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.

[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."

[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: Sun 11th September 2011, 7:50am

[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.