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.

[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.

[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?

[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?