User:PalestineRemembered/Zscout370

This mentorship ended with Zscout370 resigning in sad (not to say bizarre) circumstances after just 2 weeks. My previous mentor (who survived 3 weeks) politely removed the BarnStar I awarded her for what she'd done and the harassment she suffered - I'll not embarrass Zscout on his TalkPage with recognition of a near impossible job carried out with integrity in such trying circumstances. (The first "mentor" was shortly perma-blocked, perhaps with good reason).

Danger of soap-boxing accusation
I'm being challenged on whether an edit is a putting forwards a "fringe theory" over here. I've shovelled information suggesting that my version is actually the main-stream one into the TalkPage - please check and make sure I've not gone to far and been soap-boxing. PRtalk 12:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia apparently cannot show (the undisputed fact?) that a large gang of Israel-supporting gunmen and bombers were operating in Baghdad after the creation of Israel, and they are firmly linked to bombings that helped drive almost all the Jews from Iraq. PRtalk 07:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't think I'm soap-boxing here either. PRtalk 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But I can't resist sharing this with you - Philip Weiss went to a CAMERA seminar and discovered they're so desperate they've even turned on Israeli newspapers "Write, phone, challenge, speak out... Haaretz is now affecting all of us." PRtalk 19:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Soapboxing accusation
See here and tell me if I'm soap-boxing. I think I'm bringing up primary material that proves the secondary source (Finkelstein) is not saying anything "surprising". In other words, there can't be any policy-based objection to using Finkelstein in this case (which happens to be the only use he's ever been made of in this particular article). I'm not expressing any "opinion" of my own and the point I've made with the primary evidence is either "persuasive" or "100% valid".

Separately, I reject the claim that Finkelstein is unfit to be used as a source - no evidence for which has ever been provided, despite numerous requests. But I'm not asking your opinion on that part, only on whether I've been soap-boxing at that diff. PRtalk 18:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Zionist political violence
There's been an apparently POV revert at the article Zionist political violence with the deceptive summary "Rev misleading propaganda - and unless you're prepared to characterize Fatah as a terrorist organization, this is a word to avoid."

I'm doing a partial revert by replacing "The official leadership of the Yishuv was opposed to these activities and demanded their cessation." with: "The official leadership of the Yishuv declared itself opposed to these activities and demanded their cessation, but their military wing Haganah also carried out bombings, killing over 200 Jewish refugees from the Nazis on board the Patria." (Note - I've not re-inserted the word "terrorist" per the objection in the summary, but the JAE is already quoted as using the word so it's no great loss).

I don't feel there's any factual opposition to what I'm saying, the revert was baseless and carried out without discussion. I've not brought it up again in talk - not least because an earlier attempt to get a discussion going on a different sentence ("Irgun and Lehi ... targeted civilians, ... and Jews suspected of collaborating with the British.") was ignored. (Note - the misleading statement in that case is still in the lead - these dissident groups are credibly alleged to have terrorised innocent Jews according to Albert Einstein amongst many others). There is anothere highly objectionable statement in there "In 1944, after the defeat of the Nazis was assured, the Irgun resumed attacks." - attacks on the British from Feb 1944 were wholly deplorable, helping to prolong the Holocaust. (And could have given the Nazis breathing space to get the atom bomb).

It seems reasonable to simply go ahead and correct the article, I trust this is alright and nobody will construe it as edit-warring. PRtalk 08:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been reverted on this, the organisation responsible for the sinking of a ship (over 250 dead) is said to be "opposed to these activities", which is simply white-wash. PRtalk 06:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Claim - "Jewsagainstzionism are the mirror image of Kahane.org" - should I pass comment?
Over on this UserPage some comments I've made are republished with an opposing commentary. Apparently this is alright because I'm not personally being attacked, they're only my words which are being criticised. I've never tried to make a fuss (not least since each of the clips from me is either "true" or at least arguable, not one of them shows a dangerous disconnect with reality). However, I've long suspected that few other people would be allowed to behave in this fashion and the playing field should be levelled.

What would you say to my doing something similar? I was thinking of this one for starters:
 * Claim - "Jewsagainstzionism are the mirror image of Kahane.org" ... "Both websites use the same tactics of argument from biblical and talmudic sources and a redefinition of history to suit their own destructive POV. Therefore, if jewsagainstzionism is a reliable source, then I insist that Kahane.org be treated as an equally reliable source of information on the Arab-Israeli conflict." GHcool 22:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fact - Kahane are designated terrorists  in US and in Israel - the US State Dept puts them in Schedule 1 of the list of FTOs and says of them - "Kach (founded by radical Israeli-American rabbi Meir Kahane) and its offshoot Kahane Chai, which means "Kahane Lives" (founded by Meir Kahane's son Binyamin following his father's assassination in the United States), were declared to be terrorist organizations in March 1994 by the Israeli Cabinet under the 1948 Terrorism Law."'
 * Whereas JewsAgainstZionism are a credit to their race - the Human Race. JAZ are dedicated (amongst other things) to living in peace with Arabs, the way the followers of Judaism have done for 2000 years. They quote Rabbi Baruch Kaplan, a student in the Hebron yeshiva in 1929 before the massacre as saying "I would talk to the Arabs, though it was mostly using our hands because I didn’t speak any Arabic. Interestingly enough, no one in the yeshiva ever told me it was dangerous to go by myself among the Arabs." PRtalk 20:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)