New Israel/Palestine ArbCom case, Jayjg is one of the parties? No way! Options Rating

[Cla68]

This looks pretty damning.

Mackan really outdid himself with that evidence section. It looks to me like CJCurrie should weigh in with his own experiences dealing with Jayjg.

By the way, it lasted about three hours.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Thu 12th March 2009, 5:30am

[Herschelkrustofsky]

By the way, it lasted about three hours.

Don't give up just yet. If there's one Reliable Source™ that will make Wikipediots prostrate themselves in in a attitude of abject propitiation, it's the Wall Street Journal.

[Cla68]

By the way, it lasted about three hours.

Don't give up just yet. If there's one Reliable Source™ that will make Wikipediots prostrate themselves in in a attitude of abject propitiation, it's the Wall Street Journal.

I already readded it using the WSJ source. It was the second item in the Google search after I noticed the revert, took me all of about 1 minute to replace it in the article.

My question is, why didn't GHCool try to find a better source for the quote rather than just revert it? Another thing, since the quote was from an open letter by Freeman, the source doesn't matter, because the letter is verifiable in and of itself. I used a political blog as a source for an open letter by a whistleblower in an article, and it was accepted at the FA forum because the letter itself was really the source, not the blog. So, GHCool was not being very helpful in his actions. Why?

[Lar]

My question is, why didn't GHCool try to find a better source for the quote rather than just revert it? Another thing, since the quote was from an open letter by Freeman, the source doesn't matter, because the letter is verifiable in and of itself. I used a political blog as a source for an open letter by a whistleblower in an article, and it was accepted at the FA forum because the letter itself was really the source, not the blog. So, GHCool was not being very helpful in his actions. Why?

Completely unrelatedly...

User:GHCool makes interesting reading. As do the user's contributions, and this page User:GHcool/Views. I'd also point you to this edit for another example of quote removal. There is a discussion on the talk page: Talk:Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States#Long_blockquotes_in_references that may have some bearing as well.

[Cla68]

My question is, why didn't GHCool try to find a better source for the quote rather than just revert it? Another thing, since the quote was from an open letter by Freeman, the source doesn't matter, because the letter is verifiable in and of itself. I used a political blog as a source for an open letter by a whistleblower in an article, and it was accepted at the FA forum because the letter itself was really the source, not the blog. So, GHCool was not being very helpful in his actions. Why?

Completely unrelatedly...

User:GHCool makes interesting reading. As do the user's contributions, and this page User:GHcool/Views. I'd also point you to this edit for another example of quote removal. There is a discussion on the talk page: Talk:Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States#Long_blockquotes_in_references that may have some bearing as well.

Actually, I agree with his removing that long block quote. It was too long. Although, on second thought, it might have been more helpful if he had tried to shorten it instead of removing it altogether.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Thu 12th March 2009, 11:41pm

[Milton Roe]

By the way, it lasted about three hours.

Don't give up just yet. If there's one Reliable Source™ that will make Wikipediots prostrate themselves in in a attitude of abject propitiation, it's the Wall Street Journal.

I already readded it using the WSJ source. It was the second item in the Google search after I noticed the revert, took me all of about 1 minute to replace it in the article.

My question is, why didn't GHCool try to find a better source for the quote rather than just revert it? Another thing, since the quote was from an open letter by Freeman, the source doesn't matter, because the letter is verifiable in and of itself. I used a political blog as a source for an open letter by a whistleblower in an article, and it was accepted at the FA forum because the letter itself was really the source, not the blog. So, GHCool was not being very helpful in his actions. Why?

Why? Umm, if you don't want to do a thing, or want to do a thing, one reason's as good as another. Is why.

GHcool's an Ashkenazi Jew living in LA and a member of Wikiproject Israel, according to his userpage. He's going to be about as able to have a dispassionate political viewpoint on the subject of the Israel lobby as our friend Klein/Jeruselem21.

GHcool's Kabbal Kount is 20. Which is getting up there (though I expected better, given his background).

Articles edited by SlimVirgin, Jayjg, Jpgordon, and GHcool:

#1 Zionist_political_violence - edited by 4 of 4 users
#2 Zionism - edited by 4 of 4 users
#3 Yasser_Arafat - edited by 4 of 4 users
#4 September_11_attacks - edited by 4 of 4 users
#5 Self-hating_Jew - edited by 4 of 4 users
#6 Palestinian_refugee - edited by 4 of 4 users
#7 Palestinian_people - edited by 4 of 4 users
#8 Norman_Finkelstein - edited by 4 of 4 users
#9 Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni - edited by 4 of 4 users
#10 Jerusalem - edited by 4 of 4 users
#11 Israel,_Palestinians,_and_the_United_Nations - edited by 4 of 4 users
#12 Israel - edited by 4 of 4 users
#13 Holocaust_denial - edited by 4 of 4 users
#14 Hamas - edited by 4 of 4 users
#15 David_Irving - edited by 4 of 4 users
#16 David_Duke - edited by 4 of 4 users
#17 Benny_Morris - edited by 4 of 4 users
#18 Arab–Israeli_conflict - edited by 4 of 4 users
#19 Antisemitism - edited by 4 of 4 users
#20 Anti-Zionism - edited by 4 of 4 users

If we leave Jpgordon off, we get an impressive 58 articles. Pretty much a smorgasbord of Israeli lobby topics.

#1 Zionist_political_violence - edited by 3 of 3 users
#2 Zionism - edited by 3 of 3 users
#3 Yom_Kippur_War - edited by 3 of 3 users
#4 Yasser_Arafat - edited by 3 of 3 users
#5 Washington_Institute_for_Near_East_Policy - edited by 3 of 3 users
#6 United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242 - edited by 3 of 3 users
#7 The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy - edited by 3 of 3 users
#8 Syria - edited by 3 of 3 users
#9 Suha_Arafat - edited by 3 of 3 users
#10 Steven_Emerson - edited by 3 of 3 users
#11 Six-Day_War - edited by 3 of 3 users
#12 September_11_attacks - edited by 3 of 3 users
#13 Self-hating_Jew - edited by 3 of 3 users
#14 Pallywood - edited by 3 of 3 users
#15 Palestinian_refugee - edited by 3 of 3 users
#16 Palestinian_political_violence - edited by 3 of 3 users
#17 Palestinian_people - edited by 3 of 3 users
#18 Palestine_Peace_Not_Apartheid - edited by 3 of 3 users
#19 Palestine_Liberation_Organization - edited by 3 of 3 users
#20 Norman_Finkelstein - edited by 3 of 3 users
#21 Monotheism - edited by 3 of 3 users
#22 Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni - edited by 3 of 3 users
#23 Mitchell_Bard - edited by 3 of 3 users
#24 Military_and_economic_aid_in_the_2006_Lebanon_War - edited by 3 of 3 users
#25 Media_coverage_of_the_Arab–Israeli_conflict - edited by 3 of 3 users
#26 Mary_Phagan_and_Leo_Frank - edited by 3 of 3 users
#27 Jimmy_Carter - edited by 3 of 3 users
#28 Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands - edited by 3 of 3 users
#29 Jerusalem - edited by 3 of 3 users
#30 Israeli_settlement - edited by 3 of 3 users
#31 Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States - edited by 3 of 3 users
#32 Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy - edited by 3 of 3 users
#33 Israel,_Palestinians,_and_the_United_Nations - edited by 3 of 3 users
#34 Israel - edited by 3 of 3 users
#35 Islamophobia - edited by 3 of 3 users
#36 Islamic_terrorism - edited by 3 of 3 users
#37 Islam_and_antisemitism - edited by 3 of 3 users
#38 International_Conference_to_Review_the_Global_Vision_of_the_Holocaust - edited by 3 of 3 users
#39 Ilan_Pappé - edited by 3 of 3 users
#40 HonestReporting - edited by 3 of 3 users
#41 Holocaust_denial - edited by 3 of 3 users
#42 Hezbollah - edited by 3 of 3 users
#43 Hamas - edited by 3 of 3 users
#44 Edward_Said - edited by 3 of 3 users
#45 Declaration_of_Independence_(Israel) - edited by 3 of 3 users
#46 David_Irving - edited by 3 of 3 users
#47 David_Duke - edited by 3 of 3 users
#48 Criticism_of_Noam_Chomsky - edited by 3 of 3 users
#49 Bernard_Lewis - edited by 3 of 3 users
#50 Benny_Morris - edited by 3 of 3 users
#51 Arab–Israeli_conflict - edited by 3 of 3 users
#52 Antisemitism_in_the_Arab_world - edited by 3 of 3 users
#53 Antisemitism - edited by 3 of 3 users
#54 Anti-Zionism - edited by 3 of 3 users
#55 Animal_rights_and_the_Holocaust - edited by 3 of 3 users
#56 Akbar_Hashemi_Rafsanjani - edited by 3 of 3 users
#57 1994_AMIA_bombing - edited by 3 of 3 users
#58 1948_Arab–Israeli_War - edited by 3 of 3 users

My question is, why didn't GHCool try to find a better source for the quote rather than just revert it? Another thing, since the quote was from an open letter by Freeman, the source doesn't matter, because the letter is verifiable in and of itself. I used a political blog as a source for an open letter by a whistleblower in an article, and it was accepted at the FA forum because the letter itself was really the source, not the blog. So, GHCool was not being very helpful in his actions. Why?

Completely unrelatedly...

User:GHCool makes interesting reading. As do the user's contributions, and this page User:GHcool/Views. I'd also point you to this edit for another example of quote removal. There is a discussion on the talk page: Talk:Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States#Long_blockquotes_in_references that may have some bearing as well.

"Completely unrelatedly... "

[Cla68]

Why? Umm, if you don't want to do a thing, or want to do a thing, one reason's as good as another. Is why.

GHcool's an Ashkenazi Jew living in LA and a member of Wikiproject Israel, according to his userpage. He's going to be about as able to have a dispassionate political viewpoint on the subject of the Israel lobby as our friend Klein/Jeruselem21.

"Completely unrelatedly... "

That's good analysis. Bringing this back around to how this relates to this case, it seems that many, if not most, of the active Israeli history editors believe that POV editing is fine. IronDuke, who appears to be one of them, here and here seems to advocate POV editing as a good approach. He appeared taken aback when I reminded him that Wikipedia expects its editors to edit in a way that it appears that they're not taking a side. Perhaps some of the "pro-Palestinian" editors are just as bad, but so far, in this case, they're not looking half as mendacious and deceitful as Jayjg and his friends.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

IronDuke, who appears to be one of them, here and here seems to advocate POV editing as a good approach.

ID is also a big booster of the practice of using Wikipedia as a megaphone for defamation.

[Milton Roe]

Why? Umm, if you don't want to do a thing, or want to do a thing, one reason's as good as another. Is why.

GHcool's an Ashkenazi Jew living in LA and a member of Wikiproject Israel, according to his userpage. He's going to be about as able to have a dispassionate political viewpoint on the subject of the Israel lobby as our friend Klein/Jeruselem21.

"Completely unrelatedly... "

That's good analysis. Bringing this back around to how this relates to this case, it seems that many, if not most, of the active Israeli history editors believe that POV editing is fine. IronDuke, who appears to be one of them, here and here seems to advocate POV editing as a good approach. He appeared taken aback when I reminded him that Wikipedia expects its editors to edit in a way that it appears that they're not taking a side. Perhaps some of the "pro-Palestinian" editors are just as bad, but so far, in this case, they're not looking half as mendacious and deceitful as Jayjg and his friends.

Sometimes non-POV editing is just about impossible. But there's a way around that, too. The disallowed "POV fork" only happens when a WP article doesn't reference and do a summary somewhere of the anti-view. But that's not hard to fix. Example: WP has an article on Medical Abortion, but it also has articles on Abortion debate and one each for Pro-life and Pro-choice. People of both stripes are allowed to go and put their best arguments there, and each side leaves the other more-or-less alone to do so. The same could happen in Middle East politics (and to some extend has, of course) but many of the zealots on both sides absolutely cannot stand to do it completely.

The weird thing about WP is that many "bias" problems have been solved already, in the way we do it with the formal advocate/trial/political system (where bias is acknowledged, taken for granted, and we simply move on to give everybody a say). When it comes to politics and religion (and the Middle heat is a hotbed of both, of course), WP breaks down under deletionists who really can't allow that.

[Cla68]

Sometimes non-POV editing is just about impossible. But there's a way around that, too. The disallowed "POV fork" only happens when a WP article doesn't reference and do a summary somewhere of the anti-view. But that's not hard to fix. Example: WP has an article on Medical Abortion, but it also has articles on Abortion debate and one each for Pro-life and Pro-choice. People of both stripes are allowed to go and put their best arguments there, and each side leaves the other more-or-less alone to do so. The same could happen in Middle East politics (and to some extend has, of course) but many of the zealots on both sides absolutely cannot stand to do it completely.

The weird thing about WP is that many "bias" problems have been solved already, in the way we do it with the formal advocate/trial/political system (where bias is acknowledged, taken for granted, and we simply move on to give everybody a say). When it comes to politics and religion (and the Middle heat is a hotbed of both, of course), WP breaks down under deletionists who really can't allow that.

I remember on the talk page for the "Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" article some editors were arguing over the true casualty count and trying to discredit each other's sources. I suggested that they just give all the opinions- (this person) says this many were killed, but (this person) says this many were killed. If I remember right, they ignored me and kept arguing. I guess they didn't want an NPOV presentation, they wanted their own POV to win.

[Mackan]

That's good analysis.

It may be petty, but I'll always respect GHcool for his comment here.

Does the quote belong in the article? I don't know, my feeling is that Wikipedia tends to overuse these types of quotations. "Did he just say that! Let's add it to an article." Not that it's clear cut, of course.

[Cla68]

That's good analysis.

It may be petty, but I'll always respect GHcool for his comment here.

Does the quote belong in the article? I don't know, my feeling is that Wikipedia tends to overuse these types of quotations. "Did he just say that! Let's add it to an article." Not that it's clear cut, of course.

I thought it was an appropriate quote, because it appeared to summarize the views of those critical of that lobby and was given by a notable mover and shaker in Washington politics. GHCool subsequently added a rebuttal from a Washington Post editorial. I'm a long time reader of the Post and like and respect it a lot (I like the Washington Times also). I think the Post took Freeman to task was because his criticism of the Israel Lobby was also an indirect attack on Obama for not standing up to that lobby. The Post's editorial staff couldn't let that go unchallenged because they really like Obama.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I think the Post took Freeman to task was because his criticism of the Israel Lobby was also an indirect attack on Obama for not standing up to that lobby. The Post's editorial staff couldn't let that go unchallenged because they really like Obama.

I beg to differ. I think the Post took Freeman to task because they hate what he stands for. Katherine Graham's daughter, Lally Weymouth, has a long time association with the Israeli Right.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I just added that Freeman quote to the Israel Lobby article. I'm interested in seeing how long it stays.

Here is an editorial from the L.A. Times which discusses the question of the "Israel Lobby."

[Milton Roe]

I just added that Freeman quote to the Israel Lobby article. I'm interested in seeing how long it stays.

Here is an editorial from the L.A. Times which discusses the question of the "Israel Lobby."

Which contains this daring quote:

Our opinion is this: Israel is America's friend and ally. It deserves to exist safely within secure borders. We hope it will continue to prosper as a refuge for Jews and a vibrant democracy in the region (alongside an equally democratic Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza). But we do not believe that Israel should be immune from criticism or that there is room for only one point of view in our government.

All that is fine so far as it goes. But the real question is why all US candidates for president are now required, on pain of being opposed to the point of loss, to pledge their undying support for the "existence" of Israel, including all but promising to help Israel attack threatening countries, and continuing US monetary support for Israel. Israel is a county with several hundred nuclear weapons, a fact that I never heard once in the presidential debates. It can take care of itself, and should start doing so. If it wants to blow up a reactor in Iran (for example), it should go ahead and do it, as it did with the one in Iraq in 1981, which the US finished off in 1991. If it can't do it without US help, perhaps it shouldn't do it at all. It's time that Israel, if it wants to be a grown-up country, should support itself fully.

You want a metaphor for modern Israel? It's the nice Jewish boy who stays on and on in mom's appartment in NYC, because it's cheap. He's got a nice car in the basement. He makes money with various part time jobs. But he's too cheap to move out, and expects her to cook and provide unwavering support, while he plays.

Except, he's past 60 years old now, and "mom" is about 220. One wonders if he's waiting for the old yenta to die so he can inherit all she has, including the place on rent control. But she refuses to.

You don't like this metaphor? Too bad. Feel free to come up with your own.

[Dzonatas]

Consider how Freeman became appointed AND confirmed to National Security Head, you'd think he would be in such a position to be able to protect himself. If the only option he had was to step down, for which the neocons and Israel Lobby claimed as a 'win' on their side, I think it actually shows that Israel Lobby is a national security threat. By Freeman stepping down there is nothing the Israel Lobby can do to now change an image of them being a national security threat except to try to get Freeman back in office.

As for the neocons, Obama seems to have already release documentation that could potential support evidence for a 'military coup'-like movement to plan an 'executive assassination'. I can't wait until the details of such plan are revealed more. Rove seems to know something about this movement... if you find that weak-link interesting.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

As for the neocons, Obama seems to have already release documentation that could potential support evidence for a 'military coup'-like movement to plan an 'executive assassination'.

There are striking parallels here to the American Liberty League back in the 1930s.

[Dzonatas]

There are striking parallels here to the American Liberty League back in the 1930s.

I recommend to watch Valkyrie, based on a true events, despite the bad press it received. After you watch the movie, do consider that those that survived that Nuremberg trials were held in prison, and upon their release they were eventually assassinated. The notes at the end of the movie may come as a surprise to some, and I don't doubt that the onslaught of bad press was to make sure that people don't learn about such notes.

I would say more, but this is not the thread for it.

This post has been edited by Dzonatas: Sat 14th March 2009, 3:54pm

[Milton Roe]

Consider how Freeman became appointed AND confirmed to National Security Head, you'd think he would be in such a position to be able to protect himself. If the only option he had was to step down, for which the neocons and Israel Lobby claimed as a 'win' on their side, I think it actually shows that Israel Lobby is a national security threat. By Freeman stepping down there is nothing the Israel Lobby can do to now change an image of them being a national security threat except to try to get Freeman back in office.

Like they care about their "image" more than they care about being politically-feared? Not.

Some time ago there was a commentator who opined that the Jews had too much power in the media. The network boss, who was Jewish, had him fired for the comment.

Now, I don't think there's any human alive who is THAT completely lacking in a sense of irony. But the issue was not about image or truth, but about making sure the fear remains. At any price.

[Dzonatas]

Like they care about their "image" more than they care about being politically-feared? Not.

Some time ago there was a commentator who opined that the Jews had too much power in the media. The network boss, who was Jewish, had him fired for the comment.

Now, I don't think there's any human alive who is THAT completely lacking in a sense of irony. But the issue was not about image or truth, but about making sure the fear remains. At any price.

Hasbara antagonists often use a debate method to accuse their opponents of the very nature of what the antagonist has done or about to do before their opponents accuse the antagonist of such tactic. It puts the opponent on the defensive to prove that the accusation made by the antagonist is not true. Too often, other people that haven't been fully expose to the entire debate will also have to prove to themselves that the antagonists made a false accusation, but most likely there is no motive or sense to need such proof until the opponent speaks up over the accusation. When the opponent points out (tells others) exactly how the antagonist made a false accusation, the antagonists then brings up any kind of secondary accusation, conflated with demagoguery, at the opponent. As long as the first accusation is not proven false, the secondary accusation will appear true to the events for others to personally witness. The chances for the opponent to state that the secondary accusation is also false and not appear frivolous or desperate in manner is low. It is because of this low chance that the Hasbara antagonist will attempt such tactic. The worst the antagonist has to do is remove himself/herself from debate if the opponents succeeds. The tactic is to win public opinion, not to debate truth, which it avoids or further delays.

With Freeman, he removed himself before the antagonist removed themselves. He removed any chance of being accused of demagoguery. The only 'win' the neocons and Israel Lobby got was to get him out of office, but they didn't 'win' any more public opinion or fear.

Freemen new this very well, as noted in his letter:

In the court of public opinion, unlike a court of law, one is guilty until proven innocent. The speeches from which quotations have been lifted from their context are available for anyone interested in the truth to read. The injustice of the accusations made against me has been obvious to those with open minds. Those who have sought to impugn my character are uninterested in any rebuttal that I or anyone else might make.

Earlier in his letter he pointed out how the accusations were made about him when really it was attempts for the antagonists to further control the office (already quoted here on WR):

The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.

It seems obvious that Freeman's first and only act of National Intelligence was to make any accusation at him moot and to point out exactly the Hasbara tactic noted above before it is fully used on him.

Fear at any price? Note how Freeman points out 'special irony':

I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel.

LOL