User talk:GHcool/Archive 5

images
Do you really want to start this? do you really think the proper balance is to show images of Israeli injuries and death but minimize the images of Palestinian deaths? Do you really want to turn this into a battle of who can get the most gruesome images into an article? I really dont, but the balance needs to be there. I suggest you follow curious gnome's advice and try not to escalate these battles through using images. Nableezy (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, I suggest you too follow CuriousGnome's advice and we delete all of the victim images. Deal? --GHcool (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Im cool with that. Not everywhere, but I dont think that page needs many images. Charts might be good on that page though. Nableezy (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Deal'? Deal? Deal on content? Link to the relevant page please. -DePiep (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC) (typo) -DePiep (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

re Universities and anti-semitism#United States
I have posted a comment on the above articles talkpage following you returning content I had removed from the article; my concern is not the quality of the sources used, but with conflating the idea that negative criticism or reporting of Israeli policy is considered antisemitic. I understand that the sources allege that there are anti-semitic considerations to using the image of Anne Frank to contrast or equate the treatment of Palestinians to that of Dutch Jews or even to equate the State of Israel to that of Nazi Germany - but these are criticisms of one nation and its policy, and not against Jewish culture or people. If you see the talkpage, and indeed the lead paragraph of the article, you will note that there is considerable debate both within WP and in the outside world if such incidents should be noted as antisemitic. I should be grateful if you would respond to my article talkpage posting, and see if we (i.e. any interested parties) can work out how to handle such claims now and for the future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Pope in Israel
Do you think it is possible that some of the negative Israeli reaction is related to the fact that the Pope openly endorsed a Palestinian State ? Do you think it would have made any difference at all if the Pope had not taken that position ? ADM (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hardly. The Pope made the speech at Yad Vashem before he called for a Palestinian state.  --GHcool (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Your user page
Hi, I was just reading your user page and wondered if it is not a violation of Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Gavin (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. It isn't.  Thanks for reading.  --GHcool (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A little more lienency is afforded people in their user space than on articles/talk pages.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Spartacus, could you please point out where this lienency (sic) is stated? Gavin Scott is not the first one to note this here. -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Benedict
Hey there GHcool, I hope that you are happy (or at least satisfied) with the current condition of the Benedict article. I just wanted to come here and thank you for working with it to come up with what I hope is a workable compromise---or to ensure that we get there.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's very kind, I'm Spartacus. Let me put it this way, I am satisfied, but not happy about the current condition.  I would have liked to see the context for the label of antisemitism that SSPX earned.  I don't think the inclusion of the context would violate WP:Undue weight, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, or any other Wikipedia policy, however, the way it stands now seems like a fair compromise.  Thanks and good luck.  --GHcool (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I added two references to the Judaism and Benedict article... along with a correction of the misquote of the prayer. I still think the traditional mass section should be placed under the SSPX header as that is a major factor in the issuance of the Summorum. Prior to becoming Pope, Benedict was the lead negotiator with the SSPX for years in attempting to garner reconciliation with the group. He has been working with them since prior to the Excommunications in 1988 and has made reconciliation a priority in his pontificate. (Thus, the Summorum and the lifting of the Exccomunications on the SSPX bishops.)--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR in Reductio ad Hitlerum
Hi GHCool, I reported a 3RR violation here. Please note that there was a discussion started in the Talk soon after your second revert, which you clearly did not choose to join. -DePiep (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeremiah Wright
That article that you keep citing does not mention Wright's statements. Stop claiming that it does. Find a reference that mentions Wright's statements and calls the conference anti-Semitic. The Squicks (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an arbitrary request. The antisemitism displayed at the conference is necessary background to why Wright's statements are controversial.  --GHcool (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Apart from an association in time and place you mention here, what is the connection between Wrights behaviour and the anti-Semitism-claim put upon the UN-conference by some? What does Wright have to do with it? Another "necessary background" could be the Swiss mountains. So Wright is an alpinist then?
 * The request by The Squicks is too the point, but in fact a bit too relaxed. Not only should these two statements be mentioned in the same source, but also their connection should be substantiated. Association is not enough. -DePiep (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Enjoy. --GHcool (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Proved: the source links clearly Conference with an anti-Zionistic quote by Wright. So we agree: not anti-Semitism here. I remove that part of the Durbam 2 from the article. Btw, please remember that anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are different things. -DePiep (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Wright ... criticized the president for opting out of Durban II, the sequel in Geneva this year to the 2001 Durban Conference on Racism that had devolved into an anti-Jewish free-for-all." (emphasis added) There should be no doubt that an explanation of Durban II is necessary background as to why Wright's statements are controversial.  The JTA is a reliable source.  I've fulfilled the arbitary request The Squicks asked for.  Even he/she is content with the way it stands.  Antisemitism and anti-Zionism are different things, but Durban II was both and so is Wright.  This conversation was over before it began.  --GHcool (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Continued on talkpage JW controversy. -DePiep (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Reductio ad Hitlerum
Hi. Not sure if this is exactly the idea, but this is just the recent of comparisons of Israel to Nazis: [http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/default.aspx?xyz=U6Qq7k%2bcOd87MDI46m9rUxJEpMO%2bi1s7%2fw%2f7kfo%2bl2U86YQXSgl35vupCZK82XoW1VODwQ2aEiNOtZvV%2fZpS5u39SielNpYCe8N0HMrdxswjuoLCnzB4uETYLP%2byrjDe0N6vfor1xNE%3d There is no doubt that a great calamity has hit our people in the Gaza Strip. But by no means was that evil aggression   a victory for Israel unless the Zio-Nazi entity views the mass killing of innocent civilians and the mass destruction of residential homes and public buildings as an act of heroism.] If this is helpful, then bear in mind that Israel was actually compared to Nazis on a large number of occasions, and maybe I can find some of the Hamas statements on the matter. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above is, without a doubt in my mind, a reductio ad Hitlerum. Unfortunately, a consensus seems to have formed around the idea that comparing Israelis to Nazis isn't a logical fallacy unless a source literally calls the instance a "fallacy." It doesn't make sense to me, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.  Thank you for your help.  If you find any more, please feel free to write again.  --GHcool (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * From the online book that you say inspired you: American professor Richard Falk was appointed by the Human Rights Council as the United Nations Human Rights Rapporteur in the territories... asserted that Israelis behave like Nazis and are perpetrating a “holocaust” on the Palestinians. If I recall more I'll let you know. Good luck. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This may be interesting: Comparing any event with the actions of Nazi Germany during World War II should never be done lightly. When events lend themselves to such comparisons, however, it can almost certainly be said that something is very wrong. Though the stated goal of Israel has never been the complete destruction of the Palestinian people, the tactics and policies supported by the state of Israel paint an extremely grim picture. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Israel supporters deny the existence of the Palestinian people. They call them arabs, and deny thir connexion with the holy land, describing the majority as recent immigrants.93.96.148.42 (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Nakba
Hi GH, thank you for your thoughtful statement about Nakba. I'd like to direct you to the talk page of the RfC, where I talk about the need for precision. See here. It is because 1948 Palestinian exodus lacks precision that I want to direct these pages to Nakba. The exodus began before 1948 and continued after it. Also, I wonder if it's a myth that Palestinians use the term to describe the creation of Israel. I have never seen it used that way, except of course in the sense that, were it not for the creation of Israel, and events leading up to it, the exodus would not have occurred. But to imagine that the Palestinians aren't simply mourning their own losses would be to miss just how great a disaster this was for them.

Anyway, all that aside, the point is that Nakba is used by historians to describe that event, and it's the best shorthand there is for it, so there's really no reason not to use it on WP. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 08:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Template consistency
Are you also going to change this one? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest posing this question to IronDuke, Nableezy, and other editors who objected to the title because it is an Arabic word. Honestly, I didn't care if it was Arabic or English.  I was more concerned about the WP:NPOV violation and the fact that the term encompassed more than what the template was referring to (i.e. the creation of Israel plus the Palestinian exodus as opposed to just the Palestinian exodus).  So to answer your question, no, I will not change the Aliyah template just because somebody posted a false analogy on my talk page.  --GHcool (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a false analogy. It is a very direct one. Aliyah is a Hebrew word used by Jews to describe immigration to Israel. Nakba is an Arabic word used by Arabs and non-Arab historians (including Israelis) to describe the exodus of Palestinians. Aliyah is an NPOV violation because it suggests (the word means "ascent") that Aliyah is a good thing, whereas for Palestinians it has been a disaster. This was your argument about Nakba: that we shouldn't use it because it suggested that something seen as good for Jews was, in fact, a "catastrophe." If you believe that, you must apply it to Aliyah too.


 * I'm not posting this to take a pop at you. I'm doing it because you're an editor I've come to know as fair and reasonable, and I'm trying to show you that our treatment of Nakba/Aliyah is unfair, and a violation of NPOV. We must treat them the same way: both allowed or neither, but we have no legitimate reason at all to prefer one over the other. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You have your history wrong. The ancient practice of making pilgrimages to Jerusalem was called "aliyah" because, as you may know, Jerusalem lies on a hill, and so pilgrims would have to "go up" the hill to get to Jerusalem.  Zionists used the word as a way to echo their experience with ancient Jewish history.  The term has absolutely nothing to do with Arab socio-economics in the way that "Nakba" describes the "catastrophe" of the State of Israel's creation among many (most?) people who use the term.  --GHcool (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I fear that whatever argument I come up with, you'll find something else to counter it, valid or not, because your mind is made up. If I'm wrong about that, I apologize. Are you saying that if Nakba meant something else, if it meant simply "exodus," you wouldn't oppose it? If that's your argument, you're mixing up denotation with connotation. It has become a name; the original meaning is irrelevant now. If the word can be used in book titles by Israeli academic historians such as Yoav Gelber, who is a member of the academic committee of the Jabotinsky Institute, and therefore hardly an anti-Zionist, how can Wikipedia justify refusing to use it, on the grounds that the Arab word, used in a normal context, means "disaster," and that it's somehow forbidden to say anything that implies the creation of Israel, and the expulsion and flight of the Palestinians, was not an all-round happy occasion?  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe you answered your own question: "it's somehow forbidden to say anything that implies the creation of Israel, and the expulsion and flight of the Palestinians, was not an all-round happy occasion?" Of course, your argument above is a straw man. Not only do I not think that the Palestinian exodus was a happy occasion, but even if I did, I would not expect Wikipedia to label it as such.  Israelis don't refer to the Palestinian exodus as "the celebration" in the way that Arabs refer to Israel's creation as "the catastrophe." Nobody but the extreme right in Israel describes the Palestinian exodus as anything but a catastrophe for those Arabs who fled, the results of which are still felt today by all in the region (including Israelis).  However, to describe the creation of the State of Israel as a "catastrophe" is abhorrent to all but belligerents and bigots.  In the link you provided, Gelber's book title translated into English is "Independence versus Catastrophe." This actually proves my point, not yours.
 * The correct comparison isn't to the "Holocaust" or the concept of "aliyah." To use the word "nakba" to describe Israel's independence is like using the phrase "Evil empire" to describe Russia or "Axis of Evil" to describe the Iran. --GHcool (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * GHcool, if I may interject here, I do think you are misunderstanding the word nakba. It isn't so much the creation of the state of Israel, it is the defeat of the Arab forces, which for them resulted in a massive loss of territory and numerous villages outright turned to dust. The war and its effects is what is meant by the term nakba, and what you are fixating on, the use of that word in "nakba day" referring to the declaration of independence of Israel is not all that the term encompasses. As glorious a victory that was for Israel it was an equally catastrophic defeat for the Arabs. And yes, "nakba day" is a symbolic way of commemorating that defeat and its results. I dont see how saying these things with the same language historians use is a violation of NPOV. That said, I dont think SV has shown that this is prevalent term used by scholars as an English word in describing these events for it to be used as a title of an article. But if she were able to do that I dont see how somebody can oppose it on NPOV grounds. If it is the term used by most scholars then NPOV says that we should not be replacing that with "minority viewpoints", rather we should be giving due weight to each. But if the weight given in the real world in using this term is substantially more then other terms then Wikipedia should also be giving it such weight. Nableezy (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Nakba
I am happy to debate the Nakba issue with you for as long as necessary, but please do not refactor my posts, and do not ask admins you believe to be sympathetic to help you. Just play it straight, so we can reach a fair conclusion without fighting. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 01:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am curious. If you agree that the parallel, dueling articles are a problem, why did you support Hemlock Martinis proposal to create a parallel article?  This is an honest quesiton.Historicist (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: Thank you
I'm fighting against censorship, certainly. At the end of the day the side I'm taking in this dispute is the side of WP policy though, not any side based on my subjective opinion of any potential "bias" of the page. Ironholds (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Israel lobby
What do you think of starting an article on this topic? If you like the idea,   Do you know how to put use a "sandbox"?Historicist (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd help with this. I'm still in the process of gathering sources for the UN-crimes articles but an anti-Israel lobby article looks interesting. I made a sandbox for you - User:Historicist/anti-Israel lobby. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Israel lobby in the United States maybe next time I'll learn how to use sandboxes.Historicist (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems like a good idea. I'm in the process of moving, so I can't be much help, but I can add stuff here and there.  --GHcool (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to use information on my own personal least favorite anti-Israel lobbyist, Amir Abdel Malik Ali. --GHcool (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem
Couldn't see what was POV about that at all. Though I'm no fan of William Safire, he has a right to his opinions and Wiki editors and readers have a right to read them too. Thanks for noticing and happy editing.  T i a m u t talk 22:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on August 13 2009 to Kafr Saba
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. The duration of the block is 24 hours.

Actually edit warring, but I lack the template. I don't think that pretending the edit is minor is helpful ; clearly this was a controversial edit and you should not have marked it as minor. Nor is pretending this is about grammar very helpful. This looks like gaming the system: you've run out of reverts but you still don't like it so you dump in a tag.

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems other editors were also edit-warring. SlimVirgin (among other users) was warring with GHCool and then reported him. She's done this with other editors before. If anyone is gaming the system, it's warring-users who rely on noticeboards to remove unpopular editors. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional eyes are probably needed here. Yes, GHCool was edit warring, but his last edit was not a revert or an edit war- but an invitation to discuss the issue. Additionally, his opponents the opposing editors, including SlimVirgin who reported him, were also edit warring on the same page. As GH notes, he was actively trying to resolve the dispute, accepted a compromise offered by a 3rd party, and offered a compromise of his own. The editors pushing for the other viewpoint His opponents are stubbornly refusing any and all attempts at compromise that give them less than 100% of what they want. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate LoverOfTheRussianQueen's support, I must object to his/her use of the term "opponent" to describe those editors that disagree with me. These editors take a contrary position in the argument we are having, but I have no quarrel with them on a personal level.  It would have been nice if SlimVirgin had warned me before reporting me, but that does not make her my "opponent." I will not speculate on whether she believes I am her "opponent." --GHcool (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken, I've rephrased. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Causes of the 1948 exodus
Hi, I noticed you've reverted my edit without comment on this page, could you elaborate a bit on your thinking? AFAIK the issue was very controversial in the past, but nowadays historians have more or less settled the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus&diff=307622659&oldid=307595284 --Dailycare (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a thorough reading of the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus will lead you to the conclusion that nowadays historians have not more or less settled the issue. Different historians emphasize different aspects of the Palestinian exodus.  Benny Morris and Efraim Karsh, for example, disagree vehemently on the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus.  --GHcool (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus is a disturbed essay full of bad history. Both Morris and Karsh are extreme right wingers defending transfer (ethnic cleansing in modern parlance). The difference between them is that Morris investigated and published that transfer is exactly what happened while Karsh is in denial of what everyone else recognises. Karsh is well respected for his work on Islam, Saddam etc, but not for general ME history. His "Fabricating Israeli History: The "New Historians" is a hatchet job not respected by anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.188.168 (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SOAPBOX. Thanks.  --GHcool (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Your note
I did not behave in a petty way, and I see you're continuing to edit war. You are gaming 3RR, and proposing a "compromise" that gets you entirely what you want, namely the removal of the word "Palestinian" from the first sentence, even though it's being used perfectly correctly. It is really very poor editing. That's all I want to say about it. Further posts should go on the talk page so that others can join in. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 22:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your post above gives me pause not only because it ignores my most recent invitation to compromise, but also because my attempt to reach out to you seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Even a cold peace would have been preferable to me than the hostility displayed in the above post.  I welcome disagreement, even vehement disagreement, but the attitude displayed above is not conducive to enlightened discussion.  Yesterday, I wrote on my user talk page, "It would have been nice if SlimVirgin had warned me before reporting me, but that does not make her my 'opponent.' I will not speculate on whether she believes I am her 'opponent.'" I am now forced to speculate on SlimVirgin's beliefs, and my speculations do not give me comfort on the state of our present and future disagreements.  --GHcool (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I appear small-minded and ABF-ing. I very much want to AGF, but your recent edits (that I have seen) have represented one really quite extreme position, and invariably lots of reverting to retain it. Editors are required to write neutrally, in the sense that their contribs should show a pattern of edits from all "sides" of a debate. Especially in a case like this, where the phrase "Palestinian-Arab" is perfectly apt; where it has been used in similar situations by Israeli and Palestinian historians, and refs have been provided to that effect on talk (and ignored); and where removal seems to be politically motivated, it is sad to see an experienced editor not only involved in that effort, but reverting more than anyone else to retain it. I am reminded of the situation with "Nakba," where you engaged in a similar effort to, in effect, ban a word. All I can do is urge you to edit from both perspectives in future. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I recognize that you are editing the Kafr Saba article and Nakba template in a way that you feel is just.   In a sense, I admire your pursuit of WP:V and WP:NPOV.  We agree that these Wikipedia guidelines must be enforced whenever possible; we just disagree on what constitutes as WP:V and WP:NPOV and how to achieve it.  I am not in favor of "bans" and the like.  I am in favor of the neutral descriptions of words whenever possible ("Palestinian exodus" as opposed to "Nakba," "Arabs of Mandatory Palestine" as opposed to "Palestinians").  In some cases, I am opposed to such language ("militant" as opposed to "terrorist" is a pet peeve), but I accept that I can't have it both ways.  I invite you to accept that as well, and I invite you join me in an enlightened discussion on the Kafr Saba and to forgive and forget the small-minded behavior we engaged in yesterday.  --GHcool (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A request
GH, I'm posting here to ask that you reduce the amount of reverting you engage in on Israel-Palestine articles. I understand the temptation, and have engaged in it myself, but I feel you often overstep the mark. For example, yesterday after being blocked for reverting at Kfar Saba, the first edit you made after the block was to revert there again. Later, you started reverting again at Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, a page you've reverted six times since August 10. It creates a lot of animosity, makes the pages unpleasant for everyone to work on, and wastes time that could be spent improving content. I intend this as constructive criticism, not an attack, so I hope you'll accept it in that spirit. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 04:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I'll try harder to resist the temptation and use the talk page.  Sometimes I just revert because I'm gambling on the hope that the editor in favor of the offending passage won't care enough to call me on it or don't have it on his or her watch list.  A dispute with an editor like yourself is different than a dispute with a random troll (or should be anyway).  Thanks for writing with a civil tone.  --GHcool (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And thank you for the gracious response. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 04:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Same to you, and thank you for suggesting the compromise. I added the EB ref, but can't get the link to work, presumably because it's subscription only. When you look it up on google, the quote is there and you can access the link&mdash; see here, first entry&mdash;but when I copy that link into WP, it doesn't work anymore. I can't imagine how that can be, but that's what happened. So I took a screenshot of it, and was going to email it to you, but you don't seem to have an email entered, so if you would like it, drop me a note -- slimvirgin at gmail dot com. Anyway, glad we got it sorted. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Its ok. I trust you.  :) --GHcool (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Critics of HRW
the section on saudi education was deleted becasue it did not actualy have any critisism of HRW. I am not sure that the blog enrry is really that good a source, but it will stande for now. Could you find a better source critisising HRW on this point.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't just a random blog. Its a blog by Jeffrey Goldberg and sponsored by The Atlantic.  See here where it says, "Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a 'blog' style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more 'traditional' 20th-century format of a classic news story." After a quick Google search, I didn't find another, equally valid source criticizing HRW on this point, but if I come across one, I'll be sure to add it.  --GHcool (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the history of the page this will act as a red rag to a bull. That is why I asked if a better source could be found.Slatersteven (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The blog is reliable as a source of opinion of Jeffrey Goldberg, who, BTW, has historically received funding from pro-Israeli organizations. The blog isn't reliable a source of fact, other than the fact of his opinion. None of this addresses the problems with WP:WEIGHT and POV-forking, and the general situation of having an article whose only purpose is to bash an organization. Noloop (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You will notice that attmepts have been made to insert HRW responses to much of the critismsm. By the way see [] HRW is not being bashed.Slatersteven (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, what more would you want in an article about criticism of HRW than criticisms of HRW from sources as reliable as Goldberg. I dismiss the claim that Goldberg has "received funding from pro-Israeli organizations" as not only irrelevant to his reliability, but also a misstatement of fact (unless you count speaking engagements and the like).  --GHcool (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Question.
I'm considering creating a chart comparing Amnesty Internationals and Human Rights Watch reports on all world conflicts/crisis areas relative to Israel.

It might take some time gathering evidence as both organizations are very meticulous and thorough when it comes to enumerating violations.

It could also prove difficult differentiating between country-dependent crimes and religion-dependent crimes (i.e, honor killings are not country specific). Whether reports should be simplified according to country or simply wars.

Do you think this is a viable project? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I do think it is a viable project. Good luck with it.  It sounds like a very daunting task.  Perhaps there is some place that might have done some similar work like NGO Monitor or something.  --GHcool (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's helpful but I'm still unsure how to graph it similar to the charts at the United Nations. Since most of these human rights are domestic and not part of a "war" I don't know how to categorize crimes. A graph with Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc...with Israel being #2 is meaningless unless the reader knows what crimes are being committed proportional to the reports. For example, 1 report on Israel demolishing suicide bomber-homes and 1 report on the 1.3 million Sudanese trapped in Egypt who cannot legally work or own a home can only be compared if the crimes are enumerated. I just don't see how this will work. Suggestions? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right. I'm afraid I don't have any suggestions right now.  --GHcool (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh it's okay. I have another question, are you skilled with wikipedia code? I'm trying to fix the table for this sandbox: User:Wikifan12345/un crimes. The barrier line won't go past sexual abuse and I don't know how correct it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, pal. You're on your own there.  --GHcool (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured it out for myself and completed the table. Thanks anyways! :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)