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.

[Silver seren]

There has yet to be any response to my comment on the Israeli settlements talk page.

[Cla68]

There has yet to be any response to my comment on the Israeli settlements talk page.

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.

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)

[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: Wed 14th September 2011, 5:12pm