Jayjg returns to his POV pushing, on I/P topics, of course Options

[asad112]

Do you have any idea how long of a list "according to {X}, the settlements are illegal" would be? It would include, for starters, the UNSC, the UNGA (and almost every member state), the ICJ, the ICRC, the high contracting parties of the Geneva Conventions, the EU (and each member state), the Arab League (and each member state), the African Union (and each member state), the OIC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

yeah, some elements within the UN and world bodies - corrupted by energy politics - have joined the bandwagon over jewish pizza huts in the desert. of all things wrong in the middle east, these settlements have generated more noise and cries than anything else.

difference between legality and reality. im not an expert on israeli settlements, and i dont have a strong opinion towards them either way, but i find the hypocrisy of international critics quite amusing.

funny to see muslim states, whose entire existence is predicated on the conquest and theft of land they stole from jews, christians, kurds, and rivaling muslim tribes, challenge the legitimacy of a jewish presence in the west bank.

lest we forget the arab states confiscated a land more than double the size of israel, converting synaoguges and churches into mosques, and flooding their land with arab/muslim "settlers."

think about it. how much jewish land does the muslim world currently sit on? quite a lot. the settlement issue is an issue that should be subject to negotiations per oslo 1, unfortunately it is used as a lightening rod to stall negotiations and peace talks. shall israel embark on a revenge-based warfare to take back their land? keep in mind jews lived in refugee camps in israel - much like the palestinians in the arab-controlled areas of palestine - well into the 60s and early 70s.

You should have followed all that up by saying, "Palestinians only exist because Jews came around and made them Palestinians."

[Forward!]

I'm sorry guys, but this isn't AN/I. Is there a reason we're exploding into drama? Can't you keep it all on-wiki, where it belongs?

[Milton Roe]

I'm sorry guys, but this isn't AN/I. Is there a reason we're exploding into drama? Can't you keep it all on-wiki, where it belongs?

All Wikipedia-related debate belongs on WR, especially in cases where you could not have the debate on WP.

The debate on whether the Jews "really really" own such and such land because YHWH or some other Sinai god gave it to them, a long time ago-- is especially bad. Problem: the Jews have since lost the crucial title deed with the glowing signature, and God's REMAX company has not been returning phone calls. Strangely, a lot of Jewish land deeds seems to be signed by somebody named "Linda Green," a V.P. who does not exist.

http://southfloridalawblog.com/2011/04/06/...s-robo-signers/

But the Israelis figure they have the right to kill people over the matter anyway, just on hearsay about what happened 3000 years ago. I don't think I'd get very far pointing out the stupidity of just ideas in TALK sections of WP articles. But they are a subtext of much of what goes on there.

So, we point out the stupidity HERE.

[gomi]

I'm sorry guys, but this isn't AN/I. Is there a reason we're exploding into drama? Can't you keep it all on-wiki, where it belongs?

Because systemic analysis and criticism of Jayjg's editing usually gets the critic a quick trip to ban-land. For POV-pushers of lesser wiki-power I might agree (and we have the Annex for that), but Jay is in a different category. It isn't even his particular POV, though it is a controversial one. It is that he was admonished for his behaviour in the past, partially de-frocked, used his usual tactic of laying low, and now he is back in the fray, pushing hypocritical arguments. That certainly merits discussion here.

[Forward!]

Ah - it wasn't the discussion I was complaining about, more that it was deteriorating into your usual Arab-israeli mudslinging nonsense. I found myself subconciously skipping over some posts, which normally happens only when there's tiresome drama going down. What I want is actual debate about it, rather than just a straight copy of a WP talk page!

Rant over. And Milton/gomi, I've taken your comments to heart and will bear them in mind - my apologies if I stepped over a line :-)

HOWEVER

gomi: you said that he was "admonished for his behaviour in the past, partially de-frocked, used his usual tactic of laying low, and now he is back in the fray" - that sounds to me like a Cirt-ain editor we've discussed recently who arbcom got fed up with and desyssopped. Is there not a chance of this happening here?

[gomi]

Ah - it wasn't the discussion I was complaining about, more that it was deteriorating into your usual Arab-israeli mudslinging nonsense.

Yeah, that's a perennial problem here. People want to jabber about how many angels (or terrorists) can dance on the head of a pin, rather than talk about Wikipedia's coverage thereof.

gomi: you said that he was "admonished for his behaviour in the past, partially de-frocked, used his usual tactic of laying low, and now he is back in the fray" - that sounds to me like a Cirt-ain editor we've discussed recently who arbcom got fed up with and desyssopped. Is there not a chance of this happening here?

Well, he was de-Checkuser'd and whatnot. Fully losing his admin bits will take a much more egregious act of tomfoolery, I suspect. If anything, being de-CU'd has probably somewhat insulated him from a certain level of criticism, for a while yet. It's too bad -- he's a big jerk that all the little jerks like to emulate.

[Detective]

Yeah, that's a perennial problem here. People want to jabber about how many angels (or terrorists) can dance on the head of a pin, rather than talk about Wikipedia's coverage thereof.

So, if any post is a rant about the topic itself, rather than about what Jayjg is doing, is it possible to delete the post or at least move it to the annex tarpit? In the unlikely event that anyone ever produces a sensible post about the topic itself, I suppose it could go into Politics.

This post has been edited by gomi: Tue 13th September 2011, 11:07pm

[Silver seren]

There has yet to be any response to my comment on the Israeli settlements talk page.

[Cla68]

There has yet to be any response to my comment on the Israeli settlements talk page.

Try adding it to the intro and see what happens. Talk page discussions are one thing, it's the article content, especially the intro which is the only thing a lot of Wikipedia customers read, where the rubber really hits the road.

[Silver seren]

There has yet to be any response to my comment on the Israeli settlements talk page.

Try adding it to the intro and see what happens. Talk page discussions are one thing, it's the article content, especially the intro which is the only thing a lot of Wikipedia customers read, where the rubber really hits the road.

It's already in the first line of the article.

Oh, and I found a much better source. The International Court of Justice's (The Hague's) 2004 Advisory Opinion on the "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory".

On page 10, it reads, "The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of
international law." See here.


But I don't want to add a sixth source to that sentence. Which of the sources do you guys think is the weakest and thus can be replaced?

[Milton Roe]

But I don't want to add a sixth source to that sentence. Which of the sources do you guys think is the weakest and thus can be replaced?

I think that sentence should have ten good cite notes. For purity. And for the in-your-face WP:V, WP:RS hell of it.

[Silver seren]

But I don't want to add a sixth source to that sentence. Which of the sources do you guys think is the weakest and thus can be replaced?

I think that sentence should have ten good cite notes. For purity. And for the in-your-face WP:V, WP:RS hell of it.

I'm just amazed at what the actual references look like. No wonder FA references lists are so long if each reference is that bloated.

(And, yes, I got the sarcasm)

[EricBarbour]

I think that sentence should have ten good cite notes. For purity. And for the in-your-face WP:V, WP:RS hell of it.

Don't kid yourselves. You could have 10,000 good cite notes. If Jay or one of his Zionista-extreme
minions wants it gone, it's gone. They'll just wait several months, until everyone else has forgotten
all this, and then go and kill it.

[Cla68]

But I don't want to add a sixth source to that sentence. Which of the sources do you guys think is the weakest and thus can be replaced?

I think that sentence should have ten good cite notes. For purity. And for the in-your-face WP:V, WP:RS hell of it.

I'm just amazed at what the actual references look like. No wonder FA references lists are so long if each reference is that bloated.

(And, yes, I got the sarcasm)

You can put all the citations in a single footnote is you want, but if the rest of the article uses separate footnotes for each citation, you might find that doing it that way will screw other editors to the ceiling. Again, if you attribute the statement, it will have a much better chance of remaining.

[HRIP7]

But I don't want to add a sixth source to that sentence. Which of the sources do you guys think is the weakest and thus can be replaced?

I think that sentence should have ten good cite notes. For purity. And for the in-your-face WP:V, WP:RS hell of it.

I'm just amazed at what the actual references look like. No wonder FA references lists are so long if each reference is that bloated.

(And, yes, I got the sarcasm)

You can put all the citations in a single footnote is you want, but if the rest of the article uses separate footnotes for each citation, you might find that doing it that way will screw other editors to the ceiling. Again, if you attribute the statement, it will have a much better chance of remaining.

Cla68 is right, Nableezy (even though I admit I didn't think so at first, and feel the talk page discussion you have been subjected to has been quite vexatious).

Just say something like, "The United Nations Security Council[1], the International Court of Justice[2] and the reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions[3] consider the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law, while Israel maintains ..."

There is also a malformed sentence in the third para of the lead, "Despite Israel's armistice agreements having all being with High Contracting Parties ..."

[nableezy]

Oh, and I found a much better source. The International Court of Justice's (The Hague's) 2004 Advisory Opinion on the "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory".

On page 10, it reads, "The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of
international law." See here.

That source is already used for the position of the ICJ. You cant take the position of the ICJ and apply it to the "international community" as the ICJ is only a part of that community. Which is why each of the cited sources explicitly says that the "international community" holds the view that the settlements are illegal.

I'm just amazed at what the actual references look like. No wonder FA references lists are so long if each reference is that bloated.

They are only that long because I wanted to include the quotes from the source. Some of them cannot be accessed without a subscription to JSTOR or another journal repository and I am beginning to dislike linking to Google Books for the rest.

Cla68 is right, Nableezy (even though I admit I didn't think so at first, and feel the talk page discussion you have been subjected to has been quite vexatious).

Just say something like, "The United Nations Security Council[1], the International Court of Justice[2] and the reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions[3] consider the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law, while Israel maintains ..."

There is also a malformed sentence in the third para of the lead, "Despite Israel's armistice agreements having all being with High Contracting Parties ..."

But attribute to who? All the sources listed say that the "international community" considers settlements illegal. Do you think that the sentence should be:

According to Adam Roberts, Marco Pertile, Daphne Barak-Erez, Catriona Drew, and the International Labour Organization [Those are the five sources currently cited], the international community considers Israeli settlements illegal under international law.

What if I add the BBC, the Guardian, the Independent, AFP, AP, and a host of other news organizations that each explicitly say that the "international community" considers the settlements illegal under international law? Should they also be attributed.

There are two problems here, the first is the idea that the sentence "The IC considers settlements illegal" is a "contentious statement", and the second is what needs to be attributed. Jay has been arguing that we need to attribute to individual authors (forgetting that several of these sources are in peer-reviewed journals and written by noted scholars in the field of international humanitarian law) what they attribute to the international community. I cant see how that is possible. if that is the case then every sentence on Wikipedia will need to be written in the form "According to X, ..." The attribution is already there, it is attributed to the international community. Your suggested sentence leaves out a host of other parties, including nearly every single state on the planet. Why should we only say that the UN, the ICJ and the High Contracting Parties are the ones consider it illegal? What about the ICRC, or ... .The reason I put "international community" is that the sources group all these parties in to that phrase. In the body sure, we can list each relevant organization and state that has made an explicit statement, we can cite each UNGA or UNSC resolution and its voting record, we can cite official statements by the UK or the EU or by whoever. But by giving just a subset of who considers it illegal we make it seem that there is not the overwhelming consensus across the world on this question that there actually is. And that is the whole point for Jay, he wants to make it seem as though this is a real "dispute" with positions that have equal standing in the world, that it is just a "POV" or some other bullshit like that. He is purposely trying to confuse the reader into believing that that the legal status of these colonies is something that is hotly debated. It isnt.

But if we want to take about Jay specifically, I think what to look at is the way he frames the debate at the NPOV/N and RS/N. Compare his opening posts there to what was actually being discussed on the talk page. Ive seen this a number of times, Jay gets involved in a dispute and goes to some noticeboard with a bass ackwards description of the actual problem so that he can point to some consensus at the talk page. He never notifies anybody of those discussions and he purposely evades questions on the context of the dispute. That modus operandi is both effective and annoying as fuck. it is effective because the result is often a bunch of uninformed tools show up nodding their heads to whatever Jay has to say, on occasion even saying that they have no idea what is being discussed but nevertheless they agree with Jay.

This post has been edited by nableezy: Wed 14th September 2011, 5:12pm

[gomi]

[Modnote: All posts that are not even a little about Wikipedia were (and will continue to be) split out to the "Politics" forum.]

[The Adversary]

... He never notifies anybody of those discussions ..

Officially.

The "disputed" issue is one of the first things I noticed about Jayjg; how he pushes that at each and every possibility.

Say, how many professors of law has there been in the world since 1967? I would have thought the numbers would be in the thousand, if not tens of thousands. However, when it comes to Israel only one counted..... Julius Stone!
I kid you not.

Waaaaay back in 2005-6 Jayjg et. al pushed the view that "some legal scholars" (read: Julius Stone) disagree with the point that the settlements were illegal under international law…..and they fought tooth and nail to keep the fact that Stone had "a life-long commitment to Israel" (cited to his own web-site) out of WP.

Jayjg always cited things like "poisoning the well" , and, especially , "WP:UNDUE". Just look at the history of the Stone-article; Jayjg must have removed it dozens of times with the edit-line "WP:UNDUE".

However, the tiny little question of why include the views of Stone, and not of any thousand other law-professor…, now, wasn´t that a gross violation of "WP:UNDUE"?
Obviously not, according to Jayjg et al.

Here is another place with the same issue.

[Sololol]

... He never notifies anybody of those discussions ..

Officially.

The "disputed" issue is one of the first things I noticed about Jayjg; how he pushes that at each and every possibility.

Say, how many professors of law has there been in the world since 1967? I would have thought the numbers would be in the thousand, if not tens of thousands. However, when it comes to Israel only one counted..... Julius Stone!
I kid you not.

Waaaaay back in 2005-6 Jayjg et. al pushed the view that "some legal scholars" (read: Julius Stone) disagree with the point that the settlements were illegal under international law…..and they fought tooth and nail to keep the fact that Stone had "a life-long commitment to Israel" (cited to his own web-site) out of WP.

Jayjg always cited things like "poisoning the well" , and, especially , "WP:UNDUE". Just look at the history of the Stone-article; Jayjg must have removed it dozens of times with the edit-line "WP:UNDUE".

However, the tiny little question of why include the views of Stone, and not of any thousand other law-professor…, now, wasn´t that a gross violation of "WP:UNDUE"?
Obviously not, according to Jayjg et al.

Here is another place with the same issue.

Ah yes, I'm sure Mila's Pen Pal group could shed a little more light on the matter.

Relying on Julius Stone is, at first glance, a strong position; he was a prolific international law scholar and probably the best jurist to come out of University of Sydney. Sadly, his position on Israeli matters has been shredded in scholarly articles (many of them from his old employer, US) as products of emotion and not up to his usual level of work. If you read him you'll see why.

Maybe I've been brain-washed by Haaretz or maybe it's because Hamas pays my dental bills to push their POV but Jay & Co.'s strategy reminds me of the climate change deniers/creationists: amplify the voices of your pet experts to convince people that the issue is at least controversial in the relevant academic field. It's not a complicated legal question. Partisans are free to invent nonsense categories such as "defensive wars", "disputed territories", etc.* but anyone who bothers to read the Geneva Convention, the UN Charter or the Hague Convention is going to conclude that you can't annex occupied land no matter how nice the rhetoric.

*(These are only a few of the long and hilariously flawed arguments used, other favorites include: "these are temporary, militarily necessary civilian settlements", "the British meant you Arabs to move to Jordan", ad nauseum.)

[EricBarbour]

[Modnote: All posts that are not even a little about Wikipedia were (and will continue to be) split out to the "Politics" forum.]

I think the whole thread belongs in the Annex. They're talking about trying to "fix" an article that the Israel gang wants to control.

Rarely in the past did people get away with this--the Israel extremists are more patient and more obsessed.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Fri 16th September 2011, 3:09am