User talk:GHcool/Archive 1

What are you attempting?
"Israel warned Lebanese civilians of Hezbollah strongholds to evacuate their cities ahead of time through leaflets, however, many did not. What was intended to be a disruption of mobility of Hezbollah and their foreign allies also had the residual effect of disturbing civilian mobility."

This statement is completly bias and ignorant. You are attempting to justify Israel's bombings of civilian areas and the war crimes it is committing in Lebanon by redirecting the blame on Hezbollah and innocent Lebanese civilians who "did not escape." The dropping of leaflets is not even condoned by the UN so it is an illegeal act anyway and does not mean that once Israel has droped leaflets it has the right to strike. This is completly prepostrous. The civilians are paying the price, the LEAST we can do is mention it and not have ignorant people like you take out facts. You might be with Israel, but there are facts. I do not care. Also tell me why in the world did you take out MY statement when i wrote that the IDF disrupted "normal life" in Lebanon. Did they not with their military operations. Please do not try to justify a country's war crimes because they are not justifiable by droping "leaflets." --Doge120 04:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Sir; I accept your argument that Lebanese "civilians are paying the price [for Israeli retaliation], the LEAST we can do is mention it." However, in the interest of NPOV, I ask you to accept my statement that involving the leaflets. To paraphrase your statement to me: You might be against Israel, but there are facts.  Whether you or the UN agrees with the ethics of the leaflets is beside the point.  The point is that leaflets were dropped and many Lebanese citizens did not evacuate and therefore are worth mentioning.  --GHcool 17:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * People who left their homes in fear in 1948 have never been allowed to return to them. Lebanese people failing to leave their homes at short notice in 2006 were not somehow renouncing their rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness - nor were they granting permission to a neighbouring state to kill them. PalestineRemembered 18:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits of Targeting of civilian areas
Ive a few concerns about your edits in this article. Ive fixed some of them. Dont understand these edits:
 * bulldozer in Bint Jbeil were doing what?
 * parent article says 41 dead
 * capture of Hezbollah is important in this article?
 * link?
 * link?
 * description was of total refugees? the UNHCR figure refers to Beirut alone?
 * redundancy? it introduces the section detail
 * why the rearrange?
 * why remove? use fact}} instead
 * why remove the subtotal reported?

RandomGalen 18:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No response? OK I will revert and fix your changes back. Thanks. RandomGalen 14:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * GHcool has shown a pattern of bad faith in editing that page, always supporting a pro-Israeli-government POV. CelestialDog 20:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Extraneous sources in Targeting…
Hello.

The Herald Sun link is already there as note #102, which links to the original Herald Sun article. That is the best source for it. Weblogs have a WP:RS issue, and we do not need two links to the same source, especially when one is the original article itself. Please stop adding in extra information that a) may not pass WP:RS and b) adds NOTHING to the article.

Further, the use of blockquotes is a bit frowned upon, because it tends to hightlight one quote over all of the rest. It keeps everything on an even footing to let all quotes flow in the text.

Thank you. -- Avi 17:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Film edits
Well done on your recent edits to the filmmaking articles! I think that you've helped out a great deal. I had one question, though - you tagged the rough cut article as original research/unverified, but there were no notes left on the talk page. I was just curious what in particular you felt needed a more critical look; it's hard for editors to address the tag without something more specific. But once again, many thanks on your work and I look forward to your future edits. Girolamo Savonarola 19:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Israeli films
Hi, I noticed that you are interested in both filmography and Israel-related topics. While you don't seem to edit Israeli film-related topics, I strongly encourage you to do so (assuming you are in any way interested in Israeli films). Most Israeli film articles are currently stubs (e.g. Raid on Entebbe (film) and Buzz (film)), and there are scores of Israeli films without articles. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 04:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Project
GHcool: Thanks for your compliment. With what can I help you in your project? You can tell me here & then delete this .Itzse 22:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're helping a lot already, but one way you could help even more is by not getting emotionally involved in an argument with an anti-Semite or anti-truth Wikipedian. Remember that most of these people are just ignorant beyond reason and that as a supporter of Israel, you must to their level.  As calmly as you can, disect their accusations as I have without resorting to their straw man and ad hominem tactics. Remember that the truth is its own defense.  Lastly, remember that not all criticisms of Israeli policy is anti-Semetic or necessarily wrong.  Have enough courage to treat a true claim with respect, even if you do not agree with the claimer's conclusion.  And keep informed on Israel and read about her history.  You already exhibit a lot of the attitude I described, but I fear that not all pro-Israel Wikipedians share this attitude.  --GHcool 05:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your advice & constructive criticism; but it's difficult to stay cool (pun intended) when the blood of your brothers & sisters are flowing like water. Nevertheless after writing I wait & take a deep breath & start rewriting to a more professional & cool style. I am not a professional debater & also I am limited with time but I try my best. Thanks for all your work; which is a noble work.


 * Let me tell you where I'm heading & maybe enlist your help. Whenever you try to state the truth & portray a terrorist as a terrorist; immediately the POV police arrive & with righteous indignation revert in the name of POV or NPOV depending on the situation. They will tell you that the designation of terrorist is only your own opinion (one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter) as if there isn't a neutral yardstick to measure this; and another 150 convoluted reasons why the articles must stay neutral; then in the same breath they will pontificate on how noble the Arabs are & how bad the Israelis are. As if the wickedness of the Israelis in their minds; justify just about anything. This is typical everywhere here on Wikipedia.


 * I am not convinced that the designation "terrorist" cannot be applied neutrally. The articles on Terrorism, Definition of terrorism and the other associated articles need to be carefully looked at & dissected; and within the confines & rules of Wikipedia; I think a neutral application can be worked out; my problem is who has the time?


 * Let me tell you what else bothers me. Those that couldn't care less for the truth; and those who support the terrorists fully or slightly; or those who don't care for the terrorists but it's their hatred of the Jews that drives them; for all those; I think if we stick to the truth & debate professionally we can probably overcome them and finally, truly have a neutral encyclopedia. But it seems to me that a lot of good people who do care for the truth; and among them a lot of Israel’s supporters are content with a minimum portrayal of the truth & don't mind the overwhelming misinformation presented as valid opinions; because after all; there is no shortage of anti Israel references. Those good people; I don't understand why they would settle for so little. Please enlighten me; maybe they know something I don't know. Itzse 15:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"Accusation"/ "The reality" format
Hello GHcool, if it is okay I would like to ask you to stop using this format, while the arguments are clear, valid, and concise I think that it would be more effective if you just presented the facts without the titles. When you present it as undeniable proof people become defensive and are less likely to compromise or listen.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli article
Hi GHcool. Just wanted to say thanks for your edits to the section I added at the Arab-Israeli article. it's good to have some help. Thanks very much. Looks like you've done some good work. Hope to be able to do more worthwhile things as time goes on. thanks. see you. --Sm8900 14:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. Good to hear from you. Glad to be in the Israel project. By the way, just want to let you know, when you have a chance, I made some big changes to the following article. History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It would be good if you could perhaps take a look at it at some point, and feel free to mention any thoughts which you may have. I appreciate it. by the way, I hope some people have this article on their watchlist already? I feel it's good if others are watching this article, just in general. thanks very much. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 19:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. Just saw your edits to the article. Thanks so much for your help. it's good to have your input. It's good to know someone else has looked it over, and really addressed the things which needed to be changed, yet was able to leave the material which seemed good. i really appreciate your help. Thanks. See you. --Sm8900 16:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi., Just wanted to ask, could you please keep an eye on the following two articles? Maybe you have them on your watchlist already, but if not, could you please keep an eye on them? I've been editing them a bit more lately. Thanks.

Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict --Sm8900 05:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, GHCool. And thanks for your help in general. Feel free to write. See you. --Steve, Sm8900 05:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, I wrote most of the section "Major Issues between the Two Sides". (I wrote it in Sept 2006.) Just wanted to let you knowe. Hopefully it is able to reflect both sides fairly. Thanks. --Sm8900 05:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey I deleted a big part of the Intifada of 2000 because it is irrelevant and not neutral to go on and on about what the palestinian did and not talk about the Israeli action. If someone wants detail, they can go directly on the article about the intifada of 2000. I would say it is better to keep the section to a minimum especially since it 6 times bigger than the section in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, see where I am coming to? I thought of removing the thing about Ariel Sharon since it is put forward as a trigger of the intifada, I believe we should not put non-objective facts especially when it is not even in the summarizing paragraph of the main article(Patrick.N.L, 21:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)).


 * I'm sorry, but the Intifada was, by definition, the Palestinian armed rebellion against the Jewish state. Israel's response to the Palestinian rebellion can not be confused with the Palestinian rebellion itself.  --GHcool (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

...What can I say..., first you just avoided the issue here. Second, this is the most point of viewed comment I saw for a long time on wiki. Of course, I am not confusing intifadah and Israel response, I am saying it is an integrant part of the intifada, i.e.: palestinian violence--->israeli response. I am not saying that we should talk about the israeli response, but if we don't talk about it, we should not enumerate with such gusto and to such an extent the palestinian riots.

So please answer the problem : you are describing what the palestinian did over and over when it is not necessary on that page. Also starting with Ariel Sharon visit to the temple mound tacitely says it is The Cause of the intifadah; this is not acceptable since it is only a point of view.

Anyway, there is a contentious that this whole section is pov and, even if I have a non negligible bias in favor of Israel, I agree it is pov, especially for this page on the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Therefore, please either remove pov content yourself, or add what you think is relevant and neutral for the page after I remove the POV content, but don't simply revert.

Look at it this way, did anyone put any of the ways Israel killed unarmed Arabs civilians, or all the failed bombings in the palestinian territories that ended up with collateral damage? No, because it does not belong to this page as much as your enumerations of Palestinians terrorist attacks in the 2000 intifada is not necessary and brings an unfair bias to this page. (Patrick.N.L (talk) 07:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

Why did you reverse? This paragraph is completely irrelevant on this page since it does not allow a balanced opinion to be made about the conflict. You cannot cover specific points about the conflict without giving the whole picture. This page must be consistent with other pages, it must have less details than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict history page, and less than on the page on the intifada itself.

Why is it not in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict history, maybe there is a good reason? Please put this article in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict history and then you can say it is not pov. I feel that this is useless and that you are biaised and completely controlling that page.

Don't you agree that there is some kind of emphasis? I.E.: "tons of weapons" why use such a hyperlative? "In buses, restaurants, cafe" Why such details?

Put it first in the palestinian-israeli conflict history and then see if it is acceptable. Your current position on this and other matters is what makes the page point of viewed and you keep reversing every attempt to make it more neutral! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick.N.L (talk • contribs) 06:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

PCO
Some of my responses to Mackan79 have been reconstructed from his/her talk page archive.

I left a comment on your user page; I don't know if this is considered bad form, but it seemed appropriate. Just to let you know. Best, Mackan79 21:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mackan79, I took the liberty of removing the analysis you wrote on my user page for the following reasons:
 * 1) It is rude to write on someone else's user page. Your argument would have been more appropriate on my talk page and you should have allowed me to make my own decision about what would or would not be appropriate on my own user page.
 * 2) Pco is perfectly capable of defending herself. Unless Pco is a minor and you are her legal guardian, you have no right or obligation to butt into a place where you are not needed.
 * 3) Pco's argument doesn't make sense and neither does yours. How can Ahmadinejad and others like him become "more aware of their errors" by attending a Holocaust conference that they themselves organized? Even if that was her argument (and I think you can see that it is self-controdictory at best), why would a Holocaust deniers conference ever be "a good idea"??? It was certainly a good idea from an anti-Semitic perspective, because it strengthened the ties between racists worldwide against Jews, but I challenge anyone to give me one instance in which an international conference with the specific intent of minimalizing the Holocaust and its effect on Jewish history could be ethically justified from a pluralistic perspective.  --GHcool 20:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi GHcool. I'm sorry, but your attack on PCO is dishonest and malicious. It is a complete mistatement of what she said, by selective quoting. It's as if I said "I'm glad for the holocaust deniers' conference, because it showed Ahmadinejad's true colors and reminds the world that there are still racists out there," and then I was simply quoted as saying "I'm glad for the holocaust deniers'." Or hell, why not just take off the word "deniers'" too?


 * The fact that you don't agree with her sentiment does not entitle you to quote her as saying something she did not say. Don't tell me you quoted her accurately.  Your quotation indicates that she agreed with purpose of the conference, which is the opposite of what she stated.  There's a word for that, and it's three letters long.


 * You are entitled to disagree with PCO, but you are not entitled to make false accusations against her on Wikipedia, and you're absolutely right I'm going to butt in if this is what you intend to do, whether I know her or not (I don't). I wrote you very politely to tell you that I think you misinterpreted her comment.  I'd be happy to tell PCO and have her deal with the situation; I just thought I'd check to see if you would do it out of your own decensy first. Mackan79 02:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

My attack on Pco may be malicious, but I maintain the opinion that I have quoted her fairly. Consider the context: "'I think that a holocaust deniers conference is a good idea - Mahmood must have learned something. At least now he doesn't say he wants to wipe Israel off the map, he says he knows the Zionist regime will be wiped out. There is a big difference. Yes, let them rant and have a conference - they will eventually realize their errors. The thing that feeds the fire is exactly the same as what Bush tries to do here - namely, make everyone feel that if they do not support him in whatever he does, we are unpatriotic. Well Olmert wants everyone to feel that if they do not support his policies, then they are not good jews or are not good zionists.'" From this paragraph, it is hard to tell what Pco believes. There is no doubt in my mind that she thinks that President Bush and Prime Minister Olmert are as bad or worse than President Ahmedinejad. Naturally, this is an opinion I disagree with, but she is entitled to it. She is also entitled to the opinion "that a holocaust deniers conference is a good idea" even though I disagree with it.

Your analogy of deliberately omitting the second clause of a compound sentence does not apply here because the second clause of Pco's compound sentence is "Mahmood must have learned something." Even if I were to include it back into my exposé, the message would not change drastically as it did in your analogy. The only reasonable complaint one could make on behalf of Pco is that I did not include the part where she contradicts herself by writing "let them rant and have a conference - they will eventually realize their errors." I did this because its a ridiculous statement; when have racists ever "realized their errors" before it was too late? Also, because she tries to have it both ways by calling the Holocaust denial conference "a good idea" and an "error," it leaves her vulnerable to criticism from both sides of the argument.

In short, this quote was of Pco's own making. I simply chose how to report and interpret it and I did so with journalistic integrity. If you are asking for clarity, the request is better asked to Pco, and I would be happy to print her response on my user page if I see fit to do so. Take care. --GHcool 07:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

GHcool, you said this:

"The only reasonable complaint one could make on behalf of Pco is that I did not include the part where she contradicts herself by writing "let them rant and have a conference - they will eventually realize their errors." I did this because its a ridiculous statement; when have racists ever "realized their errors" before it was too late? Also, because she tries to have it both ways by calling the Holocaust denial conference "a good idea" and an "error," it leaves her vulnerable to criticism from both sides of the argument."

Do you not see how silly this sounds, though? Again, the fact that you consider it a "ridiculous statement" does not entitle you to misrepresent what it was. If her statement doesn't make sense, say it doesn't make sense. If you want to draw conclusions based on her alleged senselessness, by all means do that. Don't quote her as if she was expressing support for the aims of the conference, though, which is what you did, and which she did not do.

It's funny, you call her second statement a contradiction, but it's no more a contradiction than me saying I support the conference because it shows Ahmadinejad's true colors. Would you say "Oh, the second part contradicts the first, so I won't include it?" When Churchill said Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others out there, would you have left off the second half of his sentence as contradictory?

It's a clarification, not a contradiction. Of course, a smart politician would never split such a clarification into a second sentence, already knowing the misquotations that would follow, but PCO isn't a politician, she's simply an editor on Wikipedia. You appeal to honest wikipedians not to take her statements seriously; well I would appeal to you as an honest wikipedian to consider whether your quotation of her is truly honset, or if you haven't rather misrepresented her. PCO hasn't made a contribution since the 19th, so she may not even be logging in. If she does respond, she's likely to say something that well may get her banned (she threatened to sue earlier on the belief that someone had called her anti-semitic, resulting in an indefiblock which was later removed). If you truly believe in journalistic integrity, I think you'll remove or clarify your statement on your own, without making her come and demand your retraction, which she may not even return to do. Best, Mackan79 18:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest with you, Mackan79, I wish I could interpret Pco's statement the way you do. It really would make me feel better about her and about Wikipedia in general. I am being completely sincere about that point. However, Pco's edit history, her history on talk pages, and the actual statement she made that we are currently disputing makes it very difficult for me to come around to your side. If she was using sarcasm like Churchil, she did it unclearly and ineptly. Furthermore, comparing Olmert's Zionism to Ahmedinejad's anti-Semitism is very strange, wouldn't you agree? It doesn't seem very likely to me that she was completely against the Holocaust conference, but her statement is so wild that it is hard to tell. As hard as I try (and I've reread her statement several times), I simply cannot see any evidence for your interpretation that she meant that the Holocaust conference was a good idea because it shows "because it shows Ahmadinejad's true colors." I wish I could see it, but I don't. Even if I did, consider the argument you say Pco is making:
 * (1) Someone came up with the idea of having an immoral Holocaust denial conference in Tehran.
 * (2) Having an immoral Holocaust denial conference in Tehran "shows Ahmadinejad's true colors."
 * (3) "Ahmedinejad's true colors" should be publicized and internationally condemned.
 * (4) Publication and international condemnation of "Ahmedinejad's true colors" is moral.
 * Therefore, (5) the person that came up with the idea of having an immoral Holocaust denial conference in Tehran is moral.

P.S. Pco actually is a politician, or at least associated with a political organization so she should be able to choose her words more carefully.


 * PCO's statement wasn't that it shows his true colors; that was my hypothetical. Her statement was that it resulted in a toning down of his rhetoric, while also clarifying that they will see the error of their ways.  I'm not saying it's a good argument.  I disagree with her.  You simply keep overlooking my basic point: the fact that PCO is /wrong/, even if true, does not entitle you to /misrepresent/ her.


 * Your statement suggests PCO expressed agreement with the aims of the conference. Again, you may not agree with her argument, but I believe you do know that THAT was NOT her argument.  In any case, can you really tell me you didn't take her statement out of context?  I'm not saying you did this deceitfully; her writing clearly could have been clearer.  We're not all Winston Churchill, whether we're involved in politics or not.  But at this point, doesn't an accurate quotation kind of require you to mention that she immediately followed this by saying they would see the error of their ways?  Isn't that a rather important part of the context?


 * If you explained her statement that it would show the error of their ways, and criticized it, and thus suggested that PCO has no credibility, that would be an entirely honest argument. To leave off that entire discussion and simply imply that she expressed support for Holocaust denial is not.  Why not make it a fair discussion?  Incidentally, I can very much see why PCO would not want to get into an extended discussion of whether she supported Holocaust denial with someone who is very unlikely to see her side.  I'd ask again that you consider removing it, or at least providing the appropriate context.  If not, I'll have to report it as a personal attack, but I wish I wouldn't have to.  Best, Mackan79 21:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll tell you what, Mackan79. I intend on keeping the statement as it is in my user page because I think I quoted her fairly and did not misrepresent her opinion any more than she misrepresented it herself. Her argument was wrong, her wording was wrong, and her she doesn't have any respect from me anyway. Naturally, I wish you wouldn't report this as a personal attack, but that is your choice. In elementary school, we used to give the title of "tattle tale" to people who report the alleged abuse of one person on the behalf of third person who has the ability to report the abuse themselves. On the playground (and in adulthood), this practice is socially frowned upon, but not illegal and arguably not immoral. There is very little a kindergartener or a Wikipedian could or should do to stop someone from tattle taling on them. Therefore, to use this shameful tactic is entirely up to you and I will have no choice but to accept whatever decision your own actions. However, for your sake of your own honor, I urge you instead to ask Pco to clarify what she meant or else ask her to report me herself so that your hands are clean. Again, you seem to be pretty moderate and so I have no direct quarrel with you. --GHcool 21:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to chuckle at your appeal. Tattle tale?  Honor?  The reason I'm objecting to this is because I think your attack on PCO is dishonest, or at least wildly innacurate, and potentially very damaging.  I also think it is a violation of Wikipedia policies, and certainly Wikipedia principles to post this kind of inaccurate attack your user page, urging others to discredit her.  (See JpGordon's comment on SV's talk page).  Also, I recognize that PCO does not appear to have signed in recently, and as I said, I fully understand why she would not want to personally engage you on this issue.  An allegation of holocaust-denial can be extremely damaging, and has often been the source of defamation suits.  She may well fear that if this is tied to her personally it could have damaging consequences.  If I report this, it will not be as a tattle tale trying to get you in trouble, but because I believe your attack is immoral, and because I think good people have an obligation to stand up for others who are unfairly attacked.

I suppose then, that your previous statement at 02:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC) that you would "be happy to tell PCO and have her deal with the situation" no longer stands because you are now concerned that "[s]he may well fear that if this is tied to her personally it could have damaging consequences?" Were you less concerned for her honor less than a day ago, or did you just change your mind because you want me censored as soon as possible? [Personal attack removed by Mackan79 23:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)] --GHcool 22:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As JpGordon noted, it is apparently frowned upon to respond on someone's user page. It is also prohibited to make legal threats.  Editing on wikipedia, also, is supposed to be about the edits suggested, not about the people behind them.  All of these are reasons why I do not think attacks like yours against PCO should be tolerated, even if you have a perfectly reasonable basis for not liking her.  If I hear from you that you're going to remove the attack before I register the complaint, I won't file it.  Regards, Mackan79 22:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The only sentence there that gets within a hundred miles of being a personal attack is, I urge honest Wikipedians not to take anything that Pco says seriously on any matter pertaining to the Jewish people. The rest of it is simply Pco's comments and GHcool's response. Pco is no longer editing, apparently out of frustration that she was unable to insert her POV into multiple Wikipedia articles. (Many editors have trouble recognizing that their personal opinion is simply not relevant in Wikipedia articles; sometimes they are convinced that their opinions must be The Truth. Political zealots, such as Pco, often fall prey to this misconception.) You won't get very far with these complaints, Mackan79; as a matter of fact, all you're doing is publicizing GHcool's homepage and his opinions. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed my mind when I saw that PCO hasn't edited here since the 19th, and for the reason you mentioned. As to the effect and so on; I simply said I'd report it.  I do disagree with your analysis, though, Jp.  I'm also learning how this sort of thing is dealt with here.  I've also got other things going on at the moment, though, so I might not get to it right away.  Regards, Mackan79 23:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You already have reported it. Administrators are aware of the situation (i.e., me.) Other admins have been watching and are also aware. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jp. I became concerned with making a big deal out of it without PCO's input, like you said, so I'm glad you're addressing it yourself.  Thanks, Mackan79 21:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

While your change may be an improvement, I continue to wonder why you wouldn't just represent her statement honestly. Obviously it's extremely relevant to her statement that she said that maybe they'll learn something. Obviously, this is necessary to any evaluation of her credibility. If you're going to impugn her credibility, why not address the statement she actually made? It's your credibility, too.

As to shunning users, this is very much against Wikipedia policy. See WP:NPA, particularly "Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party. This does not mean that you have to agree with the other person, but just agree to disagree. Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is." There's no broad exception for people that you believe have bigoted views. In that regard, also see WP:AGF. Trying to seek out and shun bigoted editors really goes against just about everything Wikipedia stands for. Mackan79 04:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Judaism
Hi, I put this comment here because you don't put your email. I like to becaome more familiare with Judaism. Would you please help me?--Sa.vakilian 18:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Your note
Hi GH, probably the best thing would be to remove material about particular users from your user page. It usually leads to trouble of some kind. :-) As for the quote, she did in fairness qualify her remark about it's good to have a HD conference by saying something like "so they can learn something." It's a naive comment, because they won't learn anything and don't want to, but that is what she said, and so if she's to be quoted, it's best to do it in context. This is probably a moot point, however, as I think she's left. Anyway, good luck with however you proceed, and best wishes of the season. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi again, I'm worried that I gave you the impression you're not breaking any rules. You may be in violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIV, and perhaps others. It's a moot point, because the user has left, but neverthless, it isn't fair to quote her selectively on such a major issue. I don't think she was saying that Holocaust denial conferences are a good thing as such; I believe her point was that she hoped people would learn something. She was making light of it, and I wish she hadn't, and she expressed herself unclearly, but I'd say it was still pretty clear that she wasn't actually applauding it.


 * That aside, it's not good form to post criticism of particular editors on your user page even if it's accurate, so in your own interests, it would be wise to remove the material about Pco. Would you consider doing that? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * GH, as you don't want to remove the comments, I've taken the liberty of adding more of her quote to clarify what she meant. What you wrote is still accurate, because it's still clear she was making light of it. I normally wouldn't edit someone's user page, but my concern here is that it's quite easy, by looking through that editors' contribs, to see who she is in real life, and it's therefore important not to say or imply anything potentially defamatory. I hope this is okay with you, and I'm sorry again for having to go on about it. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to User talk:SlimVirgin
Excuse me for butting in as I know nothing whatsoever about the background of your conversation with SlimVirgin, but I wanted to say that: "Anyone who tries to poison that well of verifiable truth is committing a grave sin against history and must be treated as such." filled me with horror. I seem to spend a lot of time each day reverting the edits of true believers to articles like David Irving, and that language seems unencyclopedic to me. Our aim here is accuracy, not truth, it seems to me. Best wishes and season's greetings. Guinnog 09:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for amending your comment, and for understanding the distinction I was making. Best wishes --Guinnog 19:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename Palestinian people to Palestinian Arabs
Hi GHcool. I responded to your comments about whether the Palestinians were an ethnic group. At the moment the article is not named properly and thus you are partially correct. The "Palestinian Arabs" are an ethnic group but the Palestinian people are not a singular ethnic group any more than Israelis (which is inclusive of both the various Jewish ethnicities and Arab ethnicities) is a singular ethnic group. I would push for a renaming of the article to Palestinian Arabs to better focus the article. If necessary, we can create another article for the non-Arab Palestinians to ensure that all ethnicities are properly covered. Right now "Palestinian Arabs" redirects to Palestinian people -- I suspect that this was done by a Palestinian nationalist activist but it conflates together things that are best dealt with separately. --64.230.120.196 19:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I can envision a "Palestinian peoples" article existing but it would not be as extensive as the current one, but rather focus on the imagined communities or nationalistic aspects of the group identity and would leave the ethnicity talk to more focused appropriate articles. I'll follow this talk page if you want to respond.  Cheers.  --64.230.120.196 19:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

ZOG mediation
Hi, thanks for your kind words. Exactly because there is overwhelming evidence that ZOG is indeed an antisemitic canard, I feel that it would be beneath my dignity to honor those who deny it. This is not a content dispute (increasingly looks like a case of disruption/trolling), and what really needs to be discussed is the behavior of my opponent. Mediation is not a proper place for that. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Desmond Tutu
Are you still interested in the dispute. All statements are sourced although Halaqah seems to want to do delete it for no given reason--at all. --Shamir1 08:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken. It is regarding the comment he made in a church in Connecticut, which was reported by the Jerusalem Post and can be found here. --Shamir1 19:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, but that is not the point. The point is that already it had said said that Tutu has been accused of antisemitism, but it does not say WHY. It looks just as if his comments on Israel were it. When in fact, it was the "Jewish lobby" comment and the "Jews thought they had a monopoly" comment. If it was simply his arab-israeli conflict views that would be one thing, but since they mention the accusation it must be written. I too like tutu. --Shamir1 22:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, no, no. I am NOT saying that he is antisem. The article says (which I did not add) that there are those who accuse him of antisemitism per his words. However, CJCurrie does not want those words out (for some odd, who-knows reason). Excluding that he said that would be POV. The fact that it is said that he is accused of antisemitism without saying why or what he said to provoke that is wrong. --Shamir1 23:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats how it is now but CJCurrie seems to want to make it look unreliable by saying it was only by the Zionist Organization of America. It happened, he said it, and he offended people. Those accusers look like complete idiots without having that statement there and it should be there. Anyway, i understand if you want to stay out. --Shamir1 00:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Going by and saying hello
I thought as a courtesy to come by and say hello. You're doing a terrific job in maintaining some sanity on the pages concerning Israel.

I am limited in time so I don't have the time needed to fight a just battle with people who I think were hired to do P.R work. For example on the Hezbollah page, I finally got fed up and left. Now when I look at it, I don't recognize it anymore. In the Introduction which needs to be a synopsis of the subject at hand; not a word is mentioned that Hezbollah was created for the sole intention to fight Israel. Sure it eventually started doing other things; so now the "Iker" becomes the "Tofel" and the "Tofel" becomes the "Iker"; History again standing on its head. Itzse 20:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Grateful for your use of my words.
I'm flattered that you see fit to re-post some of my statements on your UserPage - and bowled over that each of these (necessarily cherry-picked) examples are statements that I'd stand by, and not choose to modify, still. My question for you is "When will you put down your guns and let the Palestinians back to their homes?". PalestineRemembered 20:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

article edits
Hi. I don't wish to question a good thing, but I guess I just wanted to mention, I assume you're more or less ok with my edits to that article recently? I guess you found them more or less ok. I appreciate it, thanks for your openness to those. See you. --Sm8900 20:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good! I appreciate it. Always good to have feedback and/or support. So thanks very much. See you. --Sm8900 13:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with my edits?
I suspect you're a bit unhappy with edits I've made, but they're all quite reasonable and many/all are provably true.

So I don't understand why you'd go on a campaign against me with this. Some editors have problems with my edits - but that's because they're rather too well referenced (as at ), not because they're untrue.

And what I've posted you in the past about David Ben-Gurion et al is hardly "surprising", BG wanted Israel to include the whole of Southern Lebanon and border "Christian" Lebanon in the region of Beirut. He intended "transfer", ethnic cleansing. All this was long before the Holocaust. I'm sure you'd not really want to deny something so well attested.

Furthermore, I've not been warned and almost perma-blocked for anything I've actually done - a ludicrously false allegation was made against me here. The ArbCom on this matter is still open, but nobody really thinks it's because I took my views from the Holocaust Deniers. Or do you? PalestineRemembered 19:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you don't understand why I didn't like your comparison of punative house demolition of known terrorists or their families that expect to benefit from terrorism to ethnic cleansing campaigns of the innocent in Africa or your comparison of Jews that want to live without fear in their historic homeland to genocidal Nazis, then I'm sure you won't understand much else in the world.


 * As far as Ben-Gurion's alleged ethnic cleansing campaign in southern Lebanon, I find nothing about it in the entire Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East or any other reliable source. The only place I could find anything like what you are describing except a quotation distributed on a handful of user-created unreliable websites such as this one in which Ben-Gurion is quoted as saying "A Christian state should be established [in Lebanon], with its southern border on the Litani river." The quote is never cited to a book, speech, or even a date on any of the pages that repeat this quote (and there are only about 5 of them on all of Google).  Even if the quotation was truly said (and I admit that Ben-Gurion may have had enough chutzpah to say it), it says nothing about ethnic cleansing at all.  Until somebody shows me a reliable source with proof of an ethnic cleansing capaign of Muslims designed by Ben-Gurion meant to be carried out in southern Lebanon, I will remain skeptical and will continue to demand proof when people make such bold claims.  --GHcool 21:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't mean to be POV
My edit at gazette was simply an example of the importance of publishing laws passed by a modern, democratic system. Fail to publish those laws, and they may not take effect. If you have a better example of the confusion that can ensue, by all means include it. In the meantime, I've included one that I know of, and I cannot understand why you'd take it out. PalestineRemembered 20:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming good faith on this gazette issue because maybe you don't know about WP:Undue Weight. The gazette article should discuss gazettes in general.  Singling out one esoteric instance of a possible misuse of gazettes amounts to POV pushing.  Imagine if in the article on children's television series, someone added a sentence about the importance of ethical educational standards in children's television by giving the example of "Tomorrow's Pioneers." I would not even flinch at reverting such an edit and I am sure you wouldn't either.  --GHcool 21:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm moving this discussion here. --GHcool 21:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian Arabs versus Palestinian People
I need your help. As you're aware I renamed the page to "Palestinian Arabs" to remove an injustice. Those that are interested in keeping that POV reverted my change. I want to do this the correct way and I need your help. Thank you. Itzse 17:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sticking up for the truth. To me this is a test if Wikipedia can be fair and unbiased. If it fails this test, then this would tell me that there is no rhyme and reason to be here if somebody can come along in the future and make the entire Wikipedia biased. I'm waiting to see if Wikipedia's "checks and balances" work. Thanks for being a mentch, it's greatly appreciated. Itzse 22:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I just came back after a few days being away and I saw your edits. I admire your COOLness in articulating your responses and your fearlessness in pursuing what is right. But even with the best arguments for truth, fairness, NPOV, and even a consensus agreed upon; all I have seen is stone walling in an attempt to keep Wikipedia biased. What needs to be the next step? I am fast loosing my faith in Wikipedia, if it can police itself, as I have lost faith in mankind a long time ago. Please continue the process to ask an administrator to make the move and if needed to take it to the next step for arbitration. This is the maker or breaker for me; which I'm sure a lot of people will be happy to see me gone.

By leaving it to you, I'll try to stay cool and add my two cents where needed. Thanks for your help. If I do stay, it will only be because of people like you. Itzse 15:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your valiant and brilliant work. I just finished a series of edits, trying to set the record straight. I'm flabbergasted by what's at work against it. Tell me if you think I over reacted or my edits aren't helpful, then I'll lay back and wait out until you take it to the next step. I value your advice. Itzse 21:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Just letting you know that Tiamut reverted this edit of yours, saying that the book doesn't say that. Please let me know if she is wrong.  Tewfik Talk 18:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't give up yet. The only reason that I didn't quit Wikipedia, when I was getting ready to do just that, was because you convinced me with the statement that "you'll allow bigots to take over Wikipedia?". If you don't win any consensus on this one, which there is still a question if we need one; you'll have at least won me over to stay. Itzse 23:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll be away for a few days. The proposal keeps on gaining supporters which is a positive sign. Please don't let it just fall on the wayside like it did a week ago. Itzse 21:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Based on many observations, which I shall rather not mention; I agree with you that bad faith played a big role in both involvements of an outside administrator. I suspect that a behind the scenes dealing was the cause of its outcome, with the players quite obvious. Your help is greatly appreciated, but more then that, you have shown yourself to be a true mentch; "mentchen bleiben mentchen". Thank you and good luck in all of your endeavors. Itzse 00:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

Barnstar
Thanks for all your great efforts! see you!--Steve, Sm8900 15:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing
Dear GHcool,

I have reverted both quotes you added to the article Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus because they do not contribute to the section you added them. Furthermore, they were parsed tendentiously.

I would like to ask you not to re-insert them, since this, especially in light of your threat here constitute Disruptive editing. If you insist, I will ask that you be blocked from editing Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus.

Cheers and kind regards, Pedro Gonnet 14:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Palestinians
Please read the top matter to WP:RM, which gives specific instructions for setting up a place for discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the last move request, from a week ago; please explain why you are relisting, and where you expect people to comment (on WP:RM, please; not my talk page.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment at talk:Palestinian people
I made a comment trying to agree with you, and you posted a rambling, arrogant attack based on your comically stupid misreading of my argument. I do indeed support the move; all of those pages I pointed to were redirects and disambiguations. Next time, take a half a second to actually read beyond the username of the person making the comment. Eleland 01:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Kiryat Gat and the ethnic cleansing.
The rightful inhabitants of al-Faluja are unable to return to their homes because the inhabitants of Kiryat Gat (and others) have taken up guns to stop them returning. The fact that (likely most of) the current inhabitants of Kiryat Gat have only some kind of "chosen race" connection to the region is bound to remind people of claims of the Serbian people to Kosovo (this latter claim was found to be lacking in much legal or moral worth in 1999). Or even events from 60 years ago. How do you justify the continued locking of this article, denying the evidence of victims and observers of this event? PalestineRemembered 21:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Unproductive WP:SOAPBOX rants like the ones above is suitable justification for the continued locking of the article. --GHcool 06:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello GHcool. Concerning page protection of Kiryat Gat, there is no possibility of edit warring from PalestineRemembered right now. All his contributions are being checked carefully, and he is about to begin mentorship soon. I posted a reply at WP:RPP . Best, nadav (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

article help
Hi GHcool. Could you please add Battle of Jenin to your watchlist? A debate is currently occurring over coverage of this event. And please feel to free to take a look at the talk page at some point. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 17:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to Steve's specific request, I regret that I do not feel comfortable adding Battle of Jenin to my watchlist because I honestly don't know very much about it and don't have the time right now to research it. From what I've read about Jenin, it seems to me to be a case of Palestinian terrorists from Jenin starting a fight by killing dozens of Israeli civilians, the IDF kills a handful of Palestinians (some were civilians), and then the world buying the Palestinian propoganda version of the story.  I think the article is acceptable as it is.  --GHcool 04:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for confirming that the "Major View" of the 2002 event in Jenin is based on "a Palestinian-friendly version". Would you care to explain why the article is written as if the the "Israel-friendly version" is treated as if it were the "Major View"? PalestineRemembered 07:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Because the article, as far as I can tell, is a fair one without Palestinian nor Israeli spin. --GHcool 18:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This Battle of Jenin article is at least as bad as anything I've ever come across in the encyclopedia. It's written around the hard-line Israeli "No Massacre Thesis", when the very references used state that this denial has been entirely ignored by the western media.
 * SteveSm8900 (the same "pro-Israeli" editor who is trying to canvas you above) also called User:HG to come to the article with this 17:14, 30 Aug. When HG  attempted to start a mediation, "pro-Israeli" editors accused him of being biased towards me, and are refusing to take part in the mediation.
 * But thank you for confirming that the "Major View" of the 2002 event in Jenin is based on "a Palestinian-friendly version" - all we need is for certain parties to agree that the WP article should reflect what Reliable Sources actually state. PalestineRemembered 20:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why you chose my talk page to give your opinions on the Battle of Jenin article is beyond my understanding, but nevertheless, your opinion is noted. --GHcool 21:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You said "the world buying the Palestinian propoganda version of the story". I'm inviting you to explain why the article is not written to this "Majority View" as WP:Policy would apparently say it should (under "Verifiability not Truth"), with NPOV balance for the "Minority View".
 * The article is actually written to a "No Massacre Thesis" beloved of pro-Israeli bloggers (and nobody else), which is not even factually correct. PalestineRemembered 09:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, your opinion, my opinion, or any one person's opinion isn't the only thing that counts on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia articles were written to the "majority view," the article for Human evolution would be written from the "verifiable" point of view that it occurred on the Sixth Day.  The "no massacre thesis" is "believed" (I prefer the word "verified") by most reliable sources written after investigation of the Jenin events.  --GHcool 16:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You just told me it wasn't, that the world bought the Palestinian version! PalestineRemembered 20:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are so inclined, you're welcome to re-read what I wrote and interpret it correctly. I'm still not sure what purpose this conversation serves.  --GHcool 20:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein
Dear GHCool,

If you don't agree with an addition by me, please start a discussion on a talk or discussion page first before deleting it.

--JaapBoBo 00:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And don't WP:CANVAS for help like you have done on WP:Israel (not for the first time). Number   5  7  19:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't canvassing. I was asking other people for their input.  But I appreciate your concern.  --GHcool 20:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein - canvassing
Reverted. Seriously, which bit of my previous warning about canvassing didn't you understand?  E LIMINATOR JR  20:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I don't understand Canvasing, but it appears to me that you're allowed to ask others for input as long as you don't tell them what to say. Am I wrong? --GHcool 20:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You are joking, aren't you? You ARE telling them what to say!  Read that contribution again.  If it had just said "Please note there is an AfD on article X" then no problem.  But it effectively says "Y and Z are doing such and such.  Vote against them".   E LIMINATOR JR  20:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I reread the comment and I'll add it here: "'A handful of editors (including regular Zionism conspiracy theorist User:PalestineRemembered) are trying to shove the 'research' of Norman Finkelstein in the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. Comments are welcome here.'" I don't see any evidence for your allegation of me telling other people how to vote. --GHcool 20:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No. It quite blatantly reads as "I don't like this piece of content.  Please revert it".  Now, for what it's worth, I am quite aware of PalestineRemembered's POV-pushing, but that doesn't mean you can canvass for edit-warring.  OK?  E LIMINATOR JR  21:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your concern, but I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree. You interpret what I wrote incorrectly.  It is true that I didn't like that content and it is even true that I hope it will be reverted, but that doesn't mean I wrote that message to force everybody else to agree with me.  For all I know, people could have disagreed with me.  I find it hard to believe that a statement (admitedly POV) and then a call for more discussion would be against wikipedia guidelines.  --GHcool 21:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The new message is better.  E LIMINATOR JR  21:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

New antisemitism
Dude,

I know very well about death camps, cattle trains, ghettos and the "final solution". In my post I was clearly talking about those who -- like many Palestinian refugees -- left before getting killed.

Your wilful misinterpretation of what I wrote is more than insulting. It is defamatory. Judging by your user page, this is not new territory for you.

If you can't keep your red herrings to yourself, I will request that you be blocked from editing articles relating to the Middle-East.

Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 07:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I appologize if I misinterpret what you said, but I must say that I did not see reference to the time of the Jewish refugees. If you were referring to Jewish refugees that fled before Kristallnacht, then I would say that you might have had a point.  It looked to me like you were comparing the Palestinian refugee experience to the Jewish experience of the 1939-1945 Holocaust period.  If that is indeed what you meant (and I find no evidence that it was), than I stand by my earlier statements.  --GHcool 17:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know, I took the issue of your user page to the Administrators' noticeboard. Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 16:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Katrina Analogy
--GHcool (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Reconstructed from --GHcool (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC): Dear Screen stalker, Please don't use Hurricane Katrina as an analogy to the 1948 Palestinian exodus. Even though you made your point, you shot yourself in the foot by giving credibility to such a moronic comparison. The whole "blowing away to Houston" scenerio is offensive to Palestinians, Israelis, and New Orleans refugees. I know you do not mean any harm, but just because one person pulls something out of their ass doesn't mean everybody has to. What's next? The Israeli-Palestinian conflict as seen through the lens of The Wizard of Oz with "There's no place like home" equated to the Palestinian right of return and the Wicked Witch of the West equated to the Western world? --GHcool 03:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, I hope this message finds you well.

I am sorry if I offended you by speaking in terms of the Katrina analogy, but I am not sorry that I did so. In order for discourse to be meaningful, we have to be willing to discuss on the level that the discussion is taking place. If both sides say "your discourse is offensive and I will not so much as talk about it until the other side changes their rhetoric, then you have no hope of thorough discussion.

I dislike the Katrina analogy almost as much as you do (in fact, I found your barnstar commentary both accurate and hilarious). But if, as you say, there are obstacles that prevent PalestineRemembered and Pedro from holding normal discourse, then we must change our discourse. Otherwise, we might as well be conversing in Chinese, o be'Ivrit. Screen stalker 11:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Reconstructed from --GHcool (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC): I'm sorry, but if you use their analogies, then it implies that you agree that it was a valid comparison. Judging by your comments on my talk page, it seems to me that you do not agree that the analogy is a fair one, so I am confused about why you are perpetuating its use. --GHcool 17:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the Katrina analogy was valid. But in this case I think that discussing the means of discourse rather than the issue itself stifles discussion. Bear in mind, I am more than willing to discuss the means of discourse in most cases. I simply felt that this was a case in which that would have set us back instead of moving us forward. Screen stalker 15:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Reconstructed from --GHcool (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC): I appreciate your good will and understand your points, but I must disagree. The party that controls the means of discourse controls the entire discussion. Honest discussion can only take place on a level playing field. What you were effectively doing was yield control over the entire discussion to the Katrinaists. This Katrina analogy was the Big Lie that hundreds of little lies could be argued convincingly if the Big Lie isn't exposed. With your help, I hope we don't see anymore of this shameful distortion. --GHcool 18:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Tell you what, GHcool. Out of respect for you, I'll try to avoid that in the future. But bli neder. Screen stalker 00:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Good luck
Hi GHCool, I wish you good luck on these articles. I personnaly abandon this. I thought it was possible to get something good when Pedro started to be interested by the article but after the arrival of Jordixtei and JaapBoBo, there is no chance any more. This is not possible to work collaboratively if people cheat with the sources and they make believe they don't. Concerning my last material about Morris. Everything is quoted and this is undismountable. Could you please take care it is kept and not mixed with other sections. I agree it is removed when the whole article is neutral and give honnestly : "context - all historians pov - evolutoin of pov during time - controversies" and not focusing on details or counting points. And don't hesitate to remove Finkelstein if Schetchman is removed. Nobody could argue any difference between them. They were both scholars, both with a political agenda but are both referred by some of their pairs (eg Morris referst to each of them). Maybe a way to neutralize this mess once for all would be to introduce the material not by theories but by historians (we then introduce their pov a neutral way)
 * causes as seen at that time of the events
 * UNO - NY times - ...
 * Yishuv - Arabs - ...


 * Traditionnal palestinian view
 * Khalidi - Massalha (and the other ones - we lack them much in the article)


 * Traditionnal israeli view
 * Schetchman - Pearlman - ...


 * Critics of traditionnal views before the new historians
 * Childers


 * Historiography after the new historians
 * Flapan (+ a bit segev)
 * Morris (and the critics around his work :
 * teveth - shapira - karsh - finkelstein and why not the french historians Laurens and Vidal
 * Pappé (and the critics around his work : gelber - karsh)
 * Gelber (and the critics around his work)

former user:alithien. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alithien (talk • contribs) 07:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * the official governement line today and the importance of the matter
 * controversies around the propaganda war on both sides


 * I appreciate your kind words, but your leaving the discussion seriously diminishes the strength I have in preserving the article in ways we both agree upon. You are creating more work for me and a less stable article.  I hope you reconsider your abandonment.  --GHcool 17:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The Economist
Please read the discussion [] before restoring. --JaapBoBo 21:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Schechtman/Karsh
Dear GHCool,

I took Schechtman out because there were no good arguments supporting him on the talk page. Please first provide those and get consencus before reintroducingSchechman.

I also gave specific arguments with respect to Karsh in the 'history'. Most of the time because Karsh's view in those cases is very far from that of more reasonable Zionist historians like Morris. Can you take those into account please?

Please introduce your edits one at a time, because that makes it a lot easier for me to leave the good edits alone. Thank you!

--JaapBoBo 18:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Schechtman is a well respected source - why take him out ? removing his view is byitself POV. Zeq 22:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Morris as a "hate source"
Perhaps I could have chosen my words more carefully. My point was that Morris meets PR's standards of what a hate source is, and as such PR should be advocating his removal from the article, or cease to demand the removal of Schechtman from the article. I personally favor the latter, but my point is that we should be consistent.

My apologies if I came off as saying something else. Screen stalker 12:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll have to find what you're talking about. But it's nonsense to call Morris (once a refusenik) a hate-source. PRtalk 07:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Schechtman is clearly and conclusively wrong in what he said.
You posted here: ''It is a little ambiguous, but it is extremely likely that Schechtman is referring to the period between 1947 and May 15, 1948 in Palestine that he refers to in the sentence preceding the "no quarter whatsoever" sentence. Recent scholarship has found several cases of North African Arabs who helped to save Jews during the Holocaust. Arabs clearly have helped Jews in the past, but in the case of the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, I think its safe to say that each side did not treat the other with very much respect. As for Gatoclass's assertion that "no quarter whatsoever" was given to Jews during the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine is an exceptional claim, I would argue that it is no more exceptional than a hypothetical claim the no quarter whatsoever was given to any Republicans by Nationalists during the 1936-1939 Spanish Civil War. --GHcool 06:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)''

Schechtman is clearly and conclusively wrong in what he said. HG informs me that "denial involves extreme historical falsification and thereby invalidates or casts the utmost doubt on a source", and I think it reasonable to call Schechtman's words "extreme historical falsification". He cannot possibly have believed what he said. Please note, I wasn't arguing for this straightforward falsehood as the reason for his being rejected - I'd argue that the hate-speech was more significant. But we reach the same conclusion by two distinct routes. PRtalk 08:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I reread the paragraph I wrote on October 14 that PalestineRemembered quoted back to me with a smile on my face. I was pretty sure I was right, but I was actually hoping to have been proven wrong so that something new would occur in the debate.  All PalestineRemembered had to do to prove Schechtman (or my interpretation of what Schechtman said) wrong was to find documented cases of Palestinian Arabs helping by giving food, shelter, or medical attention to Palestinian Jews during the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine.  I know of no case where this occurred, but such a case would interest me greatly for the same reason that stories of Arabs who helped Jews during the Holocaust interest me greatly.  Sadly, I don't think such a case occurred in history, and I wouldn't expect it to because they were at war with each other.  I'd love to be proven wrong on this.
 * I started reading PalestineRemembered's post with anticipation, thinking that he would come up with a case that would disprove Schechtman's assertion, but sadly, it was more of the same ad hominem stuff from middle school debate club. Oh well.  --GHcool 17:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Schechtman quote under consideration is this one: "Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands. Wounded and dead alike were mutilated. Every member of the Jewish community was regarded as an enemy to be mercilessly destroyed."
 * Note the bolded portion, which is definitely an "extreme historical falsification" - and it has been edit-warred into Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus with eg here, summary "put back Schechtman. Why was this deleted?". The multiplicity of reasons for deleting it are explained in great detail in Talk and by two editors in summaries as follows: "Schechtman, as you know, was outed as a fraud by Childers and Glazer, much in the same way Joan Peters (who, incidentally, cites Schechtman excessively) was." and "This is clearly a hate-author, here accusing an entire ethnicity of being diseased. His credibility elsewhere is nil, publishing outright falsehoods about Arabs who've ever taken taken Jews prisoner." PRtalk 09:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I take it then that PalestineRemembered did not find documented cases of Palestinian Arabs helping by giving food, shelter, or medical attention to Palestinian Jews during the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine between the time he printed his last ad hominem soapbox and the time he printed this one. If I didn't assume good faith, I would ask PalestineRemembered to stop harassing me, but since I do assume good faith, I'll just ask him to consider presenting evidence against Schechtman next time he feels the need to challenge him (or me) on this point.  --GHcool 16:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to see a fellow editor miss the point so completely and seek to keep in articles an author apparently guilty of both "extreme historical distortion" and ethnic-based hatred. PRtalk 07:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The ringworm children affair
Hi Ghcool: Please re-read The ringworm children affair article as I have re-written and wikified it with sources and reliable citations. Thanks, IZAK 08:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Question for you
I'd like to know what you think of this CAMERA article - does it contain statements which amount to "extreme historical falsification"? Here's one I picked up - what do you think?: "Bisharat wrongly states, "In 1948, about 700,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homeland..." While some Palestinian Arabs were expelled, such as those who resided in Ramle and Lod, the vast majority of Arabs fled of their own accord, many due to false rumors spread by Arab propagandists.. PRtalk 17:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer not to comment specifically on the Bisharat editorial or the CAMERA article since I haven't read the Bisharat editorial and I don't know how fairly or unfairly CAMERA treats it. If you are asking me if "about 700,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homeland" in 1948, I would say that it depends on your definition of "expelled" and your definition of "homeland." --GHcool 19:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein
I've requested mediation: Requests for mediation/Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. Can you sign your agreement please? --JaapBoBo 22:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
 * Surely I am the one party and you the other. Please put your issue back where it belongs. --JaapBoBo 11:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, I thought that we were equal parties. I won't be a part of any mediation where one party is favored over the other party for the arbitrary reason that one party filed for the mediation first.  --GHcool 17:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

A mediator has arrived!! --JaapBoBo 00:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

RfM
I have made this edit.

To explain: there is two sections for issues on an RfM - one is for the initial party, and the other is for "other" parties (not the filer). The reason this is done is to provide some for of attribution to the issues, and assists the Committee by providing a perspective of what both sides feel are the issues - every little bit of understanding helps.

To address your concerns:-
 * Both sections have absolutely equal weight, and will both be addressed equally. Both lists represent what parties view as the "key issues"; the distinction is made, as I said above, to give some perspective to the mediator as to what the views of both sides are.
 * All issues will be mediated, because it is expected that if you sign agreement you agree to address issues listed in both sections. I did not interpret the initial moving of "your" issue to the other section by JaapBoBo to mean they disagree with it.

My apologies if this was/is confusing, and I note you still reserve the right to withdraw from mediation if this message is insufficient, or if anything else means you desire to withdraw (both now and if the case proceeds). Cheers,  Daniel  23:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Very well. I was under the impression that "additional issues" means "secondary issues." I will accept the mediation provided that the issue I brought forth is treated with equal importance to the one that JaapBoBo brought forth.  --GHcool 00:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies for the ambiguity, and I will raise a possible reword of the headers for that section with the Committee to avoid further confusion. Thanks,  Daniel  00:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I
Hi GHcool,

I've restarted the debate here. Also, please read here before editing the section heading again.

Cheers,  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 07.11.2007 09:35

User page
OK, it's late here, but to give a quick example; using this quote where the user is comparing Hezbollah and Hamas - and naming the latter as terrorist - and then just snipping the first part of it to use is not really fair to him/her. Also, you have a large section of User:Pco. If you're going to call out other editors for bias, I don't see the point in including such an obvious troll; anyone can see that regardless and they shouldn't be used as a yardstick to measure others against. Finally, I simply have a problem with some of the language; "Remember that most of these people are just ignorant beyond reason" for example. Whilst the idea of the page as a whole is not objectionable, I am sure you can see that you need to ensure complete objectivity in such a project. Yours,  E LIMINATOR JR  22:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for addressing me directly instead of complaining and threatening on the administrator notice board. I appreciate your maturity and your spirit of compromise and cooperation.
 * To respond:
 * I don't think I misquoted Count Iblis. The man said, "[T]here hasn't been a single terror attack that has been proven to be perpetrated by Hezbollah," and that's what I printed.  True, he went on to talk about other things, but the fact remains that he stated a demonstrable falsehood and didn't even phrase it in the form of an opinion.  I feel that this was irresponsible.  Count Iblis should either take back his words or ask to rephrase them.  He did not, and so his words deserve criticism.
 * I don't believe I am measuring anybody against Pco's standards. If I did, all of the other people criticized on my page would look like angels.  As you said, she was a troll, and so I criticize her more strongly than anybody else on my page.  I assume you wouldn't want me to criticize someone like Count Iblis as harshly as Pco because I assume that you don't think Count Iblis's statements warrent the same level of criticism.  Neither do I.
 * I regret writing, "Remember that most of these people are just ignorant beyond reason." I shall delete it immediately and appologize for writing it. Thank you for pointing this out.  --GHcool 00:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What I meant referring to Pco, is that such a large section may mean people just assume your entire page is a list of edits by trolls, when that isn't your idea I'm sure.  E LIMINATOR JR  07:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that isn't my idea, and I hope people don't come away with that interpretation. On the other hand, I don't think somebody could reasonably come away from my page with that interpretation.  I know you didn't and I don't know of anybody who did.  If my page truly were a list of troll edits, it would hardly be worth the effort it takes to write it and certainly would not make for a very interesting read.  --GHcool 17:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing Hezbollah
Hi, I've nominated Hezbollah for peer review and a semi-automatic javascript program put a review there on the base of WP:MS. Can you please check the article and add ✅ mark here.-- Seyyed(t-c) 05:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a very poor article and I'm not sure why you're canvassing for it to be "peer-reviewed". I can see an immediate absurdity at "bring to justice of those who committed atrocities during the war (specifically the Phalangists)". Not only is it ungrammatical, it flies in the face of one of the reasons for the popularity of Hezbollah, which is that it (often) tries to reject this kind of feuding and internecine conflict. PRtalk 16:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Are your comments being directed at me? If not, why are they on my talk page? --GHcool 17:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with some points of that suggestion. I put a comment on the talk page and asked a reviewer to help us with it. Please write your idea in Talk:Hezbollah-- Seyyed(t-c) 04:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

C. 1948 Palestinian exodus RfM
I have taken on Requests for mediation/Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus and have begun the mediation by calling for opening statements (on the mediation's talk page). Please add your opening statement when you get the chance and, if you haven't done so already, please put the page on your watchlist so you're kept abreast of what's going on at the mediation. --  tariq abjotu  07:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

help with editing.
Hi GHcool. thanks for your help recently. I need you help with something. IZAK seems utterly convinced I am anti-Semitic, and an anti-Israel agitator. he keeps saying my categories are troubling. he has made comments like this at Wikiproject Judaism. See ym contribs history for more. can ou or somebody please help me with this guy.? please try to get him to view things more closely carefully and accuartely. I'd appreciate your help with this. alittle help here please! feel free to reply to me at my talke page too, if you want. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I prefer to keep the conversation here so that when I receive messages, I'll know about it. Anyway, I took a brief look at your recent edits paying particular attention to the two categories under consideration for deletion.  Although on both cases I voted in favor of deletion with the rationale that they are redundant, I find nothing anti-Semitic nor anti-Israel about the categories nor its proponents.  Of the stuff I've seen of yours, nothing would lead me to consider you to be an anti-Semite or anti-Israel, and I'm pretty sensitive to that kind of stuff as you can see on my user page.  I hope this helps.  --GHcool (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks. that is helpful. I appreciate it. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

MedComWiki
Have you gotten the confirmation e-mail yet? If not, have you checked (if applicable) your spam folders? --  tariq abjotu  22:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't received it. I checked my spam folder and it isn't there either.  Any suggestions? --GHcool (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear GHcool, please check my edit here. I'd like to get the mediation back in public. First of all because many other editors are interested, but second, and more important, because acceptance by third parties of any compromise reached by you and me is gravely enhanced by discussing it in public.

I think I can get PR too agree to the rules I propose. So, if I can, I hope you will agree to put the mediation in public space again. --JaapBoBo (talk) 09:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

1948 Exodus mediation
I am writing to you with regards to the 1948 Palestinian exodus mediation underway. I understand that nerves have been rubbed raw by outside attempts to "influence" the threeway mediation; in an effort to avoid exacerbating that I'm posting an identical message on the individual talk pages of Tariq, Ghcool, and JaapBoBo, and nothing at the mediation page itself. I am sorry if this is late in the game, but I've only now become aware that there was a dispute over Finkelstein's status as an RS. I'd like to clarify a few misstatements that have been made about his work and career, and – with your forebearance – make a few brief remarks about the policy issues at stake here. While I appreciate (and applaud) your goal of narrowly circumscribing the scope of this mediation, the fact is that any decision you come to will have broader implications. These should be weighed and understood.

Briefly, regarding Finkelstein:
 * 1) Ghcool is correct that his research consists primarily of secondary sources.  Tariq's clarification about the distinctions between primary and secondary sources is well-taken, but it is true that most of Finkelstein's scholarship consists of what he calls "forensic scholarship" – that is, critical evaluation of the sources, methodologies, and conclusions of other works of scholarship.  He doesn't, that is, do much in the way of original archival research (the Holocaust Industry being a notable exception, with its investigation into reparations lawsuits and so on).   It is not clear to me why Ghcool finds this a disqualifying factor in his status as a reliable source; generally speaking, "secondary scholarship" of this sort is regarded as a very worthy enterprise in academia.  At any rate, it would certainly seem to have no bearing on the present dispute, which is about whether Finkelstein's claims about the centrality of "transfer" to "Zionist thinking" can be included in this article.  The relevant criterion here is Finkelstein's interpretive competence, not his background as an archival or documentary scholar in the Benny Morris mold.
 * 2) The mediation discussion thus far has tended, unfortunately, to conflate Finkelstein's employment status (in the wake of his highly politicized tenure battle at DePaul) with his status as a scholar.  These are entirely separate issues, and only the latter properly has any bearing on his status as an RS in Wikipedia.  His status as a scholar is established by his track record of high-profile peer-review publications (his most recent book was published by one of the most prestigious university presses in the world, the University of California at Berkeley's), and the high regard for his work among eminent scholars in his own field, such as political scientists Ian Lustick and John Mearsheimer; and in related historical fields, such as Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg (author of the three-volume Destruction of the European Jews and the so-called "Dean of Holocaust studies"), the historian of nations and nationalism Eric Hobsbawm, Middle East historian Avi Shlaim, and the Talmudic scholar Daniel Boyarin.
 * 3) These endorsements should be contrasted with the criticisms Ghcool cites, which come from a popular (i.e. non-peer-review) book by celebrity defense attorney Alan Dershowitz, an internal memorandum from a once-urban-planning professor and now-faculty-dean at DePaul University (Chuck Suchar), and a phone interview with Benny Morris posted on CAMERA's website.
 * 4) With this distinction between Finkelstein's employment status and his scholarly status in mind, a few remarks need to be made about the former.  Ghcool describes Finkelstein "quitting in a huff because DePaul denied him a tenure position."  This is false.  In fact, DePaul cancelled Finkelstein's classes days before the fall semester began, reneging on the customary and contractually stipulated obligation to grant a final year of teaching to a professor denied tenure.  Facing mounting disgust among DePaul faculty over the administration's breach of good faith in the Finkelstein matter, growing student protests, a vowed hunger strike by Finkelstein himself, and formal action from the American Association of University Professors for the breach of contract, DePaul negotiated a private settlement with Finkelstein.
 * 5) Ghcool writes that he "agrees with most of the academics" in Middle East studies in finding Finkelstein "an unreliable source at best and a malicious one at worst." It's hard to know what he's referring to.  The Middle East Studies Association of America in fact publicly expressed dismay at the denial of tenure to Finkelstein, and made clear they believed the decision was the result of undue outside political pressure from non-specialists like Dershowitz.  It's also worth noting that Finkelstein's tenure bid was endorsed by a strong majority of the scholars in DePaul's political science department, who considered Dershowitz's 50-page submission at length and rejected it.  A good portion of his submission consisted of "Top Ten" lists of things said about Finkelstein, compiled by Dershowitz's students, including – I'm not kidding here – “he's poison, he's a disgusting self-hating Jew, he's something you find under a rock” (Leon Wieseltier) and "Mr. Finkelstein is full of shit" (Elan Steinberg).  The committee didn't know what to do with Dershowitz's compilation of obscenities ("it must be noted that the materials presented as evidence vary wildly in terms of quality, tone and subject matter," their report drolly remarks), but they methodically rejected every piece of  the "evidence of academic misconduct" written up by Dershowitz himself (including what Ghcool calls the "whole chapter [of The Case for Peace] that criticizes Finkelstein and 2 of his buddies," which Dershowitz included in his dossier).  They noted that none of it addressed Finkelstein's scholarship at all, and instead drew on oral statements (a Q & A session,  a C-SPAN interview) which involved material "apparently rendered from memory in an imperfect or summative fashion" – and even so, the committee found that "Dershowitz's charges were almost entirely of a hair-splitting sort, where differences of interpretation and reading seem endemic."  With a strong endorsement from the political science department, and glowing support from both solicited external reviewers (senior political scientists from Harvard and the University of Chicago) Finkelstein's tenure bid then received unanimous support from the College Personnel Committee – only then to get a thumbs-down from Chuck Suchar, the aforementioned urban planner, and eventually a rejection from the president of DePaul.  The important thing to realize is that at no point in the tenure process was Finkelstein's excellence as a scholar and a teacher challenged by scholars in his or related fields.  Hence the consternation of the Middle East Studies Association of America and the American Association of University Professors regarding the political sabotage of the tenure process.

Now, regarding the implications of this mediation for Wikipedia. Two things seem very clear to me. First of all, it strikes me as wholly inappropriate to be invoking tenure as an editorial criteria here. To repeat, Finkelstein's status as a reliable source is a function of his scholarly status, not his employment status. Ironically, his scholarly status was bolstered by the tenure debacle, due to the stark contrast, in the din of controversy, between the support for his work among experts and the denigration of his work among demagogues: while people like Sean Hannity and Alan Dershowitz and Steve Emerson were calling him a "neo-Nazi," the foremost historian of the Holocaust and one of the most eminent historians ever (who holds, it should be noted, political views of Israel very different from Finkelstein's) was praising Finkelstein's “acuity of vision and analytical power,” and going on the air to say that “his place in the whole history of writing history is assured."

Finally, I think the players in this mediation effort – all three of whom I enormously respect – need to strike a more delicate balance between making editorial judgments about how much weight to accord different scholars (and different kinds of scholarship) in a given article, which is good and necessary, and forming a sort of ad hoc academic peer review committee to evaluate Finkelstein's scholarship, which would be presumptious and indefensible. It is not for Wikipedians to say that peer-reviewed scholarship published by eminent academic presses is "unreliable." It is for Wikipedians to say that this or that view of Finkelstein's (about, say, "transferist thinking") is relevant/not-relevant here and why; or that it's been contradicted elsewhere by scholar X, or that as a political scientist Finkelstein's claims should be accorded less weight than those of an archival historian like Morris; and so on.

Thanks to all three of you for your time and attention. I wish you the best of luck in your continued mediation, and await the results in a spirit of eager and optimistic expectation.--G-Dett (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

RfM: Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus
Are you still interested in continuing this mediation? And, if so, can you please participate? --  tariq abjotu  04:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)