Gaza -legal status, or: why we still love Jayjg Options

[The Adversary]

Now, look at what this horrible anti-semitic hate-site (also known as "BBC") tells you about the legal status of Gaza:
""Under international law, Israel is still the occupying power in Gaza, although it no longer has a permanent military presence there."

And then look at what our beloved Jayjg, with the edit-line: "restoring NPOV" (!) inserts:
"Whether or not Israel still occupies the Gaza Strip, following its unilateral disengagement from there, is disputed."

Yeah!! "Disputed"! And based on the, oh, so very objective views of mr. Dore Gold

Way to go, Jay! We love ya!

[Shalom]

Now, look at what this horrible anti-semitic hate-site (also known as "BBC") tells you about the legal status of Gaza:
""Under international law, Israel is still the occupying power in Gaza, although it no longer has a permanent military presence there."

And then look at what our beloved Jayjg, with the edit-line: "restoring NPOV" (!) inserts:
"Whether or not Israel still occupies the Gaza Strip, following its unilateral disengagement from there, is disputed."

Yeah!! "Disputed"! And based on the, oh, so very objective views of mr. Dore Gold

Way to go, Jay! We love ya!

Not to rain on your parade, and not to conceal my obvious pro-Israel point of view, but...

Jayjg is 100% correct. "International law", especially coming from the British press, should not be accepted as neutral without close examination of the facts. I would agree that Israel is no longer "occupying" Gaza. Jayjg can probably find sources for notable people who say Israel is not "occupying" Gaza, so stating that the status of Gaza is disputed is NPOV.

I'm generally unimpressed with folks beating up on Jayjg for his pro-Israel bias. There are other pro-Israel editors, even admins (Number 57, Ynhockey, Amire80) but you folks never bother them. I guess Jayjg's checkuser access makes him a big target, but that has nothing to do with his opinions regarding Israel.

[The Adversary]

<snip>
Jayjg is 100% correct. "International law", especially coming from the British press, should not be accepted as neutral without close examination of the facts. I would agree that Israel is no longer "occupying" Gaza. Jayjg can probably find sources for notable people who say Israel is not "occupying" Gaza, so stating that the status of Gaza is disputed is NPOV.

{{cn}} !

There are other pro-Israel editors, even admins (Number 57, Ynhockey, Amire80) but you folks never bother them.

Good point.

[LessHorrid vanU]

Now, look at what this horrible anti-semitic hate-site (also known as "BBC") tells you about the legal status of Gaza:
""Under international law, Israel is still the occupying power in Gaza, although it no longer has a permanent military presence there."

And then look at what our beloved Jayjg, with the edit-line: "restoring NPOV" (!) inserts:
"Whether or not Israel still occupies the Gaza Strip, following its unilateral disengagement from there, is disputed."

Yeah!! "Disputed"! And based on the, oh, so very objective views of mr. Dore Gold

Way to go, Jay! We love ya!

Not to rain on your parade, and not to conceal my obvious pro-Israel point of view, but...

Jayjg is 100% correct. "International law", especially coming from the British press, should not be accepted as neutral without close examination of the facts. I would agree that Israel is no longer "occupying" Gaza. Jayjg can probably find sources for notable people who say Israel is not "occupying" Gaza, so stating that the status of Gaza is disputed is NPOV.

I'm generally unimpressed with folks beating up on Jayjg for his pro-Israel bias. There are other pro-Israel editors, even admins (Number 57, Ynhockey, Amire80) but you folks never bother them. I guess Jayjg's checkuser access makes him a big target, but that has nothing to do with his opinions regarding Israel.

Under which criteria, the Warsaw Ghetto was not under Nazi occupation (remember, this is not WP and Mike Godwin is not an editor here - I think). I realise that it is difficult, but the problem of Jayjg is how he abuses the powers he has and not on which subject. You may sympathise with the man's opinions all you wish, but if you think it appropriate to abuse some rights providing it is in areas which reflect your own bias'/opinions then you are no better than the abuser.

[Cla68]

Now, look at what this horrible anti-semitic hate-site (also known as "BBC") tells you about the legal status of Gaza:
""Under international law, Israel is still the occupying power in Gaza, although it no longer has a permanent military presence there."

And then look at what our beloved Jayjg, with the edit-line: "restoring NPOV" (!) inserts:
"Whether or not Israel still occupies the Gaza Strip, following its unilateral disengagement from there, is disputed."

Yeah!! "Disputed"! And based on the, oh, so very objective views of mr. Dore Gold

Way to go, Jay! We love ya!

Not to rain on your parade, and not to conceal my obvious pro-Israel point of view, but...

Jayjg is 100% correct. "International law", especially coming from the British press, should not be accepted as neutral without close examination of the facts. I would agree that Israel is no longer "occupying" Gaza. Jayjg can probably find sources for notable people who say Israel is not "occupying" Gaza, so stating that the status of Gaza is disputed is NPOV.

I'm generally unimpressed with folks beating up on Jayjg for his pro-Israel bias. There are other pro-Israel editors, even admins (Number 57, Ynhockey, Amire80) but you folks never bother them. I guess Jayjg's checkuser access makes him a big target, but that has nothing to do with his opinions regarding Israel.

Under which criteria, the Warsaw Ghetto was not under Nazi occupation (remember, this is not WP and Mike Godwin is not an editor here - I think). I realise that it is difficult, but the problem of Jayjg is how he abuses the powers he has and not on which subject. You may sympathise with the man's opinions all you wish, but if you think it appropriate to abuse some rights providing it is in areas which reflect your own bias'/opinions then you are no better than the abuser.

I don't think I've ever explicitely stated here or on Wikipedia which side I take in the Israel vs Palestine debate, but I think that Jayjg and his buddies would be surprised to know which side I support. As with most topics in Wikipedia, my view on the debate is irrelevant. All that matters is building neutral articles about that and other topics. Editors who are unable or unwilling to do that need to be shown the door.

Jayjg is apparently unable or unwilling to neutrally edit Israel-related topics, so he needs to be banned from touching any Israeli topics. It's that simple. Not just him, but any other editors who are also unable to follow the rules also need to recieve topic bans. Also, since he can't follow the rules, he needs to have his admin privileges removed, because it damages Wikipedia to have an admin who openly flouts the rules and refuses to acknowledge that or correct his/her behavior.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Wed 8th April 2009, 11:11pm

[Dzonatas]

This only shows how wikipedians, like Jayjg, are unable to be professional with other users when those other do not agree with Israeli Zionism. I'm mainly point towards the instances where the wikipedians act unbiased towards somewhere up until it relates to articles on religion, and namely those religions that support Israeli Zionism. (Note: LDS are Zionist, but obviously do not agree with Israeli Zionism, and I've seen complete bullshit put in Wikipedia about LDS Zionism, saying LDS supports the Israeli cause... *rolleyes*)

Anyways, there is evidence that Israel continues to apply military force in Gaza, especially with the usual reports of tunnels being bombed. That's occupation taken in the literal sense of the word.

The problem here only shows evidence on how pro-Israel groups try to get people to put blinders on and not view the occupation as in the literal sense of the word.

[Cla68]

This only shows how wikipedians, like Jayjg, are unable to be professional with other users when those other do not agree with Israeli Zionism. I'm mainly point towards the instances where the wikipedians act unbiased towards somewhere up until it relates to articles on religion, and namely those religions that support Israeli Zionism. (Note: LDS are Zionist, but obviously do not agree with Israeli Zionism, and I've seen complete bullshit put in Wikipedia about LDS Zionism, saying LDS supports the Israeli cause... *rolleyes*)

Anyways, there is evidence that Israel continues to apply military force in Gaza, especially with the usual reports of tunnels being bombed. That's occupation taken in the literal sense of the word.

The problem here only shows evidence on how pro-Israel groups try to get people to put blinders on and not view the occupation as in the literal sense of the word.

Perhaps we should start a thread sometime, if one hasn't been already, that addresses the issue of Israel and Wikipedia. I think it's obvious that Israel (as well as Palestine) is using the media in a propaganda war for what it apparently believes is for its ultimate survival as a nation. Perhaps they're right. I mean, what would have happened to the Israeli people if the Syrian, Jordanian, and Egyptian armies had overrun Israel during the Six-Day or Yom Kippur wars? Would it have been like Berlin in 1945 under the Russians?

Anyway, from Wikipedia's standpoint, it doesn't matter if Israel survives or not. All that should matter to Wikipedia is that the history of it gets recorded neutrally. Editors like Jayjg who try to use Wikipedia for propaganda need to be grasped by their belt and collar and deposited outside the premises.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Wed 8th April 2009, 11:32pm

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Under which criteria, the Warsaw Ghetto was not under Nazi occupation (remember, this is not WP and Mike Godwin is not an editor here - I think).

Interestingly, there are numerous Reliable Sources™ that have compared the Israeli tactics in Gaza to the Nazis' behavior toward the Warsaw Ghetto. Similar analogies were made at the time of the battle of Jenin. As an experiment, try to introduce such an analogy, with the appropriate sources (example), to a Wikipedia article and see what happens.

Jayjg is apparently unable or unwilling to neutrally edit Israel-related topics, so he needs to be banned from touching any Israeli topics. It's that simple. Not just him, but any other editors who are also unable to follow the rules also need to recieve topic bans. Also, since he can't follow the rules, he needs to have his admin privileges removed, because it damages Wikipedia to have an admin who openly flouts the rules and refuses to acknowledge that or correct his/her behavior.

A topic ban on editors would be problematic, because of the high probability of bad-faith accusations from opposing POV pushers. However, a topic ban on admins should be a slam dunk. They should be required to recuse themselves at the slightest hint of controversy, because the intimidating effect of the threat of use of admin powers quickly chills honest discussion.