find a reputable source, preferably another legal one, who says it's relevant. At the moment, it's only you saying that, which makes it original research i.e. you're adding a synthesis of published facts in order to advance a position. If you want to add that synthesis, you must source the synthesis, not the individual facts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Slim, you are inventing policy here out of the whole cloth. Original research is adding material "not published already by a reputable source". This is a direct quotation from the source, a highly reputable biography from the Sydney Law School. If and when someone adds speculation or editorialization of any kind then by all means demand a source for that. Curious how you have morphed form well poisoning to OR.--AladdinSE 14:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the policy? It says: "Original research ... means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments ..." And no morphing is taking place. Just because something is well poisoning doesn't mean it's not OR and vice versa. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you? Show me where one single letter is added that is not contained in the source! "A lifelong commitment to Israel"... a direct quotation from a reliable source. Where is the data of any kind not published by the reliable source? Where is the rest of it, the argument or concept, any singular punctuation mark even that is not contained in the source? Where is the sort of language that reads like "Stone, who was a life long advocate of Israel and therefore his theories may be tainted"? It is simply not there. You cannot attribute arguments to editors they have not made themselves. The OR you are claiming is material you have brought up here in Talk, I have never inserted it into the article once. If a simple sourced quotation of fact without speculation of any kind whatsoever is not enough to preserve us from accusations of OR, then this whole enterprise of Wikipedia is subject to deletion. As for OR and well-poisonig not being mutually exclusive, no one said they were. What I find curious that in our vast exhaustive discussion above you never alleged OR until now. Unusual that you would bring it up this late in the game, having dwelt on OR so passionately in other articles.--AladdinSE 15:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a rerun of the dispute over NOR at Israeli West Bank barrier. You have two facts, let's say (to make it simple).

• Fact 1: "He is a specialist in international law holding legal opinion X, which favors Israel."
• Fact 2: "He is a life-long supporter of Israel."

Both facts are sourced. Both pass WP:V, when used separately. But in using them together, you are creating a synthesis of facts. This synthesis contains within it:

• Implied Fact 3: "Even though he's a specialist in international law, his life-long support for Israel may have colored his legal opinion."

The whole, in other words, is larger than the sum of its parts. The NOR policy says that articles may not contain any "unpublished synthesis of published data." What you want to write is an "unpublished synthesis of published data." Therefore, you must find a reputable source (and given the context, preferably a legal one) for the synthesis i.e. you must find a source that says exactly what you want to say. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This interpretation of NOR sounds to me like it would render the writing of articles impossible. We are not to be allowed to put any two facts closer together in an article than they were in a source? Please note that your interpretation of NOR would also prevent us from saying, "Julius Stone, a specialist in international law born in Year X, says..." The NOR policy actually says "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged". Indeed, without such research, all our pages would be either blank or copyright violations. Palmiro | Talk 15:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There usually is no hidden implication in "name, job, date of birth," though there can be. There was a recent objection to just this kind of thing, where the person in question was 15, yet was doing something that assumed a lot of responsibility, and it was argued that giving his age at the top of the article was intended to undermine him. Wherever a synthesis of facts gives rise to an additional implication (a hidden proposition) and someone challenges it, you have to provide a source for the synthesis of facts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, Palmiro, the above is not an "interpretation of NOR." It is what the policy, in fact, explicitly states. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Your claim that this feature of the policy applies to preclude Aladdin's edit here is indeed an interpretation of it, and a rather dangerous one I would think as I have indicated above. Palmiro | Talk 16:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you can't see how and why it's OR, because it's pretty obvious. I can only imagine the hue and cry that would go up from you and AladdinSE if I tried to write: "That the Israeli control over the West Bank and Gaza is an illegal occupation is a view held by the United Nations General Assembly, which is demonstrably biased against Israel, and Professor Mohammad Abdullah, Professor of International Law at Oxford University, who is a life-long supporter of a Palestinian state." If I were to make that edit, I suspect you'd both suddenly understand the NOR policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I never said I supported Aladdin's edit, merely that I did not think the NOR policy precluded it. I remain of this view. Palmiro | Talk 16:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. As I said earlier, your novel innovation of policy would make most of the contents of Wikipedia subject to deletion. You are attributing this implication which I have never made. All implications and speculation, such as your "implied fact 3" are your own verbalized speculation and editorialization here in Talk. Moreover, you are also inventing nonexistent Wikipedia policy of synthesis of facts the wording of which exists no where in policy guidelines. The dictionary defines "synthesis" as "the combination of ideas to form a theory or system." It does not say an implied theory or system. In fact, the dictionary adds "Often contrasted with analysis" (bold emphasis added). The "synthesized OR", ie analysis, must be articulated in so many words with editorialization not supported by a proper source. I do not, I never have, attempted to introduce any such editorialization. Thus, no matter how many times you theorize as to "Even though he's a specialist in international law, his life-long support for Israel may have colored his legal opinion," it will always remain YOUR words in a Talk section. Once I, or anyone else, adds such material, feel free to shout OR from the rooftops.--AladdinSE 16:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what you're trying to add, and shouting from the rooftops (to ask for a source) is what I'm doing. Tell me: why are you adding it, if not to suggest that his view of Israel may have colored his legal opinion? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Response to your first paragraph: Slim, your example is a perfect conduit to pinpoint your errors of interpretation. Let us examine it. If you were to attempt this edit, as you say, this is exactly what would be wrong and right with it: "which is demonstrably biased against Israel" is clear POV editorialization. Nothing remotely like that is attempted by my edit here. On the other hand, "and Professor Mohammad Abdullah, Professor of International Law at Oxford University, who is a life-long supporter of a Palestinian state" would be perfectly valid, if, like my edit, it was supported by a reliable source. I have shown you how the dictionary specifically contrasts the synthesis of ideas to analysis.--AladdinSE 16:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Second para: Please have a care how you use the word "exactly" because it contains the crux of the disagreement. It is not what I am trying to add, what you think I am trying to add you have verbalized again and again with repeated formulations of text that I had no part in. As for you question, it has been answered umpteen number of times! It is standard full disclosure information appended to a person of note, in the same vein as when CNN always mentions that Time Warner is its parent company whenever reporting about it. CNN does not imply or mean to imply that there is some sort of shady hidden bias that everyone should be aware of, and to be skeptical of whatever CNN is reporting about Time Warner!--AladdinSE 16:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious that Time Warner is important when discussing CNN, it's the parent company. Why is an allegation of a "lifelong support of Israel" by an anonymous biographer important when discussion Stone? Why wouldn't his 27 books on international law and jurisprudence be more relevant? You haven't answered why this particular statement is so important when discussing Stone. Was Stone "owned" by his alleged "lifelong support of Israel", in the way that CNN is owned by Time Warner? Is that the implication you are trying to make? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question, Aladdin: why are you trying to add it , if not to suggest that his view of Israel may have colored his legal opinion? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg: Your very question betrays your false premise. Merely to have life-long support for Israel is not a "black mark" or "allegation", as I said in reply to your earlier comments above. I didn't add his 27 books or other long list of accomplishments because you know full well that it would be an absurdly long and awkward list to include at this place in time. Nevertheless, if I do say so myself, I did a pretty good job of summarizing these accolades by adding "prominent international jurist" which was more than anyone else did to point to his stature and expertise. Slim: I answered our question most directly and succinctly, without evasion whatsoever. Perhaps it's not the answer you want to hear, which would confirm your views and arguments as proof of either OR or the first argument resorted to, "well poisoning". Now, I notice lately that you do not reply to my points in detail any more, you are replying with generalized polemics. For example, you made no reply to my comments on the non-existence of "synthesis of facts" interpretation expressed by yourself, nor to my points about dictionary definitions of synthesis as deliberately contrasted with analysis and how OR/editorialization would have to be articulated in so many words, whereas my edit only quoted a short statement of fact with no speculation whatsoever. Also, you have made no response to my two paragraphs specifically dealing with your "Professor Muhammad Abdullah" example, and our differing perspectives on what "exactly" I am trying to add, because all I add is a quotation, all your Talk allegations are editorialization I have never partaken of.--AladdinSE

Aladdin, you've done it again! What is the answer? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Third or fourth (or fifth) time lucky: Aladdin, why are you trying to add it, if not to suggest that his view of Israel may have colored his legal opinion? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Slim, what are you playing at? I have answered this point many times, and in a fully direct manner. I will not compose new prose, I will quote form previous entries, as you seem incapable of discerning an answer in them:

"Note that no where is there any editorialization or original research that his legal assessments are colored by his affinity for Israel. Nevertheless, you must admit that when legal scholars, or indeed experts of any field, are quoted in support of whatever precept, if they have overt political affiliations or records of support pertaining to the subject matter at hand, it is standard practice to mention these facts when quoting the source. This does not discount their scholarly record."

"Readers have a right to know that this scholar, while eminently qualified to render his expert opinion on a legal argument, at the same time has a life-long record of advocacy for the country making that argument."

"As for you question, it has been answered umpteen number of times! It is standard full disclosure information appended to a person of note, in the same vein as when CNN always mentions that Time Warner is its parent company whenever reporting about it. CNN does not imply or mean to imply that there is some sort of shady hidden bias that everyone should be aware of, and to be skeptical of whatever CNN is reporting about Time Warner!"

So do stop pretending that I didn't answer.--AladdinSE 18:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

AladdinSE, this is not the first time we've had this issue. It's a subtle kind of original research/poisoning the well. You want to draw a conclusion about an individual, but are unable to make that conclusion openly (because of the NOR requirements), so instead you simply juxtapose the pieces of information of interest to you, in order to direct the reader to the conclusion you wish them to draw. Stone is internationally reknowned as a legal theorist, not as a supporter of Israel. The information in the header is about what international legal theorists have to say about the Israeli settlements, and about what Stone is best known for. Therefore, his expertise in international legal theory is relevant. On the other hand, his anonymously alleged "lifelong support for Israel" is a well-poisoning method of trying to do an end-run aournd the original research policy, by saying "well, he may be an internationally respected jurist, but keep in mind he's biased on this subject". Unless you come up with some compelling new arguments, the information simply will not remain in the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg:No, it is not the first time at all. In fact this very circumstance is a feather in my cap, as I have proven by word and deed (extensive discussion with you in the past and the procurement of the sources you asked for) that I am a capable of productive discussion and compromise, as SV herself testified to in the Israeli West Bank Barrier discussion. I have set forth in minute detail how Well poisoning and OR does not apply (much of which, incidentally, you did not reply to). Notice that in all your former arguments you never once mentioned OR? It was all about "Well Poisoning". Also, how curious that you describe it as a "subtle" form, is it because you can find no clear justification for it in policy? Even so, since you are ignoring my detailed rebuttals set out over the last couple of days, I will summarize again:

1. If I want to draw a conclusion, you have to show me where I articulate this alleged conclusion in plain English. A sourced quotation of fact without any editorialization whatsoever is no conclusion. No unsourced conclusion = no OR. You won't be able to get around that.
2. Relevancy is incredibly potent. Readers can be informed, with citation, that the person making this legal argument happens to have a life long commitment to the nation advancing said argument. I've said this 3 or 4 times. As long as no unsourced speculation of bias/perceived/possible bias is articulated, you have no leg to stand on trying to invent policy to disallow it.
3. Suddenly the biographer is anonymous and the comment is "alleged"? Comical. This is the University of Sydney School of Law official Stone biography, one which was provided by the person who first introduced the Stone's analysis, not by me! You will get no where fast attempting to disparage the biography or its use as a very reliable source.
4. Being a life long supporter of Israel is not a black mark or unfavorable factor. What some readers "may construe" (as expressed by SV) is their own affair. We are bound by policy. Well poisoning therefore does not apply.
5. As Plamiro eloquently quotes: "The NOR policy actually says "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged"
6. Be aware that you say things like "well, he may be an internationally respected jurist, but keep in mind he's biased on this subject" but these are your words here in Talk, once you see me putting such editorialization into the article, you can can beat your breast with gusto about OR.

Finally, there really is no cause for condescending language like "the information simply will not remain in the article". Have I not shown good faith by voluntarily limiting my reverts to once daily, along with fully participating in detailed discussion? When genuinely convinced by you in the past, I have conceded publicly. This is not a contest of personal wills here.--AladdinSE 17:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Listen chaps, I've go to run again. I will come back at my earliest to reply to any comments. Cheers for now.--AladdinSE 18:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "when legal scholars, or indeed experts of any field, are quoted in support of whatever precept, if they have overt political affiliations or records of support pertaining to the subject matter at hand, it is standard practice to mention these facts when quoting the source." It isn't standard practice on Wikipedia to mention only one fact about someone and to leave out a whole bunch of others e.g. his qualifications and his 27 books, which doubtless influenced his legal opinions just a tad more than any personal views. Also, Aladdin, you represent your one-revert-a-day policy as a sign of reasonableness. It's actually quite disruptive, and at least one user has been taken to the arbcom for it. Not that I'm suggesting you should be, mind you; I'm just pointing out that the arbcom didn't find it reasonable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is the "standard practice" of quoting "records of support pertaining to the subject matter at hand" of various "legal scholars, or indeed experts of any field" outlined? I wasn't aware of it being a policy, or even a guideline. In fact, I've only seen it described as poisoning the well. On the other hand, WP:NOR directly addresses this situation; specifically, it is a "synthesis of published data" that amounts to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". The novel narrative you are trying to promote is that Stone's legal opinions were coloured by his support for Israel. The fact that you've gotten more subtle in your editorializing/original research/well-poisoning does not mean that others can or should turn a blind eye to it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Slim:You continue to disregard points I have made no matter how many times I repeat them. You don't reply to them. I did not only add one fact and ignored others. I also summarized his credentials by adding the phrase "prominent international jurist". Funny how when reverting my edits, both you and Jayjg left that in. Its alright to bolster the mention of his credentials, but if we happen to quote the 100% true fact of his life long commitment to Israel, SOMETHING NOT TO BE ASHAMED OF, cited by the original biographical source, that's not allowed. As for limiting my reverts, it is no more disruptive than your reverts. I could revert 2, 3 times a day while we continue to hammer out our disagreements in Talk, and to suggest that my voluntary course of action is disruptive rather than reasonable, is the epitome of unreasonableness. We are engaged in a content dispute. We are equal. You revert just like I do. You would be reverting more if I had not taken the initiative to minimize disruption, especially for our readers. Jayjg:I was not quoting a policy page or guideline, if I had I would have linked it for you. This is common sense taken from the world at large, and I mentioned earlier the example of neutral journalism. It is the kind of editor's discretion we take every day in Wikipedia, and is in harmony with the principles of neutrality and full disclosure. In any case, as the one advocating deletion, the burden is on you to prove your point. This is why we are discussing after all. You are the one pointing to non-existent Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Take for example you use of "synthesis of published data" that amounts to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". When such a narrative or historical interpretation is articulated, you can reference that line with my full support. What you may not do, what none of may do, is impose a non-existent interpretation not articulated in clear and actual written formulations. As the dictionary says, synthesis is the combination of ideas to form a theory or system... Often contrasted with analysis. When you see me insert speculation or analysis, then we'll talk.--AladdinSE 17:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Descriptions

"Prominent international jurist" tells people who he is. That he had a lifelong commitment to Israel, or which political party he voted for, or whether he was left or right wing, does not. The OR policy is clear, as is the issue of well poisoning, and both have been explained many times, both here and elsewhere, so there's no point in repeating myself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Journalists are rarely (if ever) "neutral", and they do not follow Wikipedia's content policies. In addition, one can "synthesize" without "articulating", exactly as you have done. Perhaps you can articulate this; why is it important to include this particular information about Stone on this article? Would you insist it be included every single time Stone is mentioned? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That he had a life long commitment to Israel and defended its official legal arguments also tells people what he is. Because of his history of public support for Israel, do you think he would ever have been allowed to sit as a judge in the International Court that heard the Barrier case? Of course not. He is more than qualified, but had he been a judge, he would have had to recuse himself for that case. All because of this life-long record of public support and public statements. It's an extremely pertinent and relevant point, and must not be censored. It has also been explained to you many times why OR and WP do not apply.

No, it has been explained to you many times that OR does apply. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As for journalists, accuracy and neutrality among them are what make them reliable sources in Wikipedia.

Journalists aren't neutral and rarely make any effort to be, largely because it's not expected of them by the companies that pay them, which have their own political opinions. Wikipedians don't, and indeed aren't allowed to, write the way journalists do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

And no, you cannot "synthesize without articulating". Articulation is necessary so that no editor can impose his/her own interpretation of another editor's "subtle meaning". You must prove that "the synthesis of published data amounted to novel narrative or historical interpretation" by citing such editorialization by the editor you want to revert.

No idea what you mean by "prove." It's obvious to anyone who reads the sentence what you're trying to do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Otherwise, it is a blank check for censorship and wholesale deletion. Palmiro articulated this point better than I. Using this rationale, this false interpretation of NOR, any editor can claim a reason for deleting sourced information s/he does not like or wants to censor. This is why, I suspect, you never breathed a word of NOR until this late in the game, after I quoted from the WP article that shows that for it to apply, you have to have an unfavorable fact associated with a person to discredit him.

I didn't see the quote from the "WP article," whatever that refers to. Which quote is this? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

By contrast, I did far from discredit him, I specifically accentuated his qualification with clear words. What you are trying to do is impose your own subjective interpretation onto a sourced quotation of fact without any speculation or editorialization by myself to support your accusation. This is why I specifically pointed to the dictionary definition of "Synthesis" which distinctly contrasts the meaning to analysis. It is important to include this particular information about Stone in this article because his considered legal opinion on Israeli settlements is being touted, therefore his long history of support for Israel is relevant. It would not be relevant for example if this was an article quoting his legal opinion about the territorial disputes of sheep farmers of New South Wales Vs. Victoria. --AladdinSE 18:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

How would a life-long commitment to Israel necessarily translate into support for the settlements? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• And it has been explained to you many times that it does not. I think we've covered the fact that we disagree here.
• Journalists, reputable ones, the ones that we use as reliable sources for citations, strive for neutrality. They are not uniformly neutral anymore than Wikipedia is uniformly neutral.
• What I mean by "prove" is that an editor cannot impose a subjective interpretation of another editor's intent. There must be clear statement of unsourced analysis or editorialization or an articulated (ie stated) "novel narrative or historical interpretation". Otherwise any editor can claim what you just claimed... "It's obvious to anyone who reads the sentence what you're trying to do". It is not obvious except to those who share your POV. You have to prove I am trying to do something by pointing to my formulated, stated false and/or unsourced analysis. This distinction is extremely;y important, as it preserves Wikipedia from the chaos of any editor claiming any interpretation of any other editor's "meaning" without being able to prove it by pointing at the original words that supposedly state the forbidden "novel narrative or historical interpretation"
• The quote from the WP article refers to the Well Poisoning article regarding unfavorable facts, not some unnamed Wikipedia article. I'm sorry if the use of "WP" caused confusion.
• This last point of yours is a pivotal question, encompassing the heart of our disagreement. How would a life-long commitment to Israel necessarily translate into support for the settlements?. It does NOT necessarily translate into support for the settlements. Nor have I inserted any language whatsoever that it does. That would be OR. The connection between Stone and the State of Israel is there, but we must not (and I never have) speculate as to what that might entail regarding support for settlements, bias, or anything else.--AladdinSE 19:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Aladdin, which is more neutral?

(a) "Institute for Policy Studies scholar Professor Noam Chomsky has described the U.S as 'a leading terrorist state'," or

(b) "Institute for Policy Studies scholar Professor Noam Chomsky, a life-long opponent of successive U.S. governments, has described the U.S as 'a leading terrorist state'." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Slim, that would require you to fill in the context of what issue Chomsky is commenting on. Just as there is specificity in the Stone comments about Israeli settlement ergo the mention of his life long support for Israel. If you could just fill out the statements in this Chomsky example, and include if description of life-long opposition is sourced (as the Stone description is), I would be happy to consider the relative neutrality of the 2 formats.--AladdinSE 19:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The context is terrorism in general and who is, and isn't, a terrorist state. The life-long part isn't sourced yet, but it easily could be, so please assume it is, and that the source is a good one. Which version is more neutral? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Without the context of the article in which these formulations are hypothetically inserted, and considering that the description as a life-long opponent of successive US governments also has no context in which it can be examined, as the University of Sydney law school biography provides for the Stone quotation, it would not be appropriate or fair to ask someone to judge the relative merits of each formulation. I will however, give my general approbation that sourced quotations that do not include editorialization from an editor, and are related to the subject matter (as this one seems to be, as does your previous example about the Professor and womanizing), then it would be unjustified to delete such a reference.--AladdinSE 19:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps it should be "a relentless thorn in America's side." [1] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

How do you mean? Do you mean that this phrase would replace 'a life-long opponent of successive U.S. governments" in your example?--AladdinSE 19:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

SV, you asked a question above, I have been waiting for you to clarify your question so I can answer it, but you seem to have abandoned our discussion and decided to revert without continuing with Talk. Please clarify your question as I asked above, so I can answer it and we can continue our efforts to resolve this issue. Also please consider those bullet points I made in response to another thread of ours, before you posed your question. The last one especially is crucial. Thanks.--AladdinSE 16:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Optimal response-thread organization

Aladdin, stop moving my posts. It's standard practice to reply inside posts when they are long like that. If you don't want people to do that, don't write such long replies. It is perfectly clear who has said what, which is why I signed all mine. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I object to it, so please respect my wishes. I did not move your posts to the moon, I only moved them form within my own paragraph to following my paragraph. I left a note about this on your Talk page. Please let us not get sidetracked with this. Also, in your revert, you deleted your own comments about "a relentless thorn in America's side" and my follow up question about it.--AladdinSE 20:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Leave other people's posts where they are. Now I know you don't like it, I won't do it again, but I also won't be answering this thread anymore, because it is becoming ridiculous. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That I can live with. I will now sort through the reverts to fish out my response that were deleted, and place it underneath your last content-related post, so we can continue. Please note that when I reverted your segmentation of my post, I was careful to preserve your new posts. If I am not mistaken, you were one of the Wikipedians from whom I learned, by watching you on Wikipedia, that blind reverts should be avoided.--AladdinSE 20:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This particular information about Stone.

AladdinSE, I asked why it is important to include this particular information about Stone on this article. You responded:

That he had a life long commitment to Israel and defended its official legal arguments also tells people what he is. Because of his history of public support for Israel, do you think he would ever have been allowed to sit as a judge in the International Court that heard the Barrier case? Of course not. He is more than qualified, but had he been a judge, he would have had to recuse himself for that case. All because of this life-long record of public support and public statements. It's an extremely pertinent and relevant point, and must not be censored.

What makes it "pertinent and relevant", though? You're pretty much explicitly saying that it means he has bias in this area, ("he would have to recuse from a case heard before the International Court regarding the barrier.") Does that sum it up? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually Jayjg, no, that was not my response to your question. This is partly why it is a mistake to take upon oneself the segmentation of other editors' posts. My response was worded to directly correspond to the wording of your question. I'm sorry you still missed it. This is what I had to say in response to your question:

• "It is important to include this particular information about Stone in this article because his considered legal opinion on Israeli settlements is being touted, therefore his long history of support for Israel is relevant. It would not be relevant for example if this was an article quoting his legal opinion about the territorial disputes of sheep farmers of New South Wales Vs. Victoria. "

Now, would you like to re-phrase your follow up? You don't have to of course, and I am happy to respond to your post as-is. I just wanted you to know that you misrepresented where I answered your question, since you quoted another part of my paragraph where I was responding to SV.--AladdinSE 22:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

See, that's the problem with lengthy answers, it's so hard to tell what is responding to what. O.K., now exactly why is "his long history of support for Israel" relevant when his "considered legal opinion on Israeli settlements is being touted"? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find my response too lengthy. I did do my best to make it simple for you to discern my response to your question by wording the answer in the same way you asked the question. Now, this is a bit odd that you ask how the support comment is relevant, as the statement itself is the given reason. His considered legal opinion on Israeli settlements is being touted, therefore his long history of support for Israel is relevant. If you want me to elaborate, I would again reiterate that it is right, it is expected, that we disclose that this scholar, who in my edits I also added was a prominent international jurist, had a long history of support for Israel. Full disclosure is pretty self-explanatory anyway. The same neutrality precept that drives this concept in journalism, applies here: "Full Disclosure in Journalism refers to disclosing the interests of the writer which may bear on the subject being written about, for example, if the writer has worked with an interview subject in the past." Notice how no allegations or even hints of bias are made. Only that there may be some bearing, the nature of which is not speculated about. Also, please note that you continue to insert your own subjective interpretation of what is "meant". Look how you phrased your point: "You're pretty much explicitly saying that it means he has bias in this area". No. There is no "pretty much"; that is your POV. There certainly is no "explicitly". If there was, you would be 100% right to either require a source or to delete.--AladdinSE 22:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

But why do you think this specific claim must be "fully disclosed"? After all, to "fully disclose" everything about Stone would take, well, a whole book. Why "disclose" this one claim? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel like we have a failure to communicate here. Is there some particular answer that you want me to give? First, it is no more a "cliam" then his credentials are a claim. It is a quotation taken from a glowing official biography from a highly reputable school of law that was the original source cited to showcase his credentiuals. I don't see the difficulty in discerning a clear and direct connection about offering a legal opinion in support of a nation's legal argument and disclosing a quotation with no editorialization that the scholar happens to have a life-long commitment to the nation advancing said legal argument. It's basic neutrality and disclosure of relevant information. This is why I made the comparison of why we would include for example the scholar's life long commitment to the state of New South Wales if it was involved in a legal dispute with neighboring Victoria regarding grazing rights for sheep.--AladdinSE 15:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not understanding why you think it is relevant; the only reason I can see for "recusal" or "full disclosure" would be if you suspected someone of potentially having bias. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You need to forget about what only you see. As the full disclosure article makes clear, no bias of any kind has to be suspected for disclosure to apply. Relevance is the existence of a history, a record, between the writer and the subject, which necessitates disclosing the interests of the writer which may bear on the subject being written about. Notice that the "bearing" is not speculated about (to be bias or anything else), or even confirmed to exist. Only the possibility of some effect, ie bearing. Likewise, no speculation is included in the quotation about Stone from his biography.--AladdinSE 16:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia has no "full disclosure" policy, and in any events fulfills it by linking to the articles of the people in question. There is a ton of stuff about Stone which might apply to this article, and you seem to be picking one specific claim, one that is not even particularly well sourced. Who was it again that said that about Stone, and where? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Following on from Jayjg's point, might I temerously suggest that including this information in the article on Stone, and not here, could solve this problem? Would both sides be willing to try that? Palmiro | Talk 17:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg:I see. You wanted chapter and verse about disclosure explained to you, and after a full discussion doing just that, you turn around and say not only that it doesn't matter because no such policy exists, but that actually it is fulfilled even though it doesn't exist. Hardly. You cannot possibly think you can get away with disallowing the quotation or elaboration about anything about a person just because it may be in his/her WP biography (which in Stone's case it is not, yet). It is done in WP all the time. That would be like deleting all reference to "Prime Minister" attached to Winston Churchill in various articles just because it is mentioned in his biography. And is it not hypocritical to say that we needn't quote anything about Stone because he is linked, and yet you did not see fit to delete the other information I added, that of his being a prominent international jurist?

I am not "picking one specific claim". Firstly, it is no more a claim then his credentials are a claim. It is a sourced fact (see note below on source). Secondly, relevancy has been explained and pinpointed to you repeatedly, to which you finally replied that it doesn't matter anyway. Stone's legal opinion about Israel's arguments for legality of settlements is being touted. I chose 2 things to include: his connection/history with Israel, and a phrase to summarize his stature and credentials. Those are the two relevant points to be singled out because they relate to the issue being stated by Stone. Would you have me also include where he was born or his cat's name? Of course not. His biography aslo states that "During the war, he served on two influential government committees dealing with morale and post-war reconstruction." Why did I not include that? because it has nothing to do with Israeli settlements.

You really are casting a wide net for justifications for deletion, aren't you? First, and for the longest time, it was all about well-poisoning. And when I quoted the information that disqualifies its application (the fact stated must be unfavorable, and a life-long commitment to Israel is not an unfavorable fact or "black mark"), suddenly you discovered original research, which you never breathed a word of before. This is highly diverting, considering that you have pontificated about this policy so very, very much in the past and say that it is the "most misunderstood policy on Wikipedia". Note that Poisoning the well which you have linked to so many times is not a policy page but an article, just like Full disclosure.

Who was it again that said what about Stone? It is his official biography at the University of Sydney school of law which bears his name. The quotation reads exactly as it appears in my edit "He had a life-long commitment to Israel" without any comment, editorialization or speculation added whatsoever. Hardly "not particularly well sourced". --AladdinSE 17:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

P. S. Please revert manually instead of using rollback, to avoid marking it as minor, as discussed in the pertinent subsection above. Also, just a reminder in case you did not read my discussion with SV, please respond below my post, as you have been doing, not in between. Thank you.--AladdinSE 17:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Palmiro: See my point about Churchill and relevance of Stone's credentials and record with Israel.--AladdinSE 17:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Aladdin, please stop telling people what to do. This endless repetition and the long posts, together with instructions about exactly where people must respond to you, how they must not use rollback, how they must not revert without yet another repetitive response, and your one-revert-a-day against consensus is becoming disruptive. I, for one, will not be explaining my reverts again, and I'll be using rollback because I see this as disruption. No one supports you on this, in case you haven't noticed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Churchill was best known for being Prime Minister; Stone was best known for being an internationally renowned legal theorist. Stone was not best know for his "long-time committment to Israel". These brief descriptions are intended to let people know who the individual is, not poison the well so as to pre-emptively imply they are biased. As for the biography, what makes it "official"? Did Stone authorize it? It's not particularly well-sourced because the author is anonymous, and he/she/it hasn't provided any citation for that claim. And finally, I have made it quite clear that any time you add this piece of information to the article, it will be reverted, using the rollback button. If you don't want it reverted, don't enter it; get consensus for its addition instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

SV, to claim that reverting while ignoring your own Talk threads is OK while my voluntarily limited reversion with full and detailed discussion is "disruptive" is ridiculous. I will continue to ask other editors to help out on these small courtesies to their peers (rollback, segmentation of others' posts); they were always polite requests and never instructions, as you well know. Whether they chose to oblige, or to take up your attitude, is their own affair. Endless repetitions? You asked a question about neutrality and then refused to continue with that thread even though it was yours. I happen to believe you are completely wrong in this disagreement, but you don't see me striking this superior attitude, and refusing to participate in Talk. Before your conduct and comments in this discussion, I considered you a model Wikipedian. I would never have thought you would degenerate into such uncivil, angry commentary, or willfully refuse to reply to Talk. Since when did you let wikistress affect you like this? You're acting as if you never participated in a prolonged disagreement before. As for your consensus, you'll find that at least 3 editors have disagreed with your position at various points, so please stop claiming I am alone. Also, Heptor and I have placed an RFC and are not giving up, unlike you.--AladdinSE 10:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg:Oh I see, so now you are altering your original self-declared rule, and now we are allowed to mention what a person is "best known for" even though their WP biography is linked. There is no end to the convenient and selective innovations of policies to suit your needs. As for the biography, again, late in the game, it has become "questionable". Please. I'd be thrilled to watch you trying to convince people that The Julius Stone Institute of Jurisprudence at the University of Sydney school of law is not a reliable source. Good luck.--AladdinSE 10:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Stating that Stone "had a lifelong commitment to Israel" is not original research, it is evidence consistent with and in support of the cited criticism frow two law journals that Stone's book was "partisan" and a "brief for the state of Israel". It is not introducing a novel argument or synthesis and it's not just "poisoning the well". However, I feel that this pertinent evidence should be stated after the criticism of Stone's book. Also, the University of Sydney is generally considered Australia's most prestigious university; I imagine their law department is a fairly reliable source. Deuterium 13:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

AladdinSE, I think you're nitpicking about the 'minor edit' issue. Isn't it on your watchlist? --Shuki 13:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The criticisms should actually be relevant to this claim, not simply to the book itself. These kinds of broad sideswipes belong in an article about the book, not here. As for something being "consistent with etc.", please re-read WP:NOR, with which I am sure you are quite familiar. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Shuki: I am not saying I am personally confused by this practice. Nevertheless, it is not a minor edit by any stretch of the imagination, and other editors not familiar with the discussion might be decieved into thinking it is a minor edit and thereby not pay it as much heed as they might have done. I don't think it is an "unreasonable burden" to ask admins not to use Rollback in this instance. It's a simple matter to revert manually. Please see the discussion above under the Use of rollback, marking of minor edits subsection. Deuterium : I'm open to alternatives, but so far I have been defending against wholesale deletion. I'm not quite certain of the edit you are proposing. Would you mind formulating an example of how you would state the material here in Talk? Thanks. Jayjg: In my edit, I have NEVER INSERTED ANY CRITICISMS WHATSOEVER. The purpose of disclosing the information is merely to inform the reader that the author of this legal opinion has an established long-time relationship with the nation advocating this argument. It is relevant because it may have a bearing on the situation. The nature of that bearing has NEVER been speculated about nor even has the existence of this bearing been confirmed. For those sorts of editorializations, further sources would be required. --AladdinSE 06:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Aladdin, my response was to Deuterium, not you. Sorry for any confusion. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Aladdin, you asked me to respond here again, but I have nothing new to say, and you misrepresent what I do say e.g. in your recent edit summary you wrote that previously I said it was OR, but now I'm saying it's well poisoning, as though I'm ducking and diving. But in fact, as you know, I've said it's both. If Stone were a journalist or politician, I'd say it was arguably relevant to include any affiliations. But as one of the world's experts on international law giving an opinion about international law, it's simply ludicrous to imply that his opinion might have been formed or influenced by an attachment to Israel more than by, say, his doctorates from Oxford and Harvard, the 27 books he wrote about international law and jurisprudence, and the decades he spent teaching those subjects. But mysteriously, you're not pushing to add references to those. I asked you above whether you'd support the same edit for Chomsky and you answered only that it depended on the context, even though I gave you the context. So the discussion goes round and round with no clear answers from you, which is why I stopped posting. I mean no disrespect by that. I just have nothing else to say about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Would inserting information about a quoted person's previous membership in a political party also constitute original research, or well-poisoning, or both? I am a bit sceptical about the application of these principles - especially OR - to this case. Palmiro | Talk 12:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, the instructions for the use of rollback say "If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, it's polite to leave an explanation on the article talk page, or on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted." I'm therefore leaving this note to say that if I use rollback to revert this particular edit, it's because I've already left long explanations for my revert on this talk page, as well as several edit summaries, so there's no point in leaving another one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

In my recent edit summary I said "you spent your last posts arguing that is was original research". Last posts means just that, last posts, not "you've changed your mind". It was curious that your efforts of late were concentrated on OR, and having been rebutted by several editors, out of the blue your latest edit summary noted well poisoning as the reason. Now, please examine your own words: "it's simply ludicrous to imply that his opinion might have been formed or influenced by an attachment to Israel". I ENTIRELY AGREE! That is my whole point. NO SPECULATION WHATSOEVER AS TO BIAS OR ANYTHING ELSE IS BEING MADE. When anyone inserts such language without citation, I will join you in opposition. Also, you say: "mysteriously, you're not pushing to add references to those." Where have you been for the last 10 days or so? What is "prominent international jurist", which was my edit, if not a summary of those very references?? As for your Chomsky example, I asked you for some clarification on context, which you provided, and then immediately afterwards you changed your formulation and said "Or perhaps it should be 'a relentless thorn in America's side'." I asked you where in your example you wanted in insert this change, so I could answer you accurately, and as you know full well, you were never heard from again in that discussion. I happen to think that your foray was a productive thread and I still implore you to return to it above, where we left off.

And you know it is not only Chomsky. I presented to you an array of points, the last of which was a reply to a very pertinent question you asked. You asked: "How would a life-long commitment to Israel necessarily translate into support for the settlements?" I replied This last point of yours is a pivotal question, encompassing the heart of our disagreement. How would a life-long commitment to Israel necessarily translate into support for the settlements?. It does NOT necessarily translate into support for the settlements. Nor have I inserted any language whatsoever that it does. That would be OR. The connection between Stone and the State of Israel is there, but we must not (and I never have) speculate as to what that might entail regarding support for settlements, bias, or anything else. You did not answer that either.

As for rollback, as has been said in the related subsection above, and repeated elsewhere, it is an unfair advantage, not meant for such substantial disagreements, and may be obscuring the magnitude of said disagreements for other editors who might browse the edit history of this article. Look, if manual reversion is such an unreasonable burden on you in this one article, fine, keep as you are. More than one editor has asked you to please refrain from it in this instance. The question is, why will you not oblige us? Is it really that hard to revert manually for this particular disagreement? --AladdinSE 10:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No responses here, unfortunately. I have restored the material, although I still hope the above discussion will be rejoined.--AladdinSE 13:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What kind of response do you want? You're implying he was biased, which means you're poisoning the well. This has been said over and over. Perhaps you could answer directly the question I asked you about Chomsky, instead of skirting round it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I want a specific response to the specific comments I made above, as if you can't see them for yourself. Let me quote from above, since you are incapable of discerning it:

You asked: "How would a life-long commitment to Israel necessarily translate into support for the settlements?" I replied This last point of yours is a pivotal question, encompassing the heart of our disagreement. How would a life-long commitment to Israel necessarily translate into support for the settlements?. It does NOT necessarily translate into support for the settlements. Nor have I inserted any language whatsoever that it does. That would be OR. The connection between Stone and the State of Israel is there, but we must not (and I never have) speculate as to what that might entail regarding support for settlements, bias, or anything else. You did not answer that either.

I have been asking you to rejoin your own Chomsky thread for days and days, it is very disingenuous to pretend that I am the one failing to answer. If you will kindly come back to that thread where you originally started it under Talk:Israeli settlement#Descriptions, where you can articulate your full question to include your amended material LIKE I ASKED SO MANY TIMES, we can finally continue.--AladdinSE 16:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

AladdinSE, you keep re-inserting the well-poisoning information, but still fail to explain it. Why would alleged support of Israel be relevant to an article on settlements? Do support of Israel and support of settlements go together? Clearly not, since many supporters of Israel do not support settlements. The onus remains on you to explain why alleged support of Israel has anything to do with settlements. Or would you simply prefer to describe him as an "international legal scholar and Jew" and leave it at that? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Insinuation

The article insinuates that Stone is bias by virtue of mentioning his support of Israel right after his opinion on the settlements, whether it is true or not is irrelevent, it is inappropriate to add that passage right after his view on the matter.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Such insinuation must be backed up by specific, articulated accusations or speculation as to bias. Otherwise, any Tom, Dick, or Harry can stand up and disallow whatever he likes on WP by claiming he senses an insinuation. This is a quotation of fact from a reputable source, and moreover this source is positive and presents this fact in a positive light. --AladdinSE 10:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats not true, anyone can see that the comment of him being pro-israel is clearly designed to make him look bias and un-neutral. If you can show that it is actually true you should put it in a seperate section, but other editors above have expressed that it is in fact a falsity anyways.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a classic example of poisoning the well with information that is irrelevant to the article in question. Pecher ^Talk 12:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The information in question is attributed to the Julius Stone Institute of Jurisprudence, with a reference to Stand Up and Be Counted. I agree with AladdinSE, in that I think it's important to note the nature of his "commitment" to Israel, if it is relevant to the article, but the question remains, where it should be noted and how. It obviously does not belong mid-sentence, so I disagree with AladdinSE in that case, but I could see it in the next sentence, with attribution, such as, "According to the Julius Stone Institute of Jurisprudence, Stone had a life-long commitment to Israel", but one wonders exactly what this means or how it is relevant. Perhaps AladdinSE could find a more specific example, or rewrite the passage here on talk. I'm sure we can all agree on something. —Viriditas | Talk 02:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, as you can see, you declaration as to what "anyone can see" is highly disputed. Therefore, you will need explicit proof in the text. It does not exist. Not one word has been editorialized. No analysis is given.-AladdinSE 16:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't think we particularly need this information here (although I fundamentally disagree with the assertion that its inclusion constitutes original research), but on the other hand the reviews of Stone's book are highly germane. Palmiro | Talk 12:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the reviews are germane, and in my opinion (and others expressed above), so is the biographical quotation, as long as it does not include editorialization that indeed insinuates or speculates.I am open to edits or rephrasing concerning this matter, although I remain of the opinion that a simple quotation is always safest.--AladdinSE 13:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The reviews are not germane because they're not expert opinions, and because you don't (so far as I can see) criticize the other legal side. If you want to include criticism, lay out both legal positions, and include scholarly criticism of both. But why are you only picking on the Israeli side to criticize, and then using book reviewers, rather than people able to address the legal points? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Surely it is reasonable to assume that book reviewers in peer-reviewed law journals are people (experts, scholars) who are qualified to address the legal points in books they are reviewing? If this is not the case, then academic law journals obviously work quite differently from journals in academic fields I am acquainted with. Palmiro | Talk 16:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

SV, please feel free to quote whatever reliable sources you want to criticize "the other side". NPOV is not a matter of exact equal word for word criticism for each side. It is a matter of quoting relevant material from reliable sources. It just so happens that a vast majority of the World disagrees with the Israeli position. You cannot demand equal criticism of each side, as it does not exist. Even so, you can in this instance put in reliably sourced material about accusations of systematic bias in the UN, which has been done before, and is valid here as well. I think it is in the Israel and the United Nations article.--AladdinSE 17:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Carter information

I have restored and elaborated on Carter's comments on settlement and colonization as an obstacle to peace. The man frequently travels to the occupied territories as an elder statesman and peace advocate. This, coupled with his experience with the Arab-Israeli conflict, makes him highly relevant as an analyst on this issue. Sourced reliable analysts must not be deleted.--AladdinSE 08:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This edit was reverted without reply to my comments above. Nevertheless, I will voluntarily limit myself to one revert per day for this Carter edit disagreement, while discussion is forthcoming.--AladdinSE 00:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Carter is an ex-president; he has no expertise in the settlements. And you certainly can't have it both ways, as regards this article and the AIPAC article. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

So which way can it be had, then? Does that mean we remove the Duke support from AIPAC, or include the Carter one here? It seems as though you are having it both ways (inclusion of Duke there, non-inclusion of Carter here). Lokiloki 00:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

He has direct expertise on settlements! Does he have to be a construction contractor to have expertise??? An American President, intimately connected with the Arab-Israeli conflict, Camp David specifically dealt with settlements, and moreover he travels to the Occupied Territories as an elder statesman and meets with the leaders, advises, and analyzes and publishes his analysis. Heaven and earth, what more do you want??? As for having it both ways, I agree with Lokiloki, you are hardly one to talk. In any case, my position has always been clear, Carter is an extremely reputable reliable source, Duke is known anti-semite and white supremacist. It is a question of reliable sources and relevancy. I am not bargaining with you here, one for the other. My arguments are separate; please keep Talk discussions separate likewise. --AladdinSE 00:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to concur with Aladdin that Carter's comments are relevant and worth including. Palmiro | Talk 15:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a FYI that I fixed up this quotation to it's original status, after it had been (incorrectly) watered-down and the cites had been removed. I wonder why this was done? Deuterium 16:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: the above posts were taken from the original Carter discussion above. I am quoting them here since this discussion is about the exact same edits and there should be a continuity.--AladdinSE 12:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the information from Jimmy Carter, which was in the "International and Legal background" section. Carter is not an international organization, nor did the comment have anything to do with an "International background". As well, it was not a legal analysis, which Carter is not qualified to give in any event. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

support. --tasc 09:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

In that case I've created an "international opinion" section, which the quote definitely belongs in. Jayjg, why do you remove important information and cites instead of just moving it??? Deuterium 09:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, the actual information was included in an entirely POV manner, stating Carter's opinion as fact, completely violating WP:NPOV. In addition, contrast the lengthy laudatory description give to Carter with the well-poisoning being done to Stone. Most important, according to whom is it "important information"? What on earth would make it "important"? An ex-president opined in a brief opinion piece, that's all. Information that doesn't belong in an article doesn't belong anywhere in an article; a section giving personal opinions of "Internationals" could be hundreds of K in size. This is an encyclopedia, not a quote repository. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

it's not an international opinion. it's just personal opinion. not to mention that half of the 'section' is totally irrelevant. --tasc 09:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. According to JayJG, David Duke's opinion on a political science paper is noteworthy and important, yet Jimmy Carter's internationally publicized opinion on an international controversy (Israeli settlements) has to be deleted from Wikipedia completely. How does that even begin to make sense? Deuterium 12:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The key here is not about Duke's opinion per se (though he has, in fact, been fulminating on this subject for decades, and is famous for doing it), but rather the notoriety surrounding it. His response has itself become a news story, just as the reaction to the paper in general has become a news story. More generally, it would be helpful if you didn't leap to assuming bad faith about the edits of other edits, particularly when your claims are obviously incorrect. For example in this page what you described as "relevant, sourced, correct information" was, in fact, neither sourced, nor correct, and the claim of relevance was not supported. Now that it has been cleaned up, it is relevant, sourced, and correct, but what it says now is quite different from what you first inserted. Given your obvious lengthy familiarity with Wikipedia and its policies, one would expect better. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No, that edit in Anti-Arabism _was_ accurately sourced (you just didn't bother to check the above link), it _was_ accurate and it _was_ relevant (how did that change from the final version anyway?). As for "assuming good faith" you consistently revert edits before talking about them and I have every right to discuss your (or anybody else's) edits as I see fit.

As for the actual issue we are discussing, Carters article was published in Haaretz and reported in the Guardian, Financial Times, the Independent. How is that not just as "notorious" as Duke's opinions? Deuterium 14:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no source for the paragraph in question; check it again. Moreover you stated the party's platform "involves the removal of Israeli Arabs by supporting Arab immigration". That is, in fact, absurd. I fixed it to accurately note that the platform involved re-drawing Israel borders to include Israeli Arabs in a Palestinian state, which is completely different. As for this article, where are the references to Carter in all those sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It is entirely relevant to this article, and I find it disappointing that people are insisting on deleting it. Palmiro | Talk 13:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a repository of quotes; stuffing articles with personal opinions on each issue will blow the articles out of any reasonable proportions. Pecher ^Talk 14:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The Carter matter was settled weeks ago with a majority consensus. See relevant Carter Talk section above.--AladdinSE 16:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like a terribly convincing argument. Pecher ^Talk 16:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What does that mean? That you are going to keep reverting until everyone else is sick of it? Every time you are in a disagreement with someone your approach seems to be to keep reverting until everybody else gives up. This is not acceptable. In fact, I view this persistent behaviour as a form of bullying. Palmiro | Talk 16:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I view the above remark as a personal attack. The problem with Alladin's argument is that he requires all editors to agree to a view adopted by a different group of editors on the grounds that the issue was discussed in the past. I don't see much logic in such approach: everybody has the right to bring up new arguments and resume the debate. Pecher ^Talk 16:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly people have a right to bring up new arguments, but I fail to see where the new argument is in this case. Palmiro | Talk 17:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there was no consensus for the Carter information. Rather, a concession was made in the hopes that it would encourage AlladinSE to defer to consensus in other areas. However, it is now apparent that AlladinSE will, in fact, revert to the version he prefers until the end of time (once a day, of course), without any regard to consensus, so long as he thinks he is correct. Since the information itself never belonged in the article in the first place, there's no point in leaving it in, particularly when it does not help build consensus in other areas. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Pecher: I do not require you to agree with other editors discussions. Jayjg was the editor who removed the Carter material, and a majority of editors opposed him, and the material was returned. This was settled by March 30. He participated in the Talk as quoted above (I copied the original discussion into this section for reference). He was the one who then comes back almost 2 weeks later to delete again. Hence the consensus comment. You will find me most ready to rejoin the discussion.

Now, as to Carter not being qualified, I will add to what I said in March by reiterating that a former President and current elder statesman with direct and poignant experience with the Arab-Israeli conflict including Israeli settlements, who is moreover head of a prominant socio-political think tank, is certainly steeped in international legality matters. One does not spend 4 years as an American President, negotiate a peace treaty in which international law is highly central, without being extremely qualified. He is still involved to this day and visits Israel and the territories on peace missions. The material is sourced and highly relevant. Also, the section title is "International AND legal background". A former President's considered opinion falls under this heading. If anyone has concerns about phrasing for NPOV, edit accordingly, but do not expect to get away with deletion.--AladdinSE 12:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg: It is absurd to claim that you had a consensus on the Stone issue. The 2 principal proponents on your side, yourself and SV, failed to even keep up with the Talk threads in a consistent manner, and abandoned others altogether. If you are trying to make out that I was a lone voice, you really need to re-read the entire Talk, to regain your grasp on reality. As for claiming that you made a concession about the Carter material "in the hopes that I would defer to consensus elsewhere", that is an insult to my intelligence. In the first place, it is not in the best spirit of proper encyclopedia editing to "swap" completely unrelated edits like a cheap bargain. Second, no such consensus existed elsewhere as discussions and unanswered posts clearly show. Third, if and when you want to make any such "concession" in the future, do be so good as to articulate your intentions to the rest of us, instead of abandoning your edit in the face of opposition and slinking away from the discussion without comment, to come back 10 days later and claim there was no consensus after all. We are not mind readers.--AladdinSE 13:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"Failed to even keep up with the Talk threads in a consistent manner ..." Your behavior here is highly disruptive, Aladdin, and I'm disappointed to see you learned no lesson from Israeli West Bank Barrier, where you did the same thing. There was a consensus against you on this page, and the positions had been fully explained, but you announced that you intended to keep on inserting the material anyway. The Carter material was left in as, I believe, a concession to you in the hope you would compromise, but you refused to. You have no business picking on the Israeli legal side and not criticizing the other. You have no business including reference to Stone's personal opinions and not mentioning how eminent an expert he was. I ask you again: would you allow similar well poisoning of Chomsky? I gave you an example earlier, so please answer the question in case you're accused of "fail[ing] to even keep up with the Talk threads in a consistent manner ..." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The entire section was about the legal status of the settlements/territories, and various opinions about their legality. The Carter stuff was not a claim about their legality, merely an opinion. Moreover, the Carter opinion has always been present in the "Tensions, mistrust and accusations" section, and there he is actually quoted. Why on earth would you feel his opinion is so important that you have to include it in the article twice, including in a section dealing with opinions about legality, when he doesn't presume to comment on their legality? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

SV:, reverting less often than yourself, as I have been, is not disruptive. In case you haven't realized, we're in the middle of a serious disagreement here. As I have said before, the Israeli West Bank Barrier matter is a feather in my cap because it proves so eloquently that I am extremely willing and capable of productive content dispute resolution, and moreover of listening to others. What alternate reality are you relying upon, to claim a consensus against me here? Are you claiming that a simple majority of opinions means a consensus? I could bring in a slew of supporters to post in support of my position, and I doubt you would then concede. Consensus is not a paper-thin majority of opinions (actually there has even been claims that I am a lone voice, how ludicrous is that?). As for the Carter material, it is laughable to pretend that it was left in "as a concession". It was left in because when Jayjg first deleted it, he was opposed in Talk by 4 editors, and supported by only himself. He posted only once in defense of his position, claiming Carter was unfit to comment here, saying "he has no expertise in the settlements". After he was rebutted, he abandoned the edit and Talk without further comment about concession or anything else. If you are claiming this action was a concession "in return" for a completely unrelated dispute, all I can say is I am very disappointed in you for espousing such a ridiculous idea. I have replied to Jay on this point already. And how can you say with a straight face that I did not mentioning how eminent an expert he was?? Whose addition was prominent international jurist? Jayjg: Here finally is a salient point. If the same material is quoted elsewhere, that certainly can be remedied. I was not aware that you dropped your drive to delete Carter's quotation from the article, you having previously argued that he was not qualified to comment on Settlements. Carter's experience as president makes him more than qualified to be placed in a legality and international opinions section. Nevertheless, I am perfectly happy with their placement in "Tensions, mistrust and accusations". I apologize for overlooking the duplication. Please note that originally, the Carter comments were limited to Jimmy Carter has said that the settlements constitute a "major obstacle to peace". I am happy with the current wording, Jimmy Carter, who brokered the 1978 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, has said that "Israel's colonization of Palestine" is the "preeminent obstacle to peace".--AladdinSE 17:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Reviews of Stone's book

I've removed the reviews of Stone's book from the article, which were inserted a few days ago by Cybbe. The reviews were inappropriate for a number of reasons, the most important being that they are reviews of the overall works, not critiques of Stone's views regarding the settlements. In fact, we have no idea how these reviewers feel about Stone's specific arguments regarding settlements; for all we know, they may even agree with them. If you want to include general criticism of a book, then the place for it is in an article about that book, not in this article. In addition, the quotations were, frankly, dishonest cherry-picking. For example, Campbell was quoted as saying the book was "a brief for the State of Israel". In fact, the entire sentence stated "The book shows a fine legal mind at work, but it is a brief for the State of Israel, and not necessarily the only sustainable interpretation of the law." That's quite different. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The books criticized articulate directly his legal arguments which are being touted. This is bold-faced censorship.--AladdinSE 16:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Which statements in the reviews criticized his views on the settlements? How exactly did they address his arguments? The Stone book was about many different legal issues, this article is about legal issues regarding the settlements only. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Still unclear why the discussion of books is relevant to this article. Pecher ^Talk 16:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Cybbe's quotation distorted the review at all, and it is not very polite to describe it as "dishonest cherry-picking". Even if you feel it did distort it, there are many ways to overcome this issue apart from completely removing the information from the article. Palmiro | Talk 16:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Lesse, a sentence with one positive, one negative, and one neutral statement, and yet only the negative statement is picked out of the middle for quotation here. I'd call that "dishonest cherry-picking". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it distorts the issue at all, but if you feel that that is a problem, you would better demonstrate your good faith by fixing it to include the entire quote than by trying to suppress it in its entirety. Palmiro | Talk 12:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, the primary issue with the inclusion of the material is that it was a broad (and incredibly brief) review of the book which did not deal with Stone's specific arguments regarding the settlements. There's no point in fixing something that doesn't belong in the first place. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, and my previous comment was somewhat unfair. Palmiro | Talk 16:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, the issue here is that the quote itself, whether abridged or unabridged, is not relevant to the article because it's a quote about a book, nt about the issue at hand. Pecher ^Talk 17:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a review of the book from which it appears that the sole identified legal opinion to the effect that the settlements are legal has been taken; it could, therefore, hardly be more relevant. Palmiro | Talk 17:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that's the problem: it is about a book, not about the setllements issue. If the reviewers offered some specific counterarguments, they could be included in the article. Their opinions n the book or its author are totally irrelevant here. Pecher ^Talk 17:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly so. They may well also think the typeface used in the book was a poor choice, or the paper stock cheap too. What we're interested in here are legal arguments specific to the settlements. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to include criticism of Stone's expert legal opinion, it has to be from a peer i.e. another expert; and we'd also have to include criticism of the opposite view. Otherwise it might look like anti-Israel POV pushing, and we wouldn't want that, would we? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This is ludicrous. If an entire book about Israel and international law is described by reviewers as "a brief for Israel", etc, that is of the greatest relevance imaginable when one wishes to cite quotations from it as examples of support for Israel's position. Really, the arguments against this are unbelievably poor, and would to my mind be liable to strike a disinterested observer as pro-Israel POV pushing. And we wouldn't want that, would we? Palmiro | Talk 12:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Unbelievably poor arguments is right. Especially baffling that they are coming from some of the more experienced and respected editors.--AladdinSE 13:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a lengthy book, and non-specific smears of it are unhelpful. A specific rebuttal of Stone's arguments about the settlements would be relevant, but "I didn't like the book" is useless here. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, SV, what are you relying on when you dictate that criticism can only be included if it comes from legal peers? Policy only requires reliable sources. You'll have a tough time impugning The American Journal of International Law, Foreign Affairs, Yale Law Journal and The Carter Center. Three of those are peer journals for goodness sakes.--AladdinSE 14:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You can't use a book reviewer to criticize a legal opinion, Aladdin, for obvious reasons, just as I wouldn't use Julius Stone to comment on whether or not he approved of the way the Golden Gate Bridge had been built. And a comment about his personal opinions is not a criticism of his legal opinion. Please use some common sense and good editing and writing skills in place of your usual anti-Israel well poisoning. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Aladdin, the problem with the quotes that you want to insert is not that they come from unreliable sources, but rather that they are irrelevant to the subject of this article because they say nothing about Israeli settlements; they talk only about the book. If we had an article about that book, we could insert that quote there, but not in this article. Pecher ^Talk 06:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, your contention that a review of a book on international law in a peer-reviewed law journal is not suitable criticism thereof to be considered for inclusion in a Wikipeia article is simply unbelievable. And then you ask other people to use common sense? Try and take a look at how this would appear to someone not emotionally involved in the issue. Do you think your contention really holds water? Palmiro | Talk 16:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Would a "review of a book on international law in a peer-reviewed law journal" be "suitable criticism thereof to be considered for inclusion in a Wikipeia article" on fencing? The issue here is its suitability for this article, not any article. This article is about Israeli settlements; please provide criticisms of Stone's legal views regarding Israeli settlements in this article. If you think the book warrants its own article, you can certainly include broad criticisms of the book in that article. Try and take a look at how this would appear to someone not emotionally involved in the issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually cannot understand the point you are making here. Why would anyone have quoted a book on international law in an article on fencing in the first place? Palmiro | Talk 17:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You take my point, then; it's not enough that something is accurately sourced, or even encyclopedic - it must also be relevant to article in question and the point being made. Now, where exactly did those reviews address Stone's arguments regarding the settlements? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It is rather weird not to understand this point after it has been explained many times by many people. The review in question, at least as cited by the editors of this page, does not offer any arguments on the issue of Israli settlements. This is why including this review in this article does not add anything to its content. If the review said something about Israeli settlements, not about the book per se, I doubt that including it here would be objectionable. Pecher ^Talk 17:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. In fact, I would welcome specific criticisms. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Stone articulates his legal defenses of Israeli settlements in the reviewed books. The reviewers are highly competent and reputable peer-review journals. There is no such policy on Wikipedia that precludes this kind of citation. It couldn't be more germane.--AladdinSE 17:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Oh, and SV, you're quite right, a comment about his personal opinions is not a criticism of his legal opinion. If and when any criticism is inserted, I will oppose it.--AladdinSE 18:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Stone addresses many different issues in his book, settlements being just one. Please find criticism of those legal arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You are imposing a restriction not supported by policy. The only way you can preclude these peer-review journal criticisms is if the reviewed books contained no arguments for the legality of settlements. To delete, the burden in on you to prove that their explicitly articulated arguments of bias specifically exclude settlements, which of course is ludicrous.--AladdinSE 19:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm imposing a restriction supported both by policy and common sense. The only way you can include criticisms of Stone's legal views of settlements is if you actully include them; that is, actually provide criticisms of his view on settlements, rather than broad criticisms of a book he wrote. To include, the burden is on you to provide explicit critiques of Stone's legal position on the settlements; to do otherwise is ludicrous. Oh, and book reviews are not "peer-reviewed", even in peer-reviewed journals. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I assumed you were expressing an opinion as an editor, and that Aladdin's "imposing a restriction" was somewhat hyperbolical. I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue it was somehow impermissible to include said criticisms, and it's unhelpful (on both your parts) to peform this sort of rhetorical "lifting" to policy levels. Alai 01:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please quote this policy, Jayjg. I would like to educate myself. The criticisms fully articulate and quote bias towards the Israel by Stone in his legal arguments, which include Settlements. He who deletes another editor's contribution always bears the burden to prove his point, not the other way around. Just show me the policy page that would support The only way you can include criticisms of Stone's legal views of settlements is if you actully include them; that is, actually provide criticisms of his view on settlements, rather than broad criticisms of a book he wrote. And while you're at it reread Wikipedia:Reliable sources.--AladdinSE 05:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, is there any point of including criticism of what is already presented as minority opinion? The fact that this is a minority opinion already leaves no doubt that the majority disagrees with it.

And the citisism included is not even a critisism of this particular opinion, but a critisism of an entire book. Any expert claiming that the settlements are illegal is in effect criticizing Stone's opinion. But what is the point of including critiques of his books?

Heptor _talk 12:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The point is to poison the well, which is why it's being opposed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you that this is well-poisoning, but the information does not belong in the article. With a negative review of his book, someone may wish to add a positive review to maintain the NPOV. Then, someone would add items from his biography and carrier. There have to be a boundary to what is relevant to an artice, otherwise we could just start working on One Huge Article About Everything There Is (and perhaps also The Puppy My Mommy Never Bought To Me). -- Heptor _talk 13:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not well poisoning. It is not original research. There are reliable sources that criticize Stone's partiality, as expressed by articulations like not giving a "balanced treatment of the legal issues", for presenting a "a brief for the State of Israel" and that "one is entitled to expect something more than a partisan plea". There is no ambiguous criticism here, these law journals and the carter center are expressing concrete criticism of impartiality concerns in the Stone book cited as the wellspring of his legal arguments. Fantastically, it has also been claimed that book reviews in the likes of The American Journal of International Law, Foreign Affairs, and the Yale Law Journal are not peer-reviews. Right. As if these prestigious institutions would allow unqualified people to render such reviews. It is just not credible. Either something is a reliable source, or it isn't. SlimVirgin and Jayjg have said that it would be permissible and not well poisoning if it were only legal scholars who were allowed to criticize Stone. You claim that criticism from peer-review law journals is well poisoning. I ask you again to please cite what Wikipedia policy you are relying upon to make this distinction of what is allowed and what is not, and what is and what is not Well Poisoning.--AladdinSE 12:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You're offering no new arguments. Many editors here have said it many times that opinions a book do not belong to the article on Israeli settlements. If any reviewer offers any arguments regarding the Israeli settlement issue, feel free to include them. I'm already tired of repeating this self-evident point and will not do so again. Pecher ^Talk 13:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you have no policy to back up your position. Many editors have argued both sides of this issue, Pecher. Stone's comments from his book are being quoted. Highly reputable journals are offering criticisms of bias of said book. They claim his entire approach is biased, as articulated by the quoted comments. Perceived bias towards Israel in the book encompasses arguments about legality of Settlements in the book. Your side wants to delete someone else's material. You are unable to cite any policy to disallow this material.--AladdinSE 11:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

As Pecher said, you're offering no new arguments. The information itself is non-specific to this article, and so doesn't belong here. Editors are charged with making this kind of editorial decision all the time; good writing demands specificity in articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, this is specific to the article. We are citing Stone's analysis of international law as applied to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as an example of a scholar in the area who agrees with the Israeli position; it is therefore relevant that Stone's analysis is viewed by his peers as being partisan. Palmiro | Talk 14:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No, we cite Stone because he specifically comments on the legality of the settlements; we don't cite his whole analysis of all areas of international law as applied to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If you have any critiques of Stone's analysis of the legality of the settlements from any reasonable source (obviously you're not going to get any from his peers, since none of the people mentioned have been anywhere close to having Stone's stature), then please bring them forward. If you want to cite Stone's legal views generally in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article, then you can certainly quote these book reviews which deal with the more general topic as well. There is a reason that Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Israeli settlement are different articles, and we don't include the same information in each article. This quite obviously extends to legality arguments. Rather than desperately trying to disparage Stone's views at any cost, please think editorially about this encyclopedia article, and what actually belongs here. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Stones arguments are not presented: he is. If his arguments were at the center of this, we could easily provide counter-arguments. They are not. Stone is used to show some kind of disinterested legal scholar writing a dispassionate analysis and reaching the conclusion that the settlements are legal. In fact, Stone is not a disinterested observer: he has had been an outspoken supporter of Israel and Zionism from before 1948, which of course is relevant when he is used in such a context. His analysis is heavily unbalanced and has been criticized for being a partisan plea. As long as Stone is used as some kind of legal authority to show some kind of breach of consensus, the fact that he has been criticized for "betraying a life of scholarship to peddle a political position" is highly relevant. As long as Stone is used que Stone the legal scholar, relevant criticism and information should be allowed to stand.

There is also a problem of inconsistency. Criticism against the ICJ, in no way related to their analysis of the Israeli Settlements (jurisdictional issues and other parts of the judgment in no way related to the analysis on the settlements), has been allowed to stand for over a year, even though the article provided as a source has no criticism of the Courts finding in regard to article 49(6) of GCIV, and in fact provides supporting views: "Hebrew University Professor David Kretzmer also criticized the ICJ ruling, even though he agreed with the court's determination that the Jewish settlements in the West Bank were illegal" (the link is now dead). While I'm not surprised of these double standards, I find them quite revealing. --Cybbe 17:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

As has been pointed out before, being a supporter of Israel and Zionism does not mean one supports the settlements, and many Zionists and supporters of Israel oppose them, and consider them illegal. As well, the article, in fact, does provide a summary of Stone's arguments, and the section it is in also has the counterarguments - that is my doing. The article has been a mess for quite some time, the result of various editors pushing in their own specific concerns, making it fairly incoherent. As you might have noticed, I've finally had to get involved in fixing this, and have been slowly cleaning up the legal sections, re-organizing them so that they make sense, are coherent, are properly sourced, written in an NPOV way, do not duplicate, contain no original research, etc. It's vastly improved, but still needs plenty of work, which I will continue to do. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up and copyediting the article is all very good and well, but as per Palmiro and Cybbe, the critical reviews of Stone's book and perceptions of bias are highly relevant and cannot be censored. I am still waiting for you to provide the actual policy page or guideline that supports your claims in disallowing this material. It has been argued that it would be permissible and not well poisoning if it were only legal scholars who were allowed to criticize Stone. You claim that criticism from peer-review law journals is well poisoning. I ask you again to please cite what Wikipedia policy you are relying upon to make this distinction of what is allowed and what is not, and what is and what is not Well Poisoning.--AladdinSE 11:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, you may not have noticed, but the section in question is describing various arguments made for and against the legality of the settlements. As such, it deals mostly with the Fourth Geneva Convention (Articles 2 and 49), and delves a bit into the Mandate. These arguments are made by a number of sources, both pro and con. It is not a section which discusses Stone's book etc. Feel free to add further legal arguments pro and con regarding the settlements to this article, and if there is an article about Stone's book, feel free to add the book reviews to that article. Regarding your various strawman arguments, the issue here is relevance, and it is indeed policy that Wikipedia articles be on topic, and not delve into unrelated areas. Please stick to that issue, and even then only if you have something new to say. Also, your argument that "supporter of Israel" = "bias towards settlements" has been proven incorrect. If you want to to point out Stone's alleged bias by describing him as "the Jew Julius Stone" I will certainly listen to arguments for that, but otherwise, desist from repeating yourself on this topic. Work towards strengthening the legal arguments around the Geneva Convention etc., rather than disruptively reverting in irrelevant material, and filling talk pages with repetitions of already refuted and often strawman arguments. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Alladin, why do you have to be so stubborn? When mentioning an opinion of a scholar, it is regular to give him a brief introduction. If this viewpoint is controvercial, this should be mentioned. If the scholar is discredited, either on a particular topic or in general, then he is usually not used.

Now, his view is already presented as a minority opinion (ie, an opinion the majority disagrees with), so no problem there. Being criticized for being too pro-Israeli by no means discredits him as somebody holding a minority pro-Israeli opinion. In fact, this criticism offers nothing new: he is presented as someone who holds a minority pro-Israeli opinion, so additional criticism for holding a pro-Israeli opinion presents a redundancy, one that can be easily interpreted as an attempt to discredit him. This is a violation of Poisoning the well. To make it worse, the criticism you added

• On at least one occation is taken out of context. From "The book shows a fine legal mind at work, but it is a brief for the State of Israel, and not necessarily the only sustainable interpretation of the law." You only used one negative clause from the entire sentence. This is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV.

• Is not a criticism of the opinion mentioned in the article, but criticism of an entire book he wrote. Still, it is presented as a criticism of the opinion. As jayjg said earlier, for what we know Campbell heartfully agreed with the idea that the settlements are legal. Not that I find it likely, but we can not stick opinions to people even if they are likely to hold them (Can not claim that Ghandi was against using nuclear weapons against Japan unless he is quoted saying so by a credible source)

Unfortunately I didn't understand what you meant about "double standards" in the criticism of ICJ. I read it at least four times, but I just don't see what you mean. What statement exacty is the sinner? How is it supposed to well-poison ICJ's conclusion? Or is the problem something else?

Heptor _talk 22:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It was not taken out of context: he described the book as a brief for Israel (hardly a compliment), and that Stone was a prominent international scholar is not disputed (although the source given for it has been attacked from those who use that as justification for his inclusion). The NPOV-policy does of course not state that we should use a positive piece of information from a source if we use one critical one, what we _need_ to do is take the _relevant_ information and use it. There's no inconsistancy between having a brilliant legal mind and writing a legal brief, to the contrary.

As to the inclusion part, as Stones arguments aren't even presented, it's perfectly clear that he is at the center of attention in that sentence. As such, criticism of someone who is presented as some kind of unbiased legal scholar dispassionately discussing a topic, is relevant when it shows his bias, his unbalanced views and legal treatment, and his quite outspoken views regarding Israel and Zionism.

And the double standards regarding the ICJ have since been removed, I'm not too keen on looking through the edit log to see who did it, but I'm glad it was recognized as such when pointed out. --Cybbe 18:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Its difficult to breathe with this much hypocrisy and double standards. First, let the record dhow that no policy or guideline has been produced as repeatedly requested. Second, as for what have been disproved several times, you will find that your own arguments (Jayjg) have also been refuted countless times. Those of OR and Well-poisoing have even been refuted by editors who did not believe the material belonged. Do stop pretending that your reverts are not disruptive. You really must try and understand the simple concept that sometimes, people just disagree. When editors revert without good-faith participation in Talk, that is disruptive. I have conceded to you personally in the past when I was convinced. Failure to agree now is not a conspiracy of disruption. Arguments from Stone's book are being cited. Criticisms of bias against such a book from reputable sources could not be more relevant. The quotations are portrayed accurately, as CRITICISM OF THE BOOK from which the arguments are extracted. It is not just pointing out that it is a "minority opinion". That has nothing to do with it. Also, it is not "out of context". It is perceptions of bias that are pointed out. None of the criticisms impugn his "fine legal mind" which by the way, i would not object if you wanted to quote the entire sentence. Stone as I have said many times, is very accomplished. Now, these highly prestigious institutions are offering clear articulated criticisms of BIAS. Either produce the policy that supports this distinction you are making about what kind of criticism is allowed and what is not, or stop your disruption by deleting sourced material.--AladdinSE 09:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You keep erecting straw-man arguments regarding policy; please desist. If you ever plan to cite some criticisms of the arguments regarding Article 2 or article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention, please let me know; that's what this article talks about. It's not a book review. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no one on this page who edits in the disruptive way you do. You have laid out your case ad nauseam. It has been rejected by several editors. You've reverted and reverted and have been blocked for 3RR because of it. Enough already. Give it a rest. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You simply cannot produce the policy I have demanded, so you can only repeat your arguments. I have repeated mine. Both mine and your shave been supported by different editors. The 3RR was a mistake in good faith and I apologized publicly. You have reverted ad nauseam as well as I. I have assumed good faith and argued merits, you cry disruption because I (as well as others) did not agree. Why these double standards? Anyway, see below.--AladdinSE 23:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Heptor, who were you addressing when you asked about the ICJ? If it was me, I don't understand to what you are referring, please clarify.--AladdinSE 09:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I was addressing Cybbe, he claimed there was an inconsistency suggesting doubles standards[2]. I couldn't understand what exactly statement was inconsistent and why. I thought at first it was you who wrote that though, pardon the confusion. -- Heptor _talk 15:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course your right Aladdin, you have already refuted everything we have said and the only reason why we continue to edit is to disrupt.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I see that you have not answered any point of merit, Moshe, so I will chose not to respond to your polemic statement except to say, I have always assumed good faith and attributed your action to conviction rather than disruption.--AladdinSE 22:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This ought not to have been archived until the discussion was over, but as it is, I will post here in the archive, for the record to be complete. The article's organization and detail has changed so much over the last few weeks, that after my last edit restoring the sourced reviews of Stone's book, the material did not fit in with the flow of the article since the incorporation of much more specified material related to resolutions and geneva conventions etc. Therefore I am content to include the material in the Julius Stone article instead of here. Consequently I have just reversed that part of my edit. --AladdinSE 23:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacs in edit-lines?

SlimVirgin, please review Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Also, please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Thank you. Huldra 05:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll do that if you agree to review (or more accurately, read for the first time) all our other policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Q.E.D.. Regards, Huldra 05:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Golan Heights

How come Golans are included in the list? What exactly is called 'settlement' in Golan Heights? None of provided reference is mentioning golans. I'd suggest it would be removed both from intro and text. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 20:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any objections. So I'm assuming total agreement. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 07:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

How is a settlement in the Golan different from one in the West Bank? I don't understand your objection. Palmiro | Talk 16:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What is settlement in Golans? Some examples? None of sources refered to in intro mentioned golans! -- tasc ^talk_deeds 16:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait wait, I don't understand. Are you actually claiming that there are no Israeli settlements in the Golan?--AladdinSE 16:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

there are, there are british settlement on british isles and american settlement in new-york. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 17:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Our article on Golan Heights indicates that there are 34 settlements there. I am quite sure there is a signicant Israeli civilian population in the Golan now. Also, a google search shows many many (c. 570.000) web hits for Golan settlement, mostly relevant ([3]). Palmiro | Talk 16:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Jayjg's peculiar edit summary, the West Bank is the area of Palestine that was taken over by Jordan in 1949. It therefore includes East Jerusalem. That East Jerusalem (and indeed all the surrounding parts of the West Bank included in the Israeli municipality of Jerusalem) is dealt with separately in negotiations between the PLO and Israel is quite irrelevant. Saying "the West Bank and East Jerusalem" makes little sense, rather like saying "Lazio and Rome" (outside the domain of football, of course!). Palmiro | Talk 17:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No, Jordan captured both the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Jerusalem was always treated separately, from the time of the partition plan of 1947, and throughout all subsequent negotiations. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The West Bank did not exist until Jordan captured it. It was the term thereafter applied to the part of Palestine under Jordanian control, which included East Jerusalem. Topics of discussion in Israel-PLO negotiations are not of relevance here. Incidentally, our article on the West Bank seems reasonably clear about this. Palmiro | Talk 17:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Palmiro, your arguments and edits are self-contradictory: if the West Bank includes the eastern part of Jerusalem, then it's redundant to say "West Bank (including east Jerusalem)", but if it doesn't, then it's incorrect to say "West Bank (including east Jerusalem)". Either way, a mention of East Jerusalem has no place in the intro. Pecher ^Talk 17:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

East Jerusalem, being the most disputed area, regardless of how one wants to present it, is very much a subject of contention vis-a-vis settlements and absolutely has a place in the intro. Pecher's objection is just his opinion, but is not a neutral one by any means. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Not so. To emphasize the inclusion of something does not mean it is being treated as separate. It is not an unreasonable edit considering the highly divisive nature of the Jerusalem issue.--AladdinSE 17:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Pecher: My arguments are not self-contradictory, but yours are highly peculiar. East Jerusalem is generally regarded as part of the West Bank, but occasionally not; it therefore makes sense to say "the West Bank (inlcuding E Jlem)" for clarity. Your suggestion that if it is not part of the West bank it should not be included makes no sense at all; on the contrary, if it is not covered by the mention of the West Bank then it obviously needs to be mentioned separately. Finally, you have yet to explain why you deleted the Golan despite the evidence presented here that there are settlements there (as is also indicated in our Golan Heights article). Palmiro | Talk 18:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The statement "West Bank (including East Jerusalem)", if East Jerusalem is not part of the West Bank, defies logic as I have correctly pointed out above and as is evident to any reasonable person. In addition, I cannot see any evidence regarding the Golan Heights in this section; we don't use other Wikipedia articles as sources and a Google search is obviously not an argument. Pecher ^Talk 18:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The results of the google search, should you look at them, are indicative of many sufficiently reliable sources talking about settlements in the Golan, which should be enough to convince you that these settlements do indeed exist. My argument about how to phrase the reference to Jerusalem already addressed the point you are making in this last comment. Palmiro | Talk 18:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

A quick scan of the top results reveals: BBC (notable and unbiased experts in international law), Foundation for Middle East Peace (another highly regarded scholarly source), Radio Islam (perhaps the most reliable of them all), and of course, the Wikipedia article, which as we know, we don't cite as a source. Pecher ^Talk 18:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The BBC is a reliable news source, and is hardly likely to have imagined the presence of over 30 settlements in the Golan. It is equally unlikely that the Foundation for Middle East Peace would be talking about them if they didn't exist. Palmiro | Talk 18:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

And btw, is there any non-Israeli settlement in the Golans? -- tasc ^talk_deeds 18:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Syrian Druze villages. Most of the Syrian Arabs fled in 67.--AladdinSE 18:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If so, then why Jewish villages are "settlements", while Arab villages are just "villages"? Pecher ^Talk 18:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait wait, I don't understand. Are you actually claiming that you have some data regarding of portion of Druzes having Israeli citizenship? And you didn't share that knoweledge with us? How come? -- tasc ^talk_deeds 18:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, since you too are reverting "per talk", perhaps you would be good enough to explain your deletion of the Golan and E Jlem on said talk page too? Palmiro | Talk 18:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I am finding it difficult to believe that anyone is disputing that Israel built settlements in the Golan Heights after the territory was captured. I cannot fathom the justification for removing references to the Golan settlements in the intro and body. Please explain. Can we have a quick poll here, who actually supports removal of references to the Golan?--AladdinSE 18:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

British build in Britain, Americans in US. What is the problem with building? Oppose to 'quick' poll -- tasc ^talk_deeds 18:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting analogy. What if the British and the Americans started building towns in Iraq, and started paying Americans (or offering tax incentives) for them to move there? That's a more accurate analogy from the 'settlement' point of view.

no, it's not. the more accurate analogy would be western parts of usa pioneering. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 18:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

In your view perhaps. I don't think the native Americans of the time would share your sentiment. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

A quick poll does not mean the outcome determines a consensus or an agreement as to a final edit. I just want a show of hands to see if this is actually being taken seriously. What is the problem with building? Are you serious? No country in the world thinks that British and American building is being done illegally on occupied Land. Every nation, however, thinks that the Golan settlements are illegal. What can you possibly mean to accomplish here? Its ludicrous to remove references to Golan settlements.--AladdinSE 18:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

i don't see how every nation thinks so. Perhaps you should use more npov language. It's not ridiculous, 'cause there is no in fact any reference as well as 'settlement' in a sense applicable to gaza or west bank. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 18:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't see how every nation thinks so? You can't be serious! This article refers to Jewish settlements built by Israel in territories it captured in 1967. Druze communities obviously do not qualify. As for statistics, please see the article on the Golan Heights.--AladdinSE 18:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

no-no, articles' name is israeli settlements! druze communinity do qualify in this case. There is no such statistics anywhere in golans' article. I doubt that you have it either. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 18:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There seem to me to be two issues here: firstly, should the intro include in its scope East Jerusalem (and the separate question of whether to take in the Golan heights). Secondly, what I think is really tripping us up here is a means of flagging inclusion of both areas, without contradicting one other POV (that EJ is, or is not, included in the designation WB). Pecher's analysis is correct in that respect, at least, but doesn't address the issue of how to neutrally refer to that area/those areas without ambiguity or lack of clarity. But do we at leats concur that that's what's underlying our difficulty here? Alai 18:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If nothing else, whether or not East Jerusalem is part of the West Bank is at least disputed. Why on earth would you add more words to assert a relationship that is disupted? What could possibly be wrong with just listing the territories? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The dispute, and not asserting anything of the sort is exactly why I'm saying scoping is an issue. It's not satisfactory to simply say the article is concerned with the "West Bank", without sooner-or-later making it clear what the actual scope is. (Without "asserting" either usage to be correct.) Not doing will lead either to an inherent lack of clarity, if terms are used and never defined, or edit wars for the same reason. Alai 06:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Tasc: What are you on about?? The very first line of the article says Israeli settlements are communities built for Jewish settlers in areas that Israel captured following the 1967 Six-Day War. How on EARTH do pre-1967 Druze villages qualify?? How can you possibly remove references to post-1967 jewish communities built in the Golan Heights??? Jayjg: What is your position as to removal of references to the Golan Heights?--AladdinSE 19:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

To say that any new homes built in areas annexed by Israel, i.e. in the Golan Heights and the eastern part of Jerusalem, is blatant anti-Israeli POV. No government, including Israeli government, has ever called residential areas on its own land "settlements". Pecher ^Talk 19:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Pecher, as the Golan Heights article clearl states, Israel claims it never annexed the territory! In any case, no POV is being pushed here. I again point you toward the intro of the entire article: Israeli settlements are communities built for Jewish settlers in areas that Israel captured following the 1967 Six-Day War. Explain to me how following this definition is POV? How is excluding the Golan and EJ NPOV??--AladdinSE 19:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As the article also clearly states, the dispute over "annexation" is a dispute over the word; for all practical purposes, Golan Heights are now part of the Israeli terrtory. Pecher ^Talk 19:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You need to read Dennis Ross's book to see just how much the Golan has been considered a part of the Israeli territory! Ramallite ^(talk) 19:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Aladdin, you've raised a good point above, so I've changed the first sentence of the intro. Pecher ^Talk 19:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm reverting. You changed the entire fundamental premise of the article which has been in use as consensus for God knows how long.--AladdinSE 20:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If an Israeli goverment invest money in Druze villages, infrastructure, etc. Does it makes Druze village an Israeli settlement? If part of the population of 'druze' villages have israeli citizenship does it make those villages Israeli? If Druzes speak hebrew almost as native language and serve in צהל? does it makes villages Israeli? -- tasc ^talk_deeds 20:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No - it makes it a Druze settlement because Druze are the original people. Again, the word 'settlement' is not a dirty word, it means a previously uninhabited place, or a place whose original inhabitants were removed, that is used to establish a brand new community. Palestinians call them colonies. Israelis who are anti-peace call them 'communities'. The word 'settlement' has become an accepted intermediate. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

By this logic, each and every town and village in the world is a "settlement" because it was founded on a previously uninhabited place. This may be correct technically, but I'm afraid Londoners will object to their city being called a "settlement". Pecher ^Talk 21:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Londoners are not engaged in a fierce territorial dispute. No two powers or entities claim London or the land it sits on. --AladdinSE 05:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Since some of the settlements since 1967 have been dismantled, I can live with the rephrasing that inserts "some of" into the intro sentence, as long as there is no more talk of removing mention of the Golan. Who still wants to remove references to the Golan from this article? --AladdinSE 06:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"factual accuracy disputed"

In what way, Pecher, do you dispute the factual accuracy of the article? Palmiro | Talk 18:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Pecher seems to want to remove mention of Jerusalem altogether, because in his personal opinion, "a mention of East Jerusalem has no place in the intro". When his 3RR was up, he slapped on the tag, still without explaining WHY s/he thinks that it doesn't belong in the intro. If one wants to just push personal opinions without explaining why, perhaps a personal blog would be more appropriate. You can easily start a new blog site with iLife. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is as clear as a day that there are several different disputes pertaining to the article. To see what the disputes are all about, it is sufficient to read the discussion above. Pecher ^Talk 19:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Human rights groups

The vast consensus of international human rights groups views these settlements as illegal. I have reverted rephrasing says there exists divergent views, as if they are in any way balanced out. I can certainly include a deluge of sourced opinions that would dwarf the Israeli side, but it might be needlessly verbose. But let us not pretend, if you please, that there is some kind of "equally divided world opinion" where human rights groups are concerned.--AladdinSE 20:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

But let us also not pretend that the opposing view is so contemptuous as to be barely worth a mention without well poisoning. Also, you have violated 3RR. Please revert yourself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If you add opposing views, that creates a new synthesis, and so qualifies as OR under your interpretation.--1010011010 04:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

By no means I have pretended any such thing. Where has well-poisoning been inserted to disparage the ADL? --AladdinSE 05:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Apology for 3RR

I just wanted to apologize for accidentally exceeding the 3RR on April 11. I was under the mistaken impression that reverting three distinct threads did not count (Stone, Golan/East Jerusalem and human rights groups), and that it was 3 reverts per disputed edit that was the limit. Live and learn. WP's database was locked for maintenance earlier and I didn't have a chance to come back before tonight. Sorry again.--AladdinSE 06:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)