Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:15, 3 April 2006

See Talk:Israeli settlement/Archive 1

Nof Tzion

"in the heart of the area that every internationally recognized peace plan considers the future capital of a Palestinian state."

Unless the world plans on forcing a 'peace plan' onto Israel and likewise, the Palestinian Authority, (in each case deciding who will give up which parcel of land), I suggest that POV not be construed with fact.

Lokiloki, if you can otherwise reword the above into a more simpler 'Jerusalem', or "unilaterally Israeli annexed former Jordanian territory", or whatever, please reinsert an extension to the description. --Shuki 23:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will think of something... btw, can you translate the Hebrew on the sign for me, particularly the black text? Thanks... Lokiloki 23:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Translation has been added to the image discussion page. --Shuki 09:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

--Shuki 12:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)/* Propaganda image */

Propaganda image

I dispute the inclusion of the image with graffiti. The editor who added it conventiently "forgot" to mention that this does not reflect the official position of Israel. For shame. ←Humus sapiens 08:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; anyway, you added that phrase, so I hope it is okay now. Regardless, such sentiments exist among Israeli settlers: denying their existence doesn't seem appropriate. Is it propaganda to show, for example, cartoons of Nassar kicking a caricatured Jew into the sea? Or Palestinians "boarding" a UN ambulance with guns in Al_Aqsa_Intifada. This article is about Jewish settlements, and anti-Arab sentiment is probabloy not a minority opinion amongst settlers. Is it propganda to present facts? Is it propoganda, for instance, to show the bloody hands of the Ramallah lynching? Lokiloki 08:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Nasser was an official representing Egypt. THe UN amb. was a documented incident. What you got here is a picture from a toilet door, provided by the PLO. Maybe some loony even drew it. What is the proof that they did not do it themselves, or that it did stayed there more than half an hour? ←Humus sapiens 08:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Your bias is pretty evident. Do you want me to go and question every photograph or fact provided by the Israeli government as "loony" or invented? As for the Nasser thing, that was a CARTOON. Do you think that that Cartoon was officially approved by Nasser himself? Look, you cannot have it your way entirely: you cannot present the images that you want, and then declare others as "false", "fake", or "propoganda". Are you denying that some Israeli settlers take an extremely hard-line position such as this? Come on. Lokiloki 08:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NPA. A serious encyclopedia is supposed to show official position and reflect the views of the majority, not fringe groups. There are loonies in every group of people, the question is who is in power. ←Humus sapiens 08:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not making personal attacks on you. Do you think that the lynching photograph is justified? The one that shows the Ramallah guys with blood on their hands? Do you think that the majority of Palestinians would do such a thing, or do you feel that that is also fringe? It is the FRINGEs that make news... should we not comment on lynchings, should we not comment on white supremacists in the USA, should we not comment on anti-semites in France? If you think we should ignore these issues, then I guess we can ignore the equally loony settlers in the West Bank. Lokiloki 08:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what article you are talking about. In any case, don't engage in WP:POINT.

If the election of Hamas is not a good evidence, there is plenty of statistics of supoport that radicals (evading the "T" word) enjoy among the Palestinians. When we talk about fringes, we need to be careful and clearly show that. In this case and in others, you were little too eager to blame Israel. ←Humus sapiens 09:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not disrupting anything, nor making a point. I am trying to include images that reflect the facts on the ground which, generally, is that the Israeli settlers are not, shall we say, very Arab-friendly by and large. You claimed that the photo that demonstrated this was propaganda... and I came back and said, well, if THAT is propaganda, don't you also see the caricatured cartoon as propaganda, or the Ramallah lynching photos as propaganda, or etc etc etc... Lokiloki 09:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here. One is whether the poster represents a significant opinion of the population we are referring to (in this case, settlers). The other is whether this poster is adequate to show that. The answer to the first question is "yes, of course". I'd be amazed if less than 99% of Kiryat Arba residents disagreed with that poster. Even a good fraction of Israelis in general would agree with it. (See this 2002 survey that found that 46% of Israelis supported transfering the Arabs of the OT out of there.) However, the poster by itself is below the bar, in my opinion. It doesn't by itself establish anything except that someone with that opinion put up a poster. It might be appropriate to illustrate a sourced description of the attitudes of the settlers. Finally, some of Lokiloki's comments about double standards are quite correct. --Zero 10:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Lokiloki, it is very presumptuos of you to assume that that the Israeli settlers are not, shall we say, very Arab-friendly, extreme POV, and not true at all. How many settlers have you met and discussed this issue with? --Shuki 12:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Zero, if the June 2002 survey (after the Passover massacre and the Jenin big lie) would be a fair representation of Israeli views, why doesn't Israeli equivalent of Hamas win elections? AFAIK, Kach is banned from even taking part. Here's your double standard. Why the "bloodthirsty Israelis" do not blow up big bombs in Palestinian areas? Even when they make incursions (necessary because the PA doesn't despite their commitments), they do it by foot risking the lives of their soldiers. Why? According to Lokiloki and his PLO buddies, to humiliate them. ←Humus sapiens 21:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure many more Israelis would vote for far-rightists if they 1- were able to produce results (Bibi burned them on that one) and 2- if they were not as religious as they are far-right. Most secular Israelis shudder at the prospect of a religious-based government, which is why the Shinui party was a surprise second-place in the last election and why, because they turned out to be impotent, they have all but disintegrated this time around. The Israeli public has been generally shifting towards the right since the 70s (barring the (anti-Bibi) Barak hiccup), with the religion factor keeping the shift from getting further than it has. Ramallite 22:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

And the typical "right-wingers" would be Sharon who gave up Gaza and Begin who gave up Sinai? So who are they transfering, Jews or Arabs? ←Humus sapiens 22:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course the results of an opinion poll will differ according to when it is taken and exactly what question is asked. The number 46% is not firm at all, but nonetheless it proves that this opinion is a lot more common in the population than the percentage of people who vote for far-right parties. There can be lots of reasons for that, including those Ramallite listed. Another is that there are other issues in elections such as the economy, education, secular vs religious, that are important to Israelis but not very visible from outside. Also, to go back to the poll, the fact that 46% of people said they'd like to kick out the Arabs does not mean that 46% see it as the preferred option. It only means they see it as preferable to the status quo (I'm assuming people were asked a yes-no question rather than being asked to rank a list of options). It is normal for people to see more than one contradictory option as preferred to the status quo. It would be necessary to study the poll more carefully to know whether the wish to kick out the Arabs is more prevalent than other wishes. --Zero 01:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

One should look at the totality of, say, Sharon's policies, rather than just the Gaza pullout. Lokiloki 23:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly because "One should look at the totality", it is wrong to imply that the graffiti on the picture represents typical/official Israeli views/policies, as certain some "one" does. ←Humus sapiens 00:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this inflammatory graffiti copied from the PLO website. ←Humus sapiens 23:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have returned the image with the caveat that you provided (and which an earlier editor deleted). Lokiloki 00:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

President Carter's comments

I have restored and elaborated on Carter's comments on settlement and colonization as an obstacle to peace. The man frequently travels to the occupied territories as an elder statesman and peace advocate. This, coupled with his experience with the Arab-Israeli conflict, makes him highly relevant as an analyst on this issue. Sourced reliable analysts must not be deleted.--AladdinSE 08:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This edit was reverted without reply to my comments above. Nevertheless, I will voluntarily limit myself to one revert per day for this Carter edit disagreement, while discussion is forthcoming.--AladdinSE 00:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Carter is an ex-president; he has no expertise in the settlements. And you certainly can't have it both ways, as regards this article and the AIPAC article. Jayjg 00:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

So which way can it be had, then? Does that mean we remove the Duke support from AIPAC, or include the Carter one here? It seems as though you are having it both ways (inclusion of Duke there, non-inclusion of Carter here). Lokiloki 00:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

He has direct expertise on settlements! Does he have to be a construction contractor to have expertise??? An American President, intimately connected with the Arab-Israeli conflict, Camp David specifically dealt with settlements, and moreover he travels to the Occupied Territories as an elder statesman and meets with the leaders, advises, and analyzes and publishes his analysis. Heaven and earth, what more do you want??? As for having it both ways, I agree with Lokiloki, you are hardly one to talk. In any case, my position has always been clear, Carter is an extremely reputable reliable source, Duke is known anti-semite and white supremacist. It is a question of reliable sources and relevancy. I am not bargaining with you here, one for the other. My arguments are separate; please keep Talk discussions separate likewise. --AladdinSE 00:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to concur with Aladdin that Carter's comments are relevant and worth including. Palmiro | Talk 15:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Julius Stone

Making subjective assessments of his impartiality perhaps is unwarranted, at least not without reliable citation. Nevertheless, one can certainly (and I have), added the simple phrase taken directly from the given biographical source that he had a "life-long commitment to Israel". It would be far more advantageous to the Israeli position, to be sure, if the principle jurist cited in support of the legality of settlements did not have such a connection or declared stance towards the state of Israel. However, since this is the person marked out for such prominent citation (in the introduction, no less), then his affiliations and pro-Israel position is fair game for mention, and it is done with a direct quotation from the given source. There is no editorialization whatsoever.--AladdinSE 22:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Just as in the AIPAC article Cockburn is described as a "left-wing journalist". Lokiloki 23:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to take "left-wing journalist" out of AIPAC; it's hardly poisoning the well, unlike this. It's rather surprising you would suggest this, given your spurious removal of David Duke from the AIPAC article. Jayjg 23:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever removed David Duke from AIPAC. Lokiloki 23:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've adjusted the indenting. Jayjg 23:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a direct quotation from the given source. What I find spurious is allegations of well-poisoning without the use of any editorialization. For well-poisoning to apply, there has to be "Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented." Are you suggesting that merely being an advocate of Israel is unfavorable? Also, if you would limit your comments and accusations about other articles to those articles' talk pages, it would be much more conducive to productive discourse. My edits for the AIPAC article were supported by Talk comments; let us continue to discuss them where they belong, if you please. P. S. Although not quite yet an edit war, I will begin voluntarily limiting myself to 1 revert per day regarding this Stone disagreement. --AladdinSE 00:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, this is an intro. As well, your clear intent is to discount his argument, by pointing out his support for Israel - you've said as much above. Finally, he's a world famous international legal scholar, who has published dozens of books, and who has at least a stub of an article for anyone who cares to look. Blatant poisoning the well simply won't do. Jayjg 00:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is an intro, and I find that one analyst's citation, for one POV, is a curious line to insert here. No other scholars are quoted for the other side, though they are far more numerous and in a vast consensus opposed to Stone. This is rightly so, as the intro should only summarize. Putting aside for the moment the issue of the quotation "life-long commitment to Israel", would you support moving the Stone material to the body?

That Stone is a prominent jurist is not at all in question. If it were, if he were an unsavory character, not reputable, I would advocate the inclusion be negated altogether. To poison the well, I would have to editorialize OR such as "clear pro-zionist, pro-Israeli expansionist Julius Stone". What I inserted was a neutral 100% quoted comment taken directly from your own source. And you did not answer my question, do you believe that the mere advocacy for Israel is an unfavorable fact? --AladdinSE 00:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved the Stone comment from the intro to Legal status of territories. It's odd that one analyst, moreover one holding a minority opinion, is given prime real-estate in the introduction. It it much better for flow and neutrality that the intro simply states that it is "not a unanimous view among all international law scholars." Stone is far more suited to his area of expertise, legal status. Hopefully others can be cited in that section also.--AladdinSE 11:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, I am limiting myself to one revert daily to keep things calm and cool, but I did ask for us to please continue our discussion. I notice that Jayjg deleted the quotation regarding Stone's life-long commitment to Israel which is extracted directly from the given biographical source, and yet did not see fit to also delete the pro-stone material I added to show good faith that I this was not an attempt to impugn his credentials. I added "a prominent international jurist." This was left in, and the quotation from the biography was deleted! You can't have it both ways. I ask again. Do you consider Stone's advocacy and support for Israel to be an unfavorable factor?--AladdinSE 07:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

AladdinSE, you seem to be adding that clause about Stone in an attempt to belittle his opinion, along the lines of "he would say that, wouldn't he?" This might be fair enough if Stone had been employed to advocate on behalf of the Israeli government, but he was an independent, extremely well-qualified academic: doctorate in civil law from Oxford, doctorate in juridical science from Harvard. Taught at Harvard, Professor of Law at the University of New South Wales, Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence and International Law at the Hastings College of Law, University of California, and his publications show he was a specialist in international law. You could hardly find a more qualified source in this area. His private views about Israel are therefore irrelevant, and if relevant in your view, you'll have to explain why. SlimVirgin 07:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You might have saved yourself the trouble, and withheld this sermon for people who have questioned Stone's credentials. I have clearly and on more than one occasion stipulated as to his qualifications. I have never advocated his exclusion, and in fact more clearly articulated his expertise in the article by adding the phrase "a prominent international jurist". It is a very curious conclusion indeed if you can still construe this as attempting to belittle the man. You are deleting a quotation from the given biographical source. You give for your reason that I seem to be belittling his opinion. I have already refuted that with word and deed in the article itself. Also your claim that his advocacy of Israel is his "own private views" is patently false. They couldn't be more public. They are published and known, therefore undeniably relevant. The biography itself makes no qualms about the matter. This brings us back to the crux. There is no justification for deleting this material. You cannot but admit that it is correct, and moreover that it is sourced. I ask, for the third or fourth time now, do you consider the fact that he had a lifelong commitment to Israel to be an unfavorable factor?--AladdinSE 07:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, of course I don't, but again I don't see the relevance, given that his legal opinion, bearing in mind his qualifications and eminence, isn't something he'd come up with because he liked Israel. I also didn't argue that his views were private in the sense of secret, but private in the sense of not connected to his legal views. But you didn't answer my question: why do you feel this opinion of his is relevant enough to be mentioned? SlimVirgin 08:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ms Virgin:

Are you arguing that a person's biography should not be comprehensively represented, particularly those aspects which might play a role in the shaping of an opinion, legal or otherwise? I suppose you would argue alongside Antonin Scalia when he claimed that his duck-hunting with Vice President Dick Cheney did not impact his later ruling on a case involving Cheney? In other words: a Judge is inviolate.

When Timothy Leary discusses drug use, should he just be cited as a PhD in psychology, or, as is almost always done, should we also mention his general advocacy of drugs? Should we always negate aspects of a person's biography simply because the esteem of their profession should "wipe out" any influence of their personal feelings?

Let us imagine that this is an actual court case. Judge Stone has before him defendant X. Previously, Judge Stone has expressed admiration and regard for defendant X. Would the Judge not, at the very least, disclose this fact, or, more likely, recuse himself due to a conflict of interest? Recusal exists because judges, despite their eminence, are influenced by their personal beliefs, relationships, and views.

Judge's should be DISinterested in their legal opinions. Clearly, Stone was not: he advocated for Israel. Such personal viewpoints, at the very least, should be fully elucidated in any reference to him as a neutral arbitrar of this issue.

Lokiloki 09:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There we have it, finally. You do not consider this to be an unfavorable factor, and I of course concur. Therefore, let us have no more claims of poisoning the well. To quote from that entry:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

Poisoning the well criteria are clearly not satisfied. Note that no where is there any editorialization or original research that his legal assessments are colored by his affinity for Israel. Nevertheless, you must admit that when legal scholars, or indeed experts of any field, are quoted in support of whatever precept, if they have overt political affiliations or records of support pertaining to the subject matter at hand, it is standard practice to mention these facts when quoting the source. This does not discount their scholarly record. If it did, such experts would not be quoted to begin with. We see this in journalism all the time. It's a simple matter of full disclosure. Stone's lifelong advocacy for Israel is no crime. His qualifications are manifest. Quoting sourced facts and letting readers know of his affiliations with no editorialization whatsoever is fair. Deleting the same is censorship. It fair and neutral that the readers be made aware that this eminent scholar quoted in support of an argument happens to have a long record of support for the nation making the argument. God knows we've seen enough references to the UN's perceived bias against Israel mentioned alongside citations of UN decisions against Israel. --AladdinSE 09:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for moving the discussion to the bottom. I wanted to do it, but was unsure about the propriety of taking it upon myself to determine where to make the split form the original Stone discussion. You chose correctly. This is a much easier discussion to follow now.--AladdinSE 09:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. The problem with adding people's private opinions (note: private, not secret) after their professional or academic views is that there would be no end to it. It'd be great if we could add after every reference to the UN (biased against Israel), but we can't. Or after a male philosopher writing in favor of feminism (known by all and sundry as a terrible womanizer). You may find his commitment to Israel to be the most important thing to mention about him, but I don't. I find his qualifications and the positions he held to be far more relevant, but presumably you don't want to add all those too (what you earlier called a "sermon"). The fact is that many people, I'm glad to see not including you, would regard his commitment to Israel as a negative thing about him, and so I'm afraid the well poisoning accusation is accurate, just as my adding references about the UN's bias (which I could source very well) whenever a UN resolution about Israel was mentioned would also be well poisoning, even though many people, I'm sure, believe that the UN's bias is a good thing. SlimVirgin 09:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Another example: I did not object when Humus changed the caption below the photograph I added to this page to reference "Source: PLO". Presumably he did this to somehow disparage the legitimacy of the source -- that is: the PLO can't be trusted, so this photograph can't be trusted. I accept this as a valid concern: the SOURCE of something should always be fully explained and characterized. Why is this any different than the Stone caveat that Aladdin is arguing for? Why aren't you arguing for removal of that qualifier to the photograph? Lokiloki 09:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Another example: At least in the United States, when an article is written, say, about Time Warner, the journalist always includes somewhere, for example, "Full disclosure: Time Warner owns this publication." Do you not think that this inclusion should also be fully disclosed? Lokiloki 09:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can't see the difference, I'm not quite sure what to say. The PLO is not a news agency or a photographic agency. They are directly involved in the conflict. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to alert the reader to that. But Stone was an academic specialist in international law, not at all involved in the conflict. As I said earlier, if he had been employed by the Israeli govt, that would be worth mentioning (which is the equivalent of your PLO example), but it's his private opinion AladdinSE wants to add, which is quite a different thing. SlimVirgin 09:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting, not least because I assume a disinterested photographer took the photograph and the PLO is using it. Much like Judge Stone wrote the book, and an Israeli advocacy agency is summarizing his opinions on its Web site and using it. The PLO reference is included when the photograph is reproduced; but we aren't allowed to reflect on Stone's biases or the agency delivering his opinions? Do you not see the similarities? Lokiloki 09:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a poor argument. First, how on earth could you know who took the PLO photograph? You negotiated for permission to use it with the PLO Negotiations Affairs Department, so they are the source. (Incidentally, we're not allowed to use photographs with permission; we need a free licence, or else we have to claim fair use if it's online somewhere.) It doesn't matter who uses Stone's books. We know he wrote them and we know who published them. Should we also list everyone who has read them? SlimVirgin 09:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Slim, your parallel does not apply. The PLO is making no editorial comment about that picture, as the caption makes clear. It only took it, and published it. --AladdinSE 09:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The caption is intended to indicate that an involved party made the photograph available. The photograph is an editorial comment. That's why it was added to the article. SlimVirgin 09:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to diverge too much here. Unless what is being pictured is disputed as a fake, any editorial comment not explicitly stated in words is unproven speculation. --AladdinSE 10:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ms Virgin: In re: Israel and the United Nations. I assume you have checked out Israel and the United Nations? It contains quite a bit about why the UN is allegedly anti-Israel? Must we create a Julius Stone and Israel page to explain his predilections, or can't we just simplify and include here? Lokiloki 09:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't keep repeating myself. We are not allowed to add after every single reference to the UN that it's biased against Israel. So we're not going to add after every reference to Stone's legal opinions that he had a lifelong commitment to Israel, or that he had dark brown hair, or that he preferred Scotch to bourbon. He was a specialist in international law and jurisprudence, and it's his legal opinions in those areas that matter. SlimVirgin 09:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, in many articles when the UN is mentioned, the alleged bias is also mentioned. And there is an entire article on that very subject. There is nothing on this page, nor on the Julius Stone page, that mentions anything about his pro-Israel stance. Where might we reasonably place this?

Further, it seems specious to imply that his choice of drink or hair colour somehow impacts his opinions on Israel, or is somehow equivalent to his "long-standing support" for that state.

Lokiloki 10:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Slim, in response to your comment about the problem with adding people's private views, you are wrong. There is an end to it, because editorialization and original research is precluded and not allowed. The article on Well poisoning is clear. You admitted yourself that Stone's advocacy for Israel is not an unfavorable factor. You therefore cannot claim well poisoning. Also, note that your examples listed above: "biased against Israel" is editorialization, whereas I worded it "perceived bias against Israel" which is an oft-sourced caveat inserted into several articles on Misplaced Pages. Similarly your analogy re the male writer criticizing feminism, the phrase "known by all and sundry as a terrible womanizer" is blatant POV, OR and well-poisoning. Contrast that with the quotation taken from a highly positive official biography, "had a life-long commitment to Israel". A simple quotation of fact, in no way inflammatory like your example. And I do not consider this to be "the most important thing to mention about him". The most important is his actual analysis. Moreover, I more clearly emphasized his eminence as an expert.--AladdinSE 10:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I said it wasn't a negative thing in my opinion. But it is a negative thing in some people's, and so it certainly does count as well poisoning. Looking again at the philosopher example, even if his womanizing was extremely well sourced, it would be well poisoning to include it after a reference to him expressing a view on feminism. Imagine this edit: "John Doe, professor of philosophy at Oxford University, who has expressed a lifelong commitment to womanizing (link to impeccable source), said in an interview that universities need to do more to promote women professors." Would you allow that? SlimVirgin 10:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

How is "lifelong womanizing" analagous to "lifelong support for Israel", especially since, in your example, the womanizing contradicts the very argument John Doe is making, while in the one we are discussing, the support for Israel accords with his legal opinion? Are you denying deconstruction? :)

Lokiloki 10:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily contradict his argument at all, but that's not the point. The point is that you want to include a private opinion of Stone's because a Misplaced Pages editor has decided it's relevant (which makes it original research, even if sourced, because it's not the source who is making the link), and because in addition it's a point that some people might view negatively, it counts as well poisoning. After all, why are you arguing to include it if you don't believe it's well poisoning? I think this is going to be my last response on this point because I'm just repeating myself. SlimVirgin 10:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Slim, It is a quotation from a positive official biography, which in the source is explicitly used in a positive manner. It is quoted with no editorialization added whatsoever. Readers have a right to know that this scholar, while eminently qualified to render his expert opinion on a legal argument, at the same time has a life-long record of advocacy for the country making that argument. If any editorial comment were added speculating as to bias, it would be well-poisoning and not allowed. As it is, it is a quotation of undisputed fact. Loki's example of recusal of judges is perfectly applicable. The mere recusal of a judge because s/he has a record of publicly supporting one side over the other, does not impugn the judge's credentials, or call for his disbarment. Similarly, just because CNN is owned by Time Warner, it does not mean they are precluded form reporting on their parent company, but it is expected and proper that they always simply mention the connection. The philosopher/feminism example, as you worded it, is not well poisoning. If the male philosopher is making judgments or arguments in favor of a subject matter, then a simple impartial quotation of his record, sans editorial comment, regarding that subject matter is a perfectly adequate thing to include. I would absolutely allow that. I would insist upon it.--AladdinSE 10:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

See above. You're picking and choosing material from a source who does not imply that his legal opinion was formed by his commitment to Israel. SlimVirgin 10:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly right! The quotation does not imply that his legal opinion was formed by his commitment to Israel. If any such editorialization were used, it would be both well poisoning and OR. --AladdinSE 10:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I have to run, but will of course return at my earliest opportunity to continue.--AladdinSE 10:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Then you need to find a reputable source who does state it, preferably another legal one. SlimVirgin 19:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

But I am not trying to state any such editorialization/OR that would require a further source. I am quoting a fact supported by the original biographical (and very reputable) source that was used when the Stone reference was first introduced, with no additional comment whatsoever.--AladdinSE 19:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

ASE, the well-poisoning won't stay. That's all. I'm not even going to comment when reverting it. It's an intro, and there's a whole article about Julius Stone. If you want to include some additional information about his 7 law degrees, or the 27 books he wrote on law, or his many awards, feel free to do so. Jayjg 02:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Browsing through the issue, I think the it is quite simple. The fact that Julius Stone also earlier made comments favourable to Israel is clearly not a bias by itself, it seems everyone on this page agrees on that. The term "life-long commitment" is quite ambiguous, and using it here clearly implies a that Julius Stone is biased. Hence, it should not be used. -- Heptor _talk 03:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, chapter and verse is quoted above about how it is not well poisoning. What will not stay is the unwarranted deletion of sourced quotations of fact that has no editorial comment added whatsoever. As for my adding iformation aboiut his credentials, you know I already did. I added "prominent international jurist" which you left in, but deleted the other equally factual "life long commitment to Israel". No one can force you to comment when reverting, if you chose not to. So do what you will. Heptor, quite so, no comment about bias is made AT ALL, when someone articulates such comments, feel free to object. The phrase is not ambiguous, it's simplicity itself, and the well-written biography did not deem it necessary to elaborate on such a plain statement. Perhaps you find it ambiguous because you are looking for direct editorialization of bias and/or an attack on Stone to make your case for deletion. None exists, much to your chagrin I've no doubt. It comes to this:

1. Julius Stone had a life-long commitment to Israel. This is a quotation of fact supported by the source which no one is disputing.
2. It is plain neutral common sense to let readers know that the one scholar held up as the poster-boy for in support of a legal argument also happens to have had a life-long record of advocacy for the country advancing said legal argument. Trying to hide this sourced fact is censorship anyway you slice it.
3. Julius Stone's credentials or alleged "bias" are in no way speculated about. His advocacy or relationship with Israel, or any country, is not a black mark to be hidden. Even the biography presents it in a very positive light.

Slim, in case you missed it, I replied to your comment about finding another source. It is not necessary because I am not trying to add material not covered in the original biographical source. I have never inserted any claims or comments of bias, and I don't see the need to now.--AladdinSE 14:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of rollback, marking of minor edits

P. S. Please do not mark this kind of revert as a minor edit.--AladdinSE 14:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Rollback marks it automatically as minor. SlimVirgin 14:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Simple fix. Don't use rollback since this disagreement is not about a minor edit.--AladdinSE 14:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Even simpler fix. Understand that it's regarded as a minor edit because all it's doing is returning to a previous version. SlimVirgin 15:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

SV, there is pretty widespread community consensus that rollback should not be used in a content dispute. It is not very polite, really, and in my view an abuse of administrator privileges as they are being used to make participation in an edit war easier for the admininstrator than it is for his/her opponent. Please take a look at Misplaced Pages:Rollback#Administrator_feature_.28rollbacks.29.. Also, please review Misplaced Pages:Minor edit, which states, inter alia, "Reverts to a disputed page are unlikely to be minor. When a page is disputed, and especially if an edit war is brewing or in full eruption, then it's better not to mark ANY edit as minor: not unless you're sure that all other users will agree it's minor, like correcting a misspelling." Palmiro | Talk 16:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What on earth difference does it make? Aladdin knows why the edit is being reverted, because he's been told a dozen times or more on talk and in edit summaries, so one more edit summary saying exactly the same thing isn't likely to be helpful. Palmiro, you really are just being argumentative now for the sake of it. SlimVirgin 17:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, I am trying to preserve fair play and courtesy. I do take your point that stating the reason has become somewhat irrelevant at this stage, but I still find use of the rollback tool inappropriate. And please try to assume good faith; over the last couple of days, almost every comment you have addressed to me has included some kind of personal attack or accusation of bad faith on my part. This does not improve the atmosphere for anyone. Palmiro | Talk 17:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your last point, Palmiro, but it works both ways. You've been lobbing a fair number of critical comments in my direction too. Perhaps we should declare a ceasefire. SlimVirgin 17:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Replying (not substantively, as yet anyway) on your talk page. Palmiro | Talk 17:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've made my position on well-poisoning quite clear, and I will be using rollback whenever I see this well-poisoning in the article. I can't help it if rollback marks the edits as minor. Jayjg 18:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Your rationale for reversion is immaterial. It is disputed, and until this matter is resolved, of course you can help what methods you employ to revert. Is it really that much of an effort to revert manually in this article's case in order to avoid marking the edit as minor? Has Palmiro not made a very good case for fairness and quoted appropriate policy to behoove you to sacrifice Rollback as a courtesy to other editors involved with you in this dispute? --AladdinSE 17:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

NOR revisited

No, you need to find a reputable source, preferably another legal one, who says it's relevant. At the moment, it's only you saying that, which makes it original research i.e. you're adding a synthesis of published facts in order to advance a position. If you want to add that synthesis, you must source the synthesis, not the individual facts. SlimVirgin 14:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Slim, you are inventing policy here out of the whole cloth. Original research is adding material "not published already by a reputable source". This is a direct quotation from the source, a highly reputable biography from the Sydney Law School. If and when someone adds speculation or editorialization of any kind then by all means demand a source for that. Curious how you have morphed form well poisoning to OR.--AladdinSE 14:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the policy? It says: "Original research ... means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments ..." And no morphing is taking place. Just because something is well poisoning doesn't mean it's not OR and vice versa. SlimVirgin 14:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you? Show me where one single letter is added that is not contained in the source! "A lifelong commitment to Israel"... a direct quotation from a reliable source. Where is the data of any kind not published by the reliable source? Where is the rest of it, the argument or concept, any singular punctuation mark even that is not contained in the source? Where is the sort of language that reads like "Stone, who was a life long advocate of Israel and therefore his theories may be tainted"? It is simply not there. You cannot attribute arguments to editors they have not made themselves. The OR you are claiming is material you have brought up here in Talk, I have never inserted it into the article once. If a simple sourced quotation of fact without speculation of any kind whatsoever is not enough to preserve us from accusations of OR, then this whole enterprise of Misplaced Pages is subject to deletion. As for OR and well-poisonig not being mutually exclusive, no one said they were. What I find curious that in our vast exhaustive discussion above you never alleged OR until now. Unusual that you would bring it up this late in the game, having dwelt on OR so passionately in other articles.--AladdinSE 15:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a rerun of the dispute over NOR at Israeli West Bank barrier. You have two facts, let's say (to make it simple).

• Fact 1: "He is a specialist in international law holding legal opinion X, which favors Israel."
• Fact 2: "He is a life-long supporter of Israel."

Both facts are sourced. Both pass WP:V, when used separately. But in using them together, you are creating a synthesis of facts. This synthesis contains within it:

• Implied Fact 3: "Even though he's a specialist in international law, his life-long support for Israel may have colored his legal opinion."

The whole, in other words, is larger than the sum of its parts. The NOR policy says that articles may not contain any "unpublished synthesis of published data." What you want to write is an "unpublished synthesis of published data." Therefore, you must find a reputable source (and given the context, preferably a legal one) for the synthesis i.e. you must find a source that says exactly what you want to say. SlimVirgin 15:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This interpretation of NOR sounds to me like it would render the writing of articles impossible. We are not to be allowed to put any two facts closer together in an article than they were in a source? Please note that your interpretation of NOR would also prevent us from saying, "Julius Stone, a specialist in international law born in Year X, says..." The NOR policy actually says "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged". Indeed, without such research, all our pages would be either blank or copyright violations. Palmiro | Talk 15:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There usually is no hidden implication in "name, job, date of birth," though there can be. There was a recent objection to just this kind of thing, where the person in question was 15, yet was doing something that assumed a lot of responsibility, and it was argued that giving his age at the top of the article was intended to undermine him. Wherever a synthesis of facts gives rise to an additional implication (a hidden proposition) and someone challenges it, you have to provide a source for the synthesis of facts. SlimVirgin 15:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, Palmiro, the above is not an "interpretation of NOR." It is what the policy, in fact, explicitly states. SlimVirgin 15:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Your claim that this feature of the policy applies to preclude Aladdin's edit here is indeed an interpretation of it, and a rather dangerous one I would think as I have indicated above. Palmiro | Talk 16:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you can't see how and why it's OR, because it's pretty obvious. I can only imagine the hue and cry that would go up from you and AladdinSE if I tried to write: "That the Israeli control over the West Bank and Gaza is an illegal occupation is a view held by the United Nations General Assembly, which is demonstrably biased against Israel, and Professor Mohammad Abdullah, Professor of International Law at Oxford University, who is a life-long supporter of a Palestinian state." If I were to make that edit, I suspect you'd both suddenly understand the NOR policy. SlimVirgin 16:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I never said I supported Aladdin's edit, merely that I did not think the NOR policy precluded it. I remain of this view. Palmiro | Talk 16:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. As I said earlier, your novel innovation of policy would make most of the contents of Misplaced Pages subject to deletion. You are attributing this implication which I have never made. All implications and speculation, such as your "implied fact 3" are your own verbalized speculation and editorialization here in Talk. Moreover, you are also inventing nonexistent Misplaced Pages policy of synthesis of facts the wording of which exists no where in policy guidelines. The dictionary defines "synthesis" as "the combination of ideas to form a theory or system." It does not say an implied theory or system. In fact, the dictionary adds "Often contrasted with analysis" (bold emphasis added). The "synthesized OR", ie analysis, must be articulated in so many words with editorialization not supported by a proper source. I do not, I never have, attempted to introduce any such editorialization. Thus, no matter how many times you theorize as to "Even though he's a specialist in international law, his life-long support for Israel may have colored his legal opinion," it will always remain YOUR words in a Talk section. Once I, or anyone else, adds such material, feel free to shout OR from the rooftops.--AladdinSE 16:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what you're trying to add, and shouting from the rooftops (to ask for a source) is what I'm doing. Tell me: why are you adding it, if not to suggest that his view of Israel may have colored his legal opinion? SlimVirgin 16:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Response to your first paragraph: Slim, your example is a perfect conduit to pinpoint your errors of interpretation. Let us examine it. If you were to attempt this edit, as you say, this is exactly what would be wrong and right with it: "which is demonstrably biased against Israel" is clear POV editorialization. Nothing remotely like that is attempted by my edit here. On the other hand, "and Professor Mohammad Abdullah, Professor of International Law at Oxford University, who is a life-long supporter of a Palestinian state" would be perfectly valid, if, like my edit, it was supported by a reliable source. I have shown you how the dictionary specifically contrasts the synthesis of ideas to analysis.--AladdinSE 16:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Second para: Please have a care how you use the word "exactly" because it contains the crux of the disagreement. It is not what I am trying to add, what you think I am trying to add you have verbalized again and again with repeated formulations of text that I had no part in. As for you question, it has been answered umpteen number of times! It is standard full disclosure information appended to a person of note, in the same vein as when CNN always mentions that Time Warner is its parent company whenever reporting about it. CNN does not imply or mean to imply that there is some sort of shady hidden bias that everyone should be aware of, and to be skeptical of whatever CNN is reporting about Time Warner!--AladdinSE 16:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious that Time Warner is important when discussing CNN, it's the parent company. Why is an allegation of a "lifelong support of Israel" by an anonymous biographer important when discussion Stone? Why wouldn't his 27 books on international law and jurisprudence be more relevant? You haven't answered why this particular statement is so important when discussing Stone. Was Stone "owned" by his alleged "lifelong support of Israel", in the way that CNN is owned by Time Warner? Is that the implication you are trying to make? Jayjg 16:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question, Aladdin: why are you trying to add it , if not to suggest that his view of Israel may have colored his legal opinion? SlimVirgin 16:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg: Your very question betrays your false premise. Merely to have life-long support for Israel is not a "black mark" or "allegation", as I said in reply to your earlier comments above. I didn't add his 27 books or other long list of accomplishments because you know full well that it would be an absurdly long and awkward list to include at this place in time. Nevertheless, if I do say so myself, I did a pretty good job of summarizing these accolades by adding "prominent international jurist" which was more than anyone else did to point to his stature and expertise. Slim: I answered our question most directly and succinctly, without evasion whatsoever. Perhaps it's not the answer you want to hear, which would confirm your views and arguments as proof of either OR or the first argument resorted to, "well poisoning". Now, I notice lately that you do not reply to my points in detail any more, you are replying with generalized polemics. For example, you made no reply to my comments on the non-existence of "synthesis of facts" interpretation expressed by yourself, nor to my points about dictionary definitions of synthesis as deliberately contrasted with analysis and how OR/editorialization would have to be articulated in so many words, whereas my edit only quoted a short statement of fact with no speculation whatsoever. Also, you have made no response to my two paragraphs specifically dealing with your "Professor Muhammad Abdullah" example, and our differing perspectives on what "exactly" I am trying to add, because all I add is a quotation, all your Talk allegations are editorialization I have never partaken of.--AladdinSE

Aladdin, you've done it again! What is the answer? SlimVirgin 17:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Third or fourth (or fifth) time lucky: Aladdin, why are you trying to add it, if not to suggest that his view of Israel may have colored his legal opinion? SlimVirgin 17:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Slim, what are you playing at? I have answered this point many times, and in a fully direct manner. I will not compose new prose, I will quote form previous entries, as you seem incapable of discerning an answer in them:

"Note that no where is there any editorialization or original research that his legal assessments are colored by his affinity for Israel. Nevertheless, you must admit that when legal scholars, or indeed experts of any field, are quoted in support of whatever precept, if they have overt political affiliations or records of support pertaining to the subject matter at hand, it is standard practice to mention these facts when quoting the source. This does not discount their scholarly record."

"Readers have a right to know that this scholar, while eminently qualified to render his expert opinion on a legal argument, at the same time has a life-long record of advocacy for the country making that argument."

"As for you question, it has been answered umpteen number of times! It is standard full disclosure information appended to a person of note, in the same vein as when CNN always mentions that Time Warner is its parent company whenever reporting about it. CNN does not imply or mean to imply that there is some sort of shady hidden bias that everyone should be aware of, and to be skeptical of whatever CNN is reporting about Time Warner!"

So do stop pretending that I didn't answer.--AladdinSE 18:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

AladdinSE, this is not the first time we've had this issue. It's a subtle kind of original research/poisoning the well. You want to draw a conclusion about an individual, but are unable to make that conclusion openly (because of the NOR requirements), so instead you simply juxtapose the pieces of information of interest to you, in order to direct the reader to the conclusion you wish them to draw. Stone is internationally reknowned as a legal theorist, not as a supporter of Israel. The information in the header is about what international legal theorists have to say about the Israeli settlements, and about what Stone is best known for. Therefore, his expertise in international legal theory is relevant. On the other hand, his anonymously alleged "lifelong support for Israel" is a well-poisoning method of trying to do an end-run aournd the original research policy, by saying "well, he may be an internationally respected jurist, but keep in mind he's biased on this subject". Unless you come up with some compelling new arguments, the information simply will not remain in the article. Jayjg 17:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg:No, it is not the first time at all. In fact this very circumstance is a feather in my cap, as I have proven by word and deed (extensive discussion with you in the past and the procurement of the sources you asked for) that I am a capable of productive discussion and compromise, as SV herself testified to in the Israeli West Bank Barrier discussion. I have set forth in minute detail how Well poisoning and OR does not apply (much of which, incidentally, you did not reply to). Notice that in all your former arguments you never once mentioned OR? It was all about "Well Poisoning". Also, how curious that you describe it as a "subtle" form, is it because you can find no clear justification for it in policy? Even so, since you are ignoring my detailed rebuttals set out over the last couple of days, I will summarize again:

1. If I want to draw a conclusion, you have to show me where I articulate this alleged conclusion in plain English. A sourced quotation of fact without any editorialization whatsoever is no conclusion. No unsourced conclusion = no OR. You won't be able to get around that.
2. Relevancy is incredibly potent. Readers can be informed, with citation, that the person making this legal argument happens to have a life long commitment to the nation advancing said argument. I've said this 3 or 4 times. As long as no unsourced speculation of bias/perceived/possible bias is articulated, you have no leg to stand on trying to invent policy to disallow it.
3. Suddenly the biographer is anonymous and the comment is "alleged"? Comical. This is the University of Sydney School of Law official Stone biography, one which was provided by the person who first introduced the Stone's analysis, not by me! You will get no where fast attempting to disparage the biography or its use as a very reliable source.
4. Being a life long supporter of Israel is not a black mark or unfavorable factor. What some readers "may construe" (as expressed by SV) is their own affair. We are bound by policy. Well poisoning therefore does not apply.
5. As Plamiro eloquently quotes: "The NOR policy actually says "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged"
6. Be aware that you say things like "well, he may be an internationally respected jurist, but keep in mind he's biased on this subject" but these are your words here in Talk, once you see me putting such editorialization into the article, you can can beat your breast with gusto about OR.

Finally, there really is no cause for condescending language like "the information simply will not remain in the article". Have I not shown good faith by voluntarily limiting my reverts to once daily, along with fully participating in detailed discussion? When genuinely convinced by you in the past, I have conceded publicly. This is not a contest of personal wills here.--AladdinSE 17:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Listen chaps, I've go to run again. I will come back at my earliest to reply to any comments. Cheers for now.--AladdinSE 18:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "when legal scholars, or indeed experts of any field, are quoted in support of whatever precept, if they have overt political affiliations or records of support pertaining to the subject matter at hand, it is standard practice to mention these facts when quoting the source." It isn't standard practice on Misplaced Pages to mention only one fact about someone and to leave out a whole bunch of others e.g. his qualifications and his 27 books, which doubtless influenced his legal opinions just a tad more than any personal views. Also, Aladdin, you represent your one-revert-a-day policy as a sign of reasonableness. It's actually quite disruptive, and at least one user has been taken to the arbcom for it. Not that I'm suggesting you should be, mind you; I'm just pointing out that the arbcom didn't find it reasonable. SlimVirgin 18:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is the "standard practice" of quoting "records of support pertaining to the subject matter at hand" of various "legal scholars, or indeed experts of any field" outlined? I wasn't aware of it being a policy, or even a guideline. In fact, I've only seen it described as poisoning the well. On the other hand, WP:NOR directly addresses this situation; specifically, it is a "synthesis of published data" that amounts to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". The novel narrative you are trying to promote is that Stone's legal opinions were coloured by his support for Israel. The fact that you've gotten more subtle in your editorializing/original research/well-poisoning does not mean that others can or should turn a blind eye to it. Jayjg 18:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Slim:You continue to disregard points I have made no matter how many times I repeat them. You don't reply to them. I did not only add one fact and ignored others. I also summarized his credentials by adding the phrase "prominent international jurist". Funny how when reverting my edits, both you and Jayjg left that in. Its alright to bolster the mention of his credentials, but if we happen to quote the 100% true fact of his life long commitment to Israel, SOMETHING NOT TO BE ASHAMED OF, cited by the original biographical source, that's not allowed. As for limiting my reverts, it is no more disruptive than your reverts. I could revert 2, 3 times a day while we continue to hammer out our disagreements in Talk, and to suggest that my voluntary course of action is disruptive rather than reasonable, is the epitome of unreasonableness. We are engaged in a content dispute. We are equal. You revert just like I do. You would be reverting more if I had not taken the initiative to minimize disruption, especially for our readers. Jayjg:I was not quoting a policy page or guideline, if I had I would have linked it for you. This is common sense taken from the world at large, and I mentioned earlier the example of neutral journalism. It is the kind of editor's discretion we take every day in Misplaced Pages, and is in harmony with the principles of neutrality and full disclosure. In any case, as the one advocating deletion, the burden is on you to prove your point. This is why we are discussing after all. You are the one pointing to non-existent Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Take for example you use of "synthesis of published data" that amounts to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". When such a narrative or historical interpretation is articulated, you can reference that line with my full support. What you may not do, what none of may do, is impose a non-existent interpretation not articulated in clear and actual written formulations. As the dictionary says, synthesis is the combination of ideas to form a theory or system... Often contrasted with analysis. When you see me insert speculation or analysis, then we'll talk.--AladdinSE 17:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Descriptions

"Prominent international jurist" tells people who he is. That he had a lifelong commitment to Israel, or which political party he voted for, or whether he was left or right wing, does not. The OR policy is clear, as is the issue of well poisoning, and both have been explained many times, both here and elsewhere, so there's no point in repeating myself. SlimVirgin 18:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Journalists are rarely (if ever) "neutral", and they do not follow Misplaced Pages's content policies. In addition, one can "synthesize" without "articulating", exactly as you have done. Perhaps you can articulate this; why is it important to include this particular information about Stone on this article? Would you insist it be included every single time Stone is mentioned? Jayjg 18:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That he had a life long commitment to Israel and defended its official legal arguments also tells people what he is. Because of his history of public support for Israel, do you think he would ever have been allowed to sit as a judge in the International Court that heard the Barrier case? Of course not. He is more than qualified, but had he been a judge, he would have had to recuse himself for that case. All because of this life-long record of public support and public statements. It's an extremely pertinent and relevant point, and must not be censored. It has also been explained to you many times why OR and WP do not apply.

No, it has been explained to you many times that OR does apply. SlimVirgin 19:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As for journalists, accuracy and neutrality among them are what make them reliable sources in Misplaced Pages.

Journalists aren't neutral and rarely make any effort to be, largely because it's not expected of them by the companies that pay them, which have their own political opinions. Wikipedians don't, and indeed aren't allowed to, write the way journalists do. SlimVirgin 19:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

And no, you cannot "synthesize without articulating". Articulation is necessary so that no editor can impose his/her own interpretation of another editor's "subtle meaning". You must prove that "the synthesis of published data amounted to novel narrative or historical interpretation" by citing such editorialization by the editor you want to revert.

No idea what you mean by "prove." It's obvious to anyone who reads the sentence what you're trying to do. SlimVirgin 19:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Otherwise, it is a blank check for censorship and wholesale deletion. Palmiro articulated this point better than I. Using this rationale, this false interpretation of NOR, any editor can claim a reason for deleting sourced information s/he does not like or wants to censor. This is why, I suspect, you never breathed a word of NOR until this late in the game, after I quoted from the WP article that shows that for it to apply, you have to have an unfavorable fact associated with a person to discredit him.

I didn't see the quote from the "WP article," whatever that refers to. Which quote is this? SlimVirgin 19:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

By contrast, I did far from discredit him, I specifically accentuated his qualification with clear words. What you are trying to do is impose your own subjective interpretation onto a sourced quotation of fact without any speculation or editorialization by myself to support your accusation. This is why I specifically pointed to the dictionary definition of "Synthesis" which distinctly contrasts the meaning to analysis. It is important to include this particular information about Stone in this article because his considered legal opinion on Israeli settlements is being touted, therefore his long history of support for Israel is relevant. It would not be relevant for example if this was an article quoting his legal opinion about the territorial disputes of sheep farmers of New South Wales Vs. Victoria. --AladdinSE 18:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

How would a life-long commitment to Israel necessarily translate into support for the settlements? SlimVirgin 19:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Aladdin, which is more neutral?

(a) "Institute for Policy Studies scholar Professor Noam Chomsky has described the U.S as 'a leading terrorist state'," or

(b) "Institute for Policy Studies scholar Professor Noam Chomsky, a life-long opponent of successive U.S. governments, has described the U.S as 'a leading terrorist state'." SlimVirgin 18:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Slim, that would require you to fill in the context of what issue Chomsky is commenting on. Just as there is specificity in the Stone comments about Israeli settlement ergo the mention of his life long support for Israel. If you could just fill out the statements in this Chomsky example, and include if description of life-long opposition is sourced (as the Stone description is), I would be happy to consider the relative neutrality of the 2 formats.--AladdinSE 19:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The context is terrorism in general and who is, and isn't, a terrorist state. The life-long part isn't sourced yet, but it easily could be, so please assume it is, and that the source is a good one. Which version is more neutral? SlimVirgin 19:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps it should be "a relentless thorn in America's side." SlimVirgin 19:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Aladdin, stop moving my posts. It's standard practice to reply inside posts when they are long like that. If you don't want people to do that, don't write such long replies. It is perfectly clear who has said what, which is why I signed all mine. SlimVirgin 20:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)