User talk:PalestineRemembered
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive1, Archive2, Archive3, Oct 2007, Nov 2007, Dec 2007, Feb 2008, Apr 2008, May 2008, Jun 2008, Jul 2008,
Contents |
[edit] Operation Defensive Shield damage
PR, I was the one who wrote that sentence: ""the Palestinian Authority did not manage to fully address damaged infrastructure for approximately two years after the invasions." Note that I did not say 'failed,' but rather, 'did not manage.' My intent there was not to imply that the PA did not try to fix the damage (sometimes it tried and sometimes it did not, depending on the town, the state of finances, the interests of the PA members, etc.)but rather that the damage was so extensive that, in light of the lack of a tax base, the PA couldn't fully address the damage for two years. As there is no citable evidence saying that the PA was incapable of repairing the extent of the damage, I tried to write it in such a way that it could be interpreted however one likes. Regardless of one's political orientation and interpretations, the fact remains that the damage took years to address. Is it possible you are jumping to conclusions, assuming bad faith, too quickly? Or upon further reflection do you still think it's unclearly written/recommend I go in an edit is so the message is more overt? If it is, I would be happy to. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I feel that this treatment of the situation is misleading. The PA was virtually wiped out as a functioning administration, throughout the West Bank, with all records destroyed and everything smashed. Rebuilding of the refugee camps was hampered by several further incursions and a large number of killings of UN workers, including the British head of UNWRA reconstruction, shot dead inside a UN compound in Jenin. An allegation included with the UN report alleged that this camp was mined by the departing Israelis, and the EU reported that bomb-disposal teams were refused entry, during which time at least two more people were killed. UN investigators were never able to visit. I can't be sure whether the time-scale of this article on the Operation needs or should extend to the aftermath of re-building, but I am concerned at an impression left that Israeli interference ceased and that the PA was somehow left in control. PRtalk 21:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think you raise a good set of points, and if you can cite the above assertions, should definitely include them. I think that what you argue here makes it even clearer to me that, yes, the rebuilding should be mentioned. If there is a paragraph on the violence leading up to the operation (all of it currently about attacks on Israelis) then certainly one would think that a short section on the aftermath would be relevant. After all, the physical damage was considerable; it is thus a major aspect of the operation.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Question of Palestinian Refugees
I was a little tired, but looking back, i think it should indeed be reprhased. The main reason for this is that the article states "Although Israel accepts the right of the Palestinian Diaspora to return into a new Palestinian state, their return into Israel would be a great danger for the stability of the Jewish state". In my opinion, this is misleading, and you are right, since the paragraph starts talking about Palestine and then goes on to say about the return to Israel. Do you have any suggestions on how the paragraph should be rephrased? Sufitul (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your question to Ryan
What you may take from the conversation is that JAZ, NK, and TorahTrueJews.com, are currently considered fringe groups and may not be used for sources outside of articles about them. If you have another source which you believe may be problematic from a WP:RS perspective, you are more than welcome to drop me a line on my talk page or via e-mail for comment. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- These groups were considered fringe before your bringing them. As for YY; while your concern for a fellow editor's well-being is to be commended, suffice it to say that he too was very close to a ban for complete disregard for wiki policy. Feel free to ignore my advice, but I believe that if you were to put as much effort in to working with people whose opinions differ from yours, as opposedto against them, you would accomplish much more for the project. For example, my viewpoint tends to differ from that of, shall we say, Eleland or G-Dett, but I think that we have a mutual respect for each other's opinion and are able to work towards compromises. PR, if the facts are well established, you should be able to find it in acceptable sources. If you can only find such "facts" in fringe sources, that ipso facto should tell you how "reliable" those facts are. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Usual context questions?
I just read your post on my talk page. You twice referred to something "in the usual sense," what does that mean? There's not really an academic definition of in the usual sense. I presume you mean what is purportedly common knowledge and what people often this of as that way. But this is precisely the point of wikipedia, that academic who write most encyclopedia's with their biases and agendas don't have a room here. This same "usual sense" doesn't cut through on wikipedia. What were you looking for beyond the "usual sense"? Lihaas (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I was also looking through the christian and islamic terrorism pages and they link specific attacks and groups. However there is no link for jewish terrorism that lists and then goes on the detailed article.
In the itnerests of consistency and without bias, there should be some place for this. even if not on political violence. (But read my above text regarding a clarification from you, and then we can pursue this) Lihaas (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bard as an RS
Hi, For historical articles, neither Bard nor the new source are wp:rs. .... Ceedjee (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- There have been (and still are) some terrible sources used in articles, and I suspect Bard is one of them - has there been a discussion anywhere? PRtalk 19:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
