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?

[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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

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:

[Silver seren]

There has yet to be any response to my comment on the Israeli settlements talk page. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Cla68]

There has yet to be any response to my comment on the Israeli settlements talk page. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

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:

[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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

Here is another place with the same issue.

[Sololol]

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

Officially. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

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: