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

[Sololol]

I checked back in on ol' Jay just to see what he was up to. He'd always seemed pretty mild-mannered when I'd run into him. If anyone would like to see Jayjg in all his full POV pushing glory go take a gander at his recent activity. After a stint of good behavior he's back at it again.

A particularly uproarious line culled from Jayjg's offensive against including the BBC as a source for "the international community thinks settlements are illegal":
"As is obvious, rock-solid sources also consider the term "international community" itself to be essentially meaningless; I'm sorry that this points out a fundamental flaw in the article's first sentence. You can try to play literary acrobatics as much as you want to, but there are several sources, written in the highest quality publications by experts in the field, that say that the "international community" is an essentially meaningless term."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=449242561

The master is back in his workshop. Keep the lols rolling, Judah.

[EricBarbour]

And I say again........


(IMG:http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss273/metasonix/religiousbiasenWP.png)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Forward!]

And I say again........

<image removed for clarity>

Eric, is there a chance you could squeeze Scientology into that graph and repost? I imagine the results would be interesting.

[SB_Johnny]

And I say again........

When I was a teenager, I did a bit of the teenage rant about anti-abortion protestors in the presence of a wise relative who more or less agreed with me. She "turned it around on me" and pointed out that if I really believed that the people in that clinic were committing mass murder, I'd probably protest too. She was right, of course.

The "radical, fundamentalist Jews" similarly believe that they really are the chosen people of the one and only true God, so it's not at all surprising that the basement dwellers among them would spend a lot of time writing Wikipedia articles about Jewish subjects.

[Wikifan]

The "radical, fundamentalist Jews" similarly believe that they really are the chosen people of the one and only true God, so it's not at all surprising that the basement dwellers among them would spend a lot of time writing Wikipedia articles about Jewish subjects.

Do you really believe the things you say? Seriously man.

[EricBarbour]

Eric, is there a chance you could squeeze Scientology into that graph and repost?

Nope, because there aren't even enough of them to show on the pie chart.
Nor are there enough WP articles (in quantities, not byte-length) to qualify.

The current independent estimate says there are maybe 25,000 practicing COS members.
Despite all those years of hatred and editwarring, the Scientology Wikiproject is tracking
only 546 articles. That's penny-ante. Wikipedia has more articles about science fiction fandom
(or Jainism) than that.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Cla68]

I checked back in on ol' Jay just to see what he was up to. He'd always seemed pretty mild-mannered when I'd run into him. If anyone would like to see Jayjg in all his full POV pushing glory go take a gander at his recent activity. After a stint of good behavior he's back at it again.

A particularly uproarious line culled from Jayjg's offensive against including the BBC as a source for "the international community thinks settlements are illegal":
"As is obvious, rock-solid sources also consider the term "international community" itself to be essentially meaningless; I'm sorry that this points out a fundamental flaw in the article's first sentence. You can try to play literary acrobatics as much as you want to, but there are several sources, written in the highest quality publications by experts in the field, that say that the "international community" is an essentially meaningless term."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=449242561

The master is back in his workshop. Keep the lols rolling, Judah.

If you guys are going to insist on trying to say that the Israeli West Bank and Golan Heights settlements are illegal in Wikipedia's voice or according to the "international community", you're going to continue to face understandable opposition from other editors, apparently including Jayjg. If you phrase it like this, "According to the International Court of Justice, Stephen Bowen, the BBC, and so-and-so, the settlements are illegal"[followed by extensive sources], then you might make some headway. Insisting on putting controversial statements in Wikipedia's voice or making sweeping generalizations, even if some of the sources are doing so, is not going to get you anywhere.

[Sololol]

If you guys are going to insist on trying to say that the Israeli West Bank and Golan Heights settlements are illegal in Wikipedia's voice or according to the "international community", you're going to continue to face understandable opposition from other editors, apparently including Jayjg. If you phrase it like this, "According to the International Court of Justice, Stephen Bowen, the BBC, and so-and-so, the settlements are illegal"[followed by extensive sources], then you might make some headway. Insisting on putting controversial statements in Wikipedia's voice or making sweeping generalizations, even if some of the sources are doing so, is not going to get you anywhere.

That's a reasonable argument. Unfortunately it's not what started this little skirmish. Here's the original edit Jay reverted. Here's the source the contested material was drawn from. And Jay's reasoning. In short, that the BBC can't be considered an RS for legal opinions and that its opinion doesn't belong in the lede.

Note, dear reader, that the BBC isn't actually weighing in on a point of law but reporting what world governments have said. "The British Government believes that Israeli settlements on occupied territory are illegal. So does every other government in the world, except for Israel."

[nableezy]

If you guys are going to insist on trying to say that the Israeli West Bank and Golan Heights settlements are illegal in Wikipedia's voice or according to the "international community", you're going to continue to face understandable opposition from other editors, apparently including Jayjg. If you phrase it like this, "According to the International Court of Justice, Stephen Bowen, the BBC, and so-and-so, the settlements are illegal"[followed by extensive sources], then you might make some headway. Insisting on putting controversial statements in Wikipedia's voice or making sweeping generalizations, even if some of the sources are doing so, is not going to get you anywhere.

I honestly cant understand this. The supposed controversial statement is that the settlements are illegal, not that the "international community" considers them illegal. There has not been any serious argument put forth that the "international community" does not consider the settlements illegal.

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. That doesnt even start listing the academic sources, from Adam Roberts, to John Quiqley, to Francis Boyle, .... The sources group all those organizations and states into a group that they call "the international community". They say that this "international community" considers the settlements illegal. How exactly should we include the fact that the illegality of Israel's colonies in the occupied territories is accepted by nearly every single competent party on the planet? Or should we instead pretend that this is a "controversial statement" made by "some of the sources" (or, as in this case, all of the sources with not one opposing)?

That's a reasonable argument. Unfortunately it's not what started this little skirmish. Here's the original edit Jay reverted. Here's the source the contested material was drawn from. And Jay's reasoning. In short, that the BBC can't be considered an RS for legal opinions and that its opinion doesn't belong in the lede.

Note, dear reader, that the BBC isn't actually weighing in on a point of law but reporting what world governments have said. "The British Government believes that Israeli settlements on occupied territory are illegal. So does every other government in the world, except for Israel."

Forget the BBC, citing to that was sloppy. Look at the sources there now, and look at the argument being made against those sources.

[Sololol]

Forget the BBC, citing to that was sloppy. Look at the sources there now, and look at the argument being made against those sources.

Please, that particular talk page post was too good to miss. A sloppy citation is morphed into the BBC attempting to insert its unqualified legal opinion into our innocent encyclopedia. It's almost as good as "we can't talk about the international community because other sources say it doesn't exist." Which is a shame because he could be expanding the rather pathetic section on what the Israeli position actually is as articulated by their legal system instead of the current collection of regurgitated MFA/CAMERA nonsense talking points.
Go read Ian Lustick's "Israel and the West Bank after Elon Moreh: The Mechanics of De Facto Annexation." for an in-depth exploration of the legal framework set up to justify and administer the occupation, it's actually fascinating stuff.

[Cla68]

If you guys are going to insist on trying to say that the Israeli West Bank and Golan Heights settlements are illegal in Wikipedia's voice or according to the "international community", you're going to continue to face understandable opposition from other editors, apparently including Jayjg. If you phrase it like this, "According to the International Court of Justice, Stephen Bowen, the BBC, and so-and-so, the settlements are illegal"[followed by extensive sources], then you might make some headway. Insisting on putting controversial statements in Wikipedia's voice or making sweeping generalizations, even if some of the sources are doing so, is not going to get you anywhere.

That's a reasonable argument. Unfortunately it's not what started this little skirmish. Here's the original edit Jay reverted. Here's the source the contested material was drawn from. And Jay's reasoning. In short, that the BBC can't be considered an RS for legal opinions and that its opinion doesn't belong in the lede.

Note, dear reader, that the BBC isn't actually weighing in on a point of law but reporting what world governments have said. "The British Government believes that Israeli settlements on occupied territory are illegal. So does every other government in the world, except for Israel."

Look again at the text that Jayjg was objecting to. It was putting in Wikipedia's voice that the settlements are illegal. It isn't necessarily POV-pushing for editors to object to putting controversial assertions in Wikipedia's voice. I understand that there are other nuances to the debate, such as that the BBC is not qualified to issue a legal opinion. Therefore, you need to phrase it differently, "According to the BBC, the international community has decided that the settlements are illegal." Again, if you all keep trying to segway one side of the conflict into Wikipedia's voice you are going to continue to have time-wasting arguments on the article talk page. Are you all trying to bait Jayjg and other editors into arguing with you?

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[gomi]

Look again at the text that Jayjg was objecting to. It was putting in Wikipedia's voice that the settlements are illegal. It isn't necessarily POV-pushing for editors to object to putting controversial assertions in Wikipedia's voice.

I disagree with you, but for the purposes of this argument, I'll say "OK, perhaps".

However, the issue is that a particular editor, Jayjg in this case, has no objection, or indeed endorses application of "Wikipedia's voice", as you call it, into analogous articles on other subjects when it suits his particular spin on things, but objects when he doesn't like the end-game.

I think the argument about editorial voice is, at best, a third-level argument, and one to which Wikipedia is legions away from aspiring.

The first level is factual: whether there is any defense for statement at all -- Wikipedia is just beginning to get this straight on high-attention articles. It still falls astonishingly short on the vast majority of its articles. For example, I know of at least a dozen articles on non-existent geographic places in WP.

The second level is achieving nominally neutral information on any particular topic. For non-controversial topics this is not substantially different from the first level, but for anything else it is a major distinction. Wikipedia is chock-full of biased information included solely because it is cited from unambiguously biased sources. WP's sourcing rules are completely inadequate even for basic articles, and they fall on their face when presented with controversy. WP allows every manner of nationalist, jingoist, partisan, and generally inflammatory editorial content to pass as "reliable sources".

The third level, a consistent and neutral editorial voice, will (definitionaly) never be achieved by Wikipedia, which is why it will never be something deserving the name of "Encyclopedia" (or even "reference work"). All editorial voices have some innate bias, but a consistent and neutral-approximating voice is the epitome of a reference work. WP will never achieve this.

I'm surprised, Cla68, at your argument. If any -- or even the bulk -- of Israel-Palestine articles approached a neutral voice, then one could start worrying about the finesse about what is put in "Wikipedia's voice" versus ascribed to others. But this argument is about the so-called "lede", which is always in this "house voice", and Jayjg is simply creating chatter to make the construction of a neutral and clear article more difficult. This is part of his modus operandi. He never pushes Wikipedia's rules in favor of articles or positions opposing his bias, but is vehement and creative in the applicaitons of WP's innumerable and opaque policies when it suits his aims. He is but the most powerful of a large number of similar editors on a wide variety of topics.

[lilburne]

Look again at the text that Jayjg was objecting to. It was putting in Wikipedia's voice that the settlements are illegal. It isn't necessarily POV-pushing for editors to object to putting controversial assertions in Wikipedia's voice.

Listen up dipshit, there is no statement on Earth that isn't objected to by some fucking freak or other.

[Wikifan]

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.

[lilburne]

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.

Thanks for conforming the point.

HAND

This post has been edited by lilburne:

[nableezy]

Look again at the text that Jayjg was objecting to. It was putting in Wikipedia's voice that the settlements are illegal. It isn't necessarily POV-pushing for editors to object to putting controversial assertions in Wikipedia's voice. I understand that there are other nuances to the debate, such as that the BBC is not qualified to issue a legal opinion. Therefore, you need to phrase it differently, "According to the BBC, the international community has decided that the settlements are illegal." Again, if you all keep trying to segway one side of the conflict into Wikipedia's voice you are going to continue to have time-wasting arguments on the article talk page. Are you all trying to bait Jayjg and other editors into arguing with you?

That is absolutely not true. The text did not put into Wikipedia's voice that the settlements are illegal under international law, the text put into Wikipedia's voice that the international community considers the settlements illegal under international law. And once again, this is not even cited to the BBC. The sources currently in the article for the sentence "the international community considers Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law" (the sentence that Jay is currently objecting to) are as follows:

Roberts, Adam, "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967", The American Journal of International Law (American Society of International Law) 84 (1): pp. 85-86, "The international community has taken a critical view of both deportations and settlements as being contrary to international law. General Assembly resolutions have condemned the deportations since 1969, and have done so by overwhelming majorities in recent years. Likewise, they have consistently deplored the establishment of settlements, and have done so by overwhelming majorities throughout the period (since the end of 1976) of the rapid expansion in their numbers. The Security Council has also been critical of deportations and settlements; and other bodies have viewed them as an obstacle to peace, and illegal under international law."

Pertile, Marco (2005), "'Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory': A Missed Opportunity for International Humanitarian Law?", in Conforti, Benedetto; Bravo, Luigi, The Italian Yearbook of International Law, 14, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, p. 141, ISBN 9789004150270, "the establishment of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been considered illegal by the international community and by the majority of legal scholars."

Barak-Erez, Daphne (2006), "Israel: The security barrier—between international law, constitutional law, and domestic judicial review", International Journal of Constitutional Law (Oxford University Press) 4 (3): 548, "The real controversy hovering over all the litigation on the security barrier concerns the fate of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Since 1967, Israel has allowed and even encouraged its citizens to live in the new settlements established in the territories, motivated by religious and national sentiments attached to the history of the Jewish nation in the land of Israel. This policy has also been justified in terms of security interests, taking into consideration the dangerous geographic circumstances of Israel before 1967 (where Israeli areas on the Mediterranean coast were potentially threatened by Jordanian control of the West Bank ridge). The international community, for its part, has viewed this policy as patently illegal, based on the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention that prohibit moving populations to or from territories under occupation."

Drew, Catriona (1997), "Self-determination and population transfer", in Bowen, Stephen, Human rights, self-determination and political change in the occupied Palestinian territories, International studies in human rights, 52, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp. 151-152, ISBN 9789041105028, "It can thus clearly be concluded that the transfer of Israeli settlers into the occupied territories violates not only the laws of belligerent occupation but the Palestinian right of self-determination under international law. The question remains, however, whether this is of any practical value. In other words, given the view of the international community that the Israeli settlements are illegal under the law if belligerent occupation …"

International Labour Organization (2005), The situation of workers of the occupied Arab territories, p. 14, "The international community considers Israeli settlements within the occupied territories illegal and in breach of, inter alia, United Nations Security Council resolution 465 of 1 March 1980 calling on Israel “to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem”."

Do you really contend that by saying that the "international community considers Israeli settlements illegal under international law" we are making a "controversial assertion" in Wikipedia's voice? If it were a controversial assertion, shouldn't there be at least one source that actual disputes the sentence. Because there are no sources, at least none so far presented, that actually do dispute that the international community considers the settlements illegal. None.

This post has been edited by nableezy:

[mbz1]

nableeze you are not a marker to Jayjg. Your only good article about a Mosque was extensively edited by Jay at your request. It was Jay who made it good, nableeze. Even a look at your avatar demonstrates what POV you are pushing, nableeze. So why don't you thank Jay for helping you out with your article about a Mosque, and then shut up,nableeze.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[nableezy]

nableeze you are not a marker to Jayjg. Your only good article about a Mosque was extensively edited by Jay at your request. It was Jay who made it good, nableeze. Even a look at your avatar demonstrates what POV you are pushing, nableeze. So why don't you thank Jay for helping you out with your article about a Mosque, and then shut up,nableeze.

Thank you for providing Wikipedia Review with the quality comments you had been providing on Wikipedia. Truly, sincerely, and without any sarcasm, that was wonderful. Thank you.

[Zoloft]

Again, if you all keep trying to segway one side of the conflict into Wikipedia's voice you are going to continue to have time-wasting arguments on the article talk page.

(IMG:http://i678.photobucket.com/albums/vv143/khunPaulsak/Rides/BettyBoopFerrari-Ssegway.png)

[Milton Roe]

Even a look at your avatar demonstrates what POV you are pushing, nableeze.

Communist revolutionary pro-Palastinian asthmatic doctors who love lining people up in front of firing squads? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Again, if you all keep trying to segway one side of the conflict into Wikipedia's voice you are going to continue to have time-wasting arguments on the article talk page.

(IMG:http://i678.photobucket.com/albums/vv143/khunPaulsak/Rides/BettyBoopFerrari-Ssegway.png)

Okay, who stole her famous garter again?