User talk:Michael Safyan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Michael_Safyan.
This is the user talk page for User:Michael Safyan, where you can send messages and comments to Michael Safyan.

Contents

[edit] Rules

  1. Please discuss matters at the relevant article's talk page, unless you must absolutely speak with me directly or you wish to contact me regarding a non-Wikipedia topic.
  2. Please contact me via email or IM, instead of this talk page, unless absolutely necessary. The relevant addresses are available on my user page.

[edit] Messages

Please read the rules above before posting a message. Post new messages at the bottom of the page.
Responses will be given on this page to all inquiries left on this page.
If you would like me to respond on your talk page, please say so explicitly.

[edit] Your efforts and edits (January 30, 2008)

Just want to say thanks, for all your recent efforts. it appears that you showed up at a good time, as a few editors have sort of gone on hiatus. so it's good to have you here to make sure there is some balance on some of the important and controversial articles. thanks. feel free to write any time. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I just looked over your talk page history. I was wondering, do you have an archive anywhere? just curious. looks like you've been having some fairly constructive interactions here. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
At the moment, I do not have a talk archive. Some interactions have been more constructive than others. I try to be accurate and objective, so for the most part my interactions have been constructive. However, altercations do occur on occasion, especially since I am a fan of WP:IAR when bureacratic rules allow editors to include inaccurate and POV content, and violating rules such as WP:3RR become necessary in order to correct the factual errors. In any event, thank you for your positive feedback. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I also want to say thanks; I think you've done a good job. I ran into the previous article sometime back in December or January and saw the trouble it was having. I must've kept the tab open for a couple weeks before I finally realized I wouldn't have a chance to participate there, although I could have added some things on historical perspective of media coverage. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Israeli Palestine Collaboration (February 4, 2008)

Hi Michael, have you considered signing up with us over at WP:IPCOLL? Your rewrite project at User:Michael Safyan/Media Coverage of the Arab-Israeli Conflict is, in my view, an example of exactly how we are aspiring to operate. <eleland/talkedits> 23:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you, Eleland. Your compliment is quite an honor. I will certainly consider it. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I will second that request, thanks for bringing up the tidbit, eleland. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael, another second. Though the invite is not contingent on quality of editing ;-) Kol tuv, HG | Talk 17:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (February 12, 2008)

Thanks for uploading Image:MediaCoverageArabIsraeliConflict CoercionCensorship DryBones.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, robot. If you weren't automated, then you would realize that the image was "orphaned" because it is part of a rewrite of an article, and the rewrite is not yet complete and, therefore, has not yet become a Wikipedia article. Please inform your programmers that they should have taken this kind of situation into account. Thank you. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 06:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Status (March 10, 2008)

thanks for the protection request. it sure was nice of one of the recent editors, by the way, to show up at an article with about 25 editors, and to inform us all that he was undertaking to rewrite the lead which the rest of us had in our ignorance failed to address. I'm so glad we have all these people to make these imperious statements to the rest of us. It;'s good to see that you stepped in to gain some clarity. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Note (March 12, 2008)

Your comments and efforts recently have been extremely worthwhile and beneficial. thanks for all your work. it is really a pleasure to find another Wikipedia editor so devoted to rationality and to clear use of logic and fairness. thanks for everything you've been doing. please stay in touch. I would like to have another editor to discuss things with, who is able to show some basic awareness of Wikipedia dynamics, and how to get things done around here. so far, that has not been too easy to find. What i often find for the most part is people who do aprpeciate my effors when i happen to agree with them, but then throw in little subtle jabs and digs the minute my even approach turns against the views they wish to espouse. so I really appreciate all your work and efforts, and hope to hear more soon. thanks very much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your positive feedback, Sm8900. It has been a pleasure working with you as well, and I will gladly stay in touch with you. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second Intifada RfC: WP:CANVASS (March 14, 2008)

Michael, you have notified eight editors with rather partisan views on Israel-Palestine issues about the RfC at Second Intifada, which is coming close to votestacking. After seeing the first five notices you sent, I alerted two editors myself and posted at the IP-COLL project, but I have stopped myself from alerting any others for fear of having this end up in a dueling match. Please do not continue to selectively notify editors of this debate. It tarnishes the outcome of an RfC which is designed to get outsider opinions, not opinions from regulars in I-P article editing with pretty well established views that lean to one side on the issue. You have also enlisted help from one of those editors in alerting other "sympathethic editors".[1] I have to say this is pretty poor form and if it contaminates the RfC outcome, we will I am afraid, have to hold another. Tiamuttalk 01:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, about this edit [2], I think the meaning difference issue is quite clear in the RfC question itself (which by the way, isn't how I would phrased the issue, but you opened the RfC without consulting others, so it's to be expected I guess). I'd prefer that people focus on the first sentence only, since that has been the core debate for the last three months. the other paragraph was added in an attempt to balance out your concerns, but I don't think it's the issue here. People are going to be confused by the relevance of the other changes to the discussion. Can you restore the sentence you deleted? Thanks. Tiamuttalk 01:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, thank you for your feedback. I was not aware of WP:CANVASS. However, given that the majority of the editors on the Second Intifada article are pro-Palestinian, and given that I contacted the editors to whom you refer openly on Wikipedia rather than covertly, I see nothing wrong with informing other pro-Israel editors of the RfC. If you would like to contact other editors, you should do so as well. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I've actually retracted the two personal requests I placed for editors to join the debate. I prefer not to define people in terms of "camps" or call upon the different "camps" to come to battle. I would prefer that we attract editors who don't edit in this area at all, rather than those who do and are viewed as being partisan by others, so as to get some outside perspective. As for your assertion that the majority of the editors at Second Intifada are "pro-Palestinian", I strongly disagree. There seems to be a relatively diverse bunch represented there. Anyway, we'll see what happens. I for one, hope that common sense and a respect for WP:NPOV and WP:RS prevails. Over three months of discussion, I believe we have covered that "uprising" is much more common among both scholarly and mainstream sources than "wave of violence". I don't really understand your continued resistance to its inclusion or how soliciting the views of those you believe share in your general POV to an RfC on the matter is going to help, but I guess the process will just have to play itself out. Tiamuttalk 04:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your post on the WP:IPCOLL discussion page. I, too, hope that WP:NPOV and WP:RS prevail -- of course, what I perceive to be NPOV and what you perceive to be NPOV differ greatly. I agree that "uprising" appears more frequently; however, I again stress that it appears frequently as a translation and only rarely as a description. I have no problem copying the language of these sources and using the translational phrase ", or second Palestinian uprising,"; however, I take strong objection to using the term in a way which is both POV and which differs from the usage in the sources. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Michael, with all due respect, the sources use it both as a translation and as a description. It is by far the most common description, vastly outstretching "wave of violence". I believe I have been very patient and fair throughout this process. For three months, I let "wave of violence" stand in order to show respect for your position. When I finally took the intiative of bringing the text in line with the sources, you opened the RfC. However, instead of allowing the RfC process to work as it should (i.e. by alerting uninvolved editors to the dispute who can bring in an outside opinion), you instead canvassed editors with partisan views of the subject in an attempt to "stack the vote" as it were in your favour. This is not what the RfC process is for and I'm frankly deeply disappointed with your actions in this regard. Tiamuttalk 13:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Tiamut, I really don't care how the vote comes out, if it shows that responses fall on pro-Palestinian/pro-Israel, demonstrating that it is, indeed, a POV issue. The RfC was to make a point -- that it is a POV issue, that Israel, Israelis, and their advocates hotly contest the interpretation that the Second Intifada was an uprising -- and to boost my own morale -- to confirm, after the silence of the other pro-Israel editors (it turns out that Armon has IDF duty and the others were busy), that this was indeed the case -- than for making a decision about the Wikipedia article. However, I do hope that after seeing that this interpretation is hotly disputed, that you will be more willing to work towards a compromise version, which uses "uprising" clearly as a translation and not as an interpretation. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Michael, please read WP:POINT. Also, not all of "Israel, Israelis or their advocates hotly contest" the use of the term uprising. We reviewed a number of Israeli sources together at the talk page over the last three months that do use the term without any reservations. Using an RfC to "boost your morale" or "make a point" by canvassing known partisans is not what the process is for. All you have proven through this exercise is that some Israelis vocierfoursly object to the use of term. As I said on the talk page, there are 192 countries in the world and Israel is just one of them. Since we write using a worldwide perspective, giving WP:UNDUE weight to fringe minority viewpoints while ignoring what the vast majority of reliable scholarly sources have to say on a subject is not in line with WP:NPOV, nor does it accord with WP:LEAD. If you want to include a paragraph or section in the body of the article that outlines the the viewpoint of some of the sources you brought to the table who allege that the use of "uprising" is euphemistic, by all means go ahead. But we do not censor well-sourced information that defines the subject at hand simply because a fringe minority strongly disagrees with a widely used definition. With respect, Tiamuttalk 04:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, WP:POINT doesn't apply; the "point" (perhaps I should have used a different word) pertains to how the Wikipedia article ought to be worded. Secondly, the vast majority of the world also believes that suicide bombings are acts of terrorism, but we do not use the word "terrorism" because it is not neutral. Thirdly, it doesn't matter how many people espouse a point of view; so long as it is a point of of view, the matter is subjective, and Wikipedia is to be a purely objective source of information. WP:UNDUE requires that a minority point of view not be misrepresented as a more prominent point of view than it actually is; it does not allow an article to present a point of view, majority or otherwise, as a matter of fact. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-18 Second Intifada (March 19, 2008)

Just notifying you, that as you have been involved in the discussion regarding the Second Intifada article, which is now the subject of a MedCab case, I'm notifying you of this as you may wish to partake in this case to discuss a resolution to this dispute. Feel free to leave a comment on my talk page. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-18 Second Intifada is on my watchlist. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pallywood (March 26, 2008)

Michael, I'm concerned that some editors may be trying to turn Pallywood into a POV fork of Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. You expressed a similar concern a while ago. You might wish to see my questions at [3] - I'd be interested in your views, and it would be helpful if you could comment on the issue at Talk:Pallywood. Thanks in advance. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unhelpful tone (March 27, 2008)

I wasn't asking for your help, specifically. I'd appreciate if you were to cut down on the negative innuendo. Thx. El_C 06:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, if you find an admin who has the time and patience to go through the history, by all means, they can take over (gladly). But either I get a summary, or as mentioned elsewhere, arbitration enforcement in this article may turn rather arbitrary, fast. Because I'm not going to allow that revert war over this passage that has been resurfacing every few weeks to keep on going. One way or the other. Thx. El_C 07:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Response here. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Response removed by El C. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles (April 13, 2008)

As a result of the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to Israel, Palestine, and related conflicts. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described below.

  • Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
  • The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
  • Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. PhilKnight (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second Intifada (May 12, 2008)

I strongly urge you to add your comment here, whether you accept/reject the proposal that was given by email. The mediation must progress. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 05:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I already responded to your email, but ok. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed you did, but this !vote, ie, acceptance or rejectance, must be publicaly viewable, for those who will oversee the discussion, most likely 3 arbitrators. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 05:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A reply (May 21, 2008)

...awaits you on my talk page. Very best, Hertz1888 (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up and for your generous response. Have a good day. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A question (May 28, 2008)

Hi, Michael, I was just talking to the imprisoned Nishidani about something. I do agree with him about the word "uprising" I think you are reading nonexistent connotations into it. I was thinking of a couple of examples which I thought might change your mind. At the end of the second World War, the allies feared, in fact were pretty convinced, that there would be a Nazi uprising against their occupation, and carefully prepared for it. In fact it never happened, the Germans had no fight left in them. But if I can find a quote from that era using "Nazi uprising" might that sway your mind a little that this word has no positive connotation? The other example I had in mind was the Beer hall putsch or other fascist / Nazi rebellions. Cheers,John Z (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but no, that doesn't sway me. Why would it? It is the common, prevalent, and contemporary usage of a word which defines what it means, not an isolated exceptional and historical usage. The term "uprising", today, is most often used to describe what is perceived to be, for the most part, legitimate and justified. The term is most often preferred by those who commit them. When the actions of those who commit them are not perceived as legitimate and justified, the terms "rebellion", "insurgency", or "insurrection" are the ones applied. A single example to the contrary is insufficient to convince me otherwise. Also, given that the pro-Palestinian editors are so adamant to have the term "uprising" included, while a large block of pro-Israel editors strongly object to its usage, I am quite convinced that the term is not neutral.
Now, can you explain something to me? Why is it that you and your fellow editors strongly feel the need to describe a long and complex series of events with a single word? It is not as if I am proposing that we describe the Second Intifada as a "terror war" (which is the prevalent Israeli opinion) or a "wave of Israeli-Palestinian violence" (which is, in my opinion, quite generous, in that it ascribes equal culpability and acts of violence to each side). To the contrary, my proposal (proposal #1) does not use any single word or simple phrase to sum up the entire Second Intifada. Rather, it leaves it to the rest of the article to accurately and neutrally describe all the events which comprised the Second Intifada and leaves it to the reader to internalize these events in whatever condensed form he/she chooses. Why do you and the other pro-Palestinian editors feel so strongly that the Second Intifada must be immediately, indisputably, and irrevocably termed an "uprising" from the start of the article? Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that there is another point of view?
Michael Safyan (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, just asking. I personally am not married to "uprising." I'll look at other versions and think about them if I have time. I was just trying to give you pause. I agree that "common, prevalent, and contemporary usage" is what counts. But we just differ as to what it is. IMHO "uprising" has nothing to do with legitimacy and is not used that way, and never has been. The term is preferred by almost everybody as the most neutral, blandest, most general, most innocuous, most ambiguous and least informative word. Look how simple the word is; look at the latinate parallels insurgency and insurrection, which are etymologically just forms of up + rising deriving from Latin. Along with "rebellion" too, they are not used as you state them to be used. I can give you pretty strong evidence on that. The distinction there is that these tend to be more organized than "uprising" and do sound a bit odd for the intifada. I personally wouldn't object too much to "rebellion." You, and to a lesser extent Nishidani, are seeing nonexistent distinctions. I mean, "uprising" is so general that "terrorist campaign" doesn't contradict it, plenty of uprisings are partly terrorist campaigns. The intifada is an uprising, part of which is a terrorist campaign. People think of Israel 1947-8 that way too sometimes. The size of the bloc of "pro-Israel" editors is not all that important, unfortunately politics may intrude, both ways of course. What matters is the smaller number of native-speaker pro-Israel editors. Non-native pro-Palestinians or pro-Martians shouldn't have much of a say either.
There is nothing at all odd sounding about "Nazi uprising" which should be the case from your argument. I have been basically uninvolved here, as the cost-benefit ratio seems rather high! - The difficulty in acknowledging another point of view comes from the belief that I think the overwhelming majority of neutral native-English speakers, pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian or whatever would have. There is no other POV, for this has nothing to do with the I-P conflict, it has to do with the English language, and what you are saying about an English word is simply not true. I think we agree that we should write in standard English, we just differ as to what it is. This is a factual matter, about which we agree that there is a fact of the matter. My father is not a native speaker and I picked up some (mostly pronunciation) oddities from him, some of which I only realized after several decades, one in the last year. However odd the "correct" thing may sound to one's ears, however unwilling one is to realize that one has been speaking oddly for decades, surely the rational thing to do is to acquiesce to the majority on such matters, to realize that one can speak oddly?
The strength of the opposition comes from - well, to exaggerate a little - suppose that someone went into an article and insisted that "red" is POV, too associated with communism, and "vermilion" or "crimson" must be used instead. He would meet with strong opposition too. I imagine you see it the other way though! :-) Cheers,John Z (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Suppose that "uprising" is neutral. If, as you say, "uprising" is the "most ambiguous and least informative word", then why bother to include it? In terms of good writing, what does it add? I feel to see the need for "uprising" or, for that matter, any short and simple word/phrase summing up a long and complex sequence of events. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, one can circumlocute around it. It's just that most articles about wars will include the word "war" somewhere, and most articles about uprisings will have the word "uprising." The introduction to any article tries to tell a reader what the article is about, and saying that it is an uprising is the quickest way to say this, and doesn't say anything that isn't true or non-neutral, that would need further qualification. I personally would use the word because I think brevity is the soul of wit. A paragraph that used the word would likely be shorter than one that doesn't, because it shouldn't have an Israeli view, Arab view problem; uprising is an English word that perfectly well describes it from the Israeli view too. If non-native English speakers in Israel disagree, well, too bad, Americans and Brits shouldn't tell them how to speak Israeli Hebrew either. I just think that far too much energy has been expended on this, and as I said am not married to the word. When I write I try to achieve some permanence. In all likelihood, if the word is not used, if you become inactive, then in a year or five, people will forget about this foofaraw, someone, pro-Israel or pro-Arab will write something using the word, no one will object (this assumes the rightness of my position of course) and then it will be as if all this never occurred. Are you sure that other people aren't agreeing with you about this because they very much respect you (as I do) and agree with you in general? - that if you hadn't taken this view that anyone else would have taken it as strongly? If you don't think that there is a single neutral word acceptable to all ( I said rebellion would be pretty much OK with me too) don't you think that is something odd about the English language? I mentioned insurrection and insurgency; there was a fizzled movement in international law circles a few decades ago to define "insurgency" as something more than a local unrest, but less than a full-fledged "belligerency" - I think these jurists looked for the most neutral word they could find, and chose one with cognates in the main languages of international law, and which happens to be very similar to "uprising." As I said, the main problem is that it connotes a bit too much organization and solidity for this case. Regards, John Z (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fisk, Independent & Uranium (June 11, 2008)

I see you've been working through Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict - can you explain why the 2006 Fisk/Uranium article/story is an example of "controversial" writing? As best I can tell, Fisk reports that two sets of tests have found traces of Uranium at this bombed Hezbollah bunker and speculates (quite conservatively) that a mystery (presumably DU tipped bunker-buster) has been used on it. YnetNews either repeats or confirms what Fisk has said about the tests, and a professor of military science is reported saying the same. A later report (from samples apparently taken many, many miles away) says that Israel has not used Uranium in munitions. But this firm conclusion is only in the headline, not the body of the article (notoriously, headlines are not written by the reporters, and sometimes wrongly state the content of articles). Fisk also says that Israel has lied, denying the use of White Phosphorus and then admitting it (almost confirmed by YnetNews here). So I see nothing "controversial", from the media angle, the actual story is "newspaper forces (claims to force?) one retraction, on scent of another dodgy weapon but has drawn blank (for the moment)". PRtalk 15:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe we already discussed this issue on the talk page of Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Please see the talk archive. Furthermore, since this is an issue directly related to the article, I would prefer that we discuss it solely on the talk page; that way, if contention over this matter occurs in the future, then the various parties will have a record of our current discussion. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)