Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:14, 2 July 2016

User:Malik Shabazz/Tabs

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

This is Malik Shabazz's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 5 days

Ohio Wiknic Invitation!

Hello there! You are invited to attend the Great Buckeye Wiknic in Columbus, Ohio on Sunday, July 10th from 1:00 to 5:00 PM! Join us for a day in the park for food and socializing with others from the Wikimedia movement. We'll be meeting up at Fred Beekman Park, a park on Ohio State University's campus.

If you're interested, please take a look at our events page for more information, including parking info, food options, and available activities. If you plan on attending, please add your name to the attendees list. We look forward to seeing you!

If you have any questions, feel free to leave one on my talk page. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

(Note: If you would like to stop receiving notifications regarding Wikimedia events around Ohio, you may remove your username from this list.)

FAC: Agharta (album)

Hi. Would you be interested in reviewing or commenting at this FAC nomination for Agharta (album)? More input would be appreciate, as it appears the original reviewer has bailed. Dan56 (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dan56. I'll take a look at it over the weekend. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 02:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's Talk Orlando and Other Stuff

Let's Talk Facts.

Since you state on your talk page that despite your political and religious beliefs, you are commited to keeping a neutral point of view, (in keeping with the rules of Misplaced Pages), would you please reconsider editing your vote on the reinstatement of the Orlando shooting on the list of Islamist terror attacks? Your argument against the reinstatement was the narrative that the supposed gay lover's interview made Omar's motivation for shooting 50 gay people clear. However, the FBI has concluded that there is no evidence that Omar was gay. Source: (www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-gay-fbi-20160623-snap-story.html)

That means either:

• The FBI is somehow a less credible source than a supposed gay lover

or

• There is some other reason why Orlando should not be included on the list

I concede my argument on the DC Snipers, as it seems that you are correct on the lack of sourcing.

Also, Another thing that is disturbing is this racist (Yes, racist, as defined by Google of all organizations, you know, the people who gave a cute little Google Doodle for Osama Bin Laden sympathizer Yuri Kochiyama) quote on your front page ->

"Writing a book from a black perspective is freeing. Seeing it constantly examined from a white perspective is depressing." - Ta-Nehisi Coates

Doesn't that quote fit the Google definition a little too well? Racism (Noun) - "The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." - Google, (One of the most lax companies on Black Nationalism I have ever seen)

It's one of the most racist and simpleminded quotes I have ever read. It boils down to black perspective good, white perspective bad. What a beautiful false dichotomy.

R00b07 (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

If you expect to be taken seriously, please read more thoroughly and carefully.

Yes, of course I was right about the Beltway snipers. I had spent an hour researching the related articles on Misplaced Pages before I replied to the edit request and made one of my own. I explained myself on the article's talk page, and zzuuzz understood and agreed with my assessment of the (lack of) reliable sources. You would have known that if you had read before you posted a nasty message about bias. It doesn't seem I am correct -- I am correct.

Now please read the discussion about the Orlando shooting more carefully. (I know it's become a wall of text, but you brought it up.) I've written that we're not a newspaper and we don't have to meet a deadline, so we should be diligent about getting the story right instead of rushing to include every incident that might possibly be a terrorist attack. When I wrote, people were citing news articles from the morning after the shootings as reliable sources -- which they rarely are -- and my point was that we should wait until the investigation is further along and more reliable sources than a 911 operator can be cited. Have we reached that point yet? I don't know -- has anybody in a position of authority said anything conclusive about Mateen's motive? -- or will we rely on Breitbart and the logic of the mob? So will I change my comments? Why would I? What I wrote is still true -- we shouldn't rush to judgment.

Now let's talk about racism. How does my quote from Coates say anything to you about characteristics or abilities specific to a race, or about the superiority or inferiority of a race? (It's a definition of racism that you chose.) Once again, I'm afraid, you need to read more carefully. Maybe you ought to read the essay from which I quoted (I thoughtfully left a link for readers) and judge who's simple-minded and racist?

Finally, let's talk about your comments about removing the Orlando shooting from the list. If you had put in a few seconds of effort, you would have seen that there have been dozens of incidents from around the world removed from the list because their inclusion as "Islamist terrorist attacks" was not supported by reliable sources. But you found it easier to accuse others of acting on their POVs than to look at the article's history or the talk page archives. Shame on you. — MShabazz /_Stalk 05:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

"So will I change my comments? Why would I? What I wrote is still true -- we shouldn't rush to judgment."

You should change the part about the gay lover, as that would help propogate the best information we have at this time. I no longer care about whether you say yes or no.

"How does my quote from Coates say anything to you about characteristics or abilities specific to a race, or about the superiority or inferiority of a race?"

It states that a black perspective (a characteristic) is "freeing" while a white perspective (also a characteristic) is "depressing". It makes a severe implication that the black perspective is superior to the white perspective. Unless somehow you think having your perspective being labeled "depressing" is a good thing and "freeing" is a bad thing. I'm afraid you need to think more carefully.

"Maybe you ought to read the essay from which I quoted (I thoughtfully left a link for readers) and judge who's simple-minded and racist?"

Sentence one of the article is already talking about the "enduring whiteness of the American media". LOL, maybe the American media has "whiteness" because the country is 65-70% white. I'm pretty sure Coates is the racist. Everything is black and white to these race baiters. (Bell Hooks is another, for instance.) I long for the days in the future where people can be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

Morgan Freeman had the best solution for raciam. (cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/flashback-morgan-freeman-ending-racism-stop-talking-about-it)

"But you found it easier to accuse others of acting on their POVs than to look at the article's history or the talk page archives. Shame on you"

You told me to look at the article history (I looked at the recent changes) and talk page. You never told me to sift through months of archival data. Also, once again hitting me with those sick Ad Hominems. I guess you think attacking my character makes your argument better or something. R00b07 (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Man, you really need to learn to read more carefully. Coates didn't write that any perspective is depressing; he wrote that seeing his book constantly judged from a white perspective was depressing.

When I wrote about the article's history and the talk page archives, what did you think I was referring to? Just the past few days? Misplaced Pages didn't start the day you registered an account, you know.

Finally, telling you that you've been attacking me out of ignorance is not an ad hominem. Don't jump in the deep end of the pool if you don't know how to swim. — MShabazz /_Stalk 10:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:TPO

I get your rationale. TPO says, "This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial." On the other hand, it prohibits personal attack, which begins with, "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Misplaced Pages community and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor."

So one could look at it either way. One that needlessly pushes the civility line, or one that does not. Your point can be made just as effectively (actually more effectively) without the combative tone and without calling an editor a fool. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

See the preceding section. The editor has been criticizing me for hours because he fails to read before he shoots off his mouth. If it's incivil to say that, tough twinkies. — MShabazz /_Stalk 05:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

So because the editor was criticizing you, it gave you the right to go break the rules of the site (Derogatory Comments)? Pretty sure that's more than just "tough twinkies". Shouldn't you as a former admin know that? Please follow WP:PA R00b07 (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. — MShabazz /_Stalk 10:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thankfully, that traditional confrontational approach is in its decline at Misplaced Pages, and we can begin to gradually rebuild the editor ranks. You're a dinosaur here. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Could be. If your friend from Breitbart represents the future of Misplaced Pages, I want no part of it. — MShabazz /_Stalk 10:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Please tell me...

How it fits under war crimes, per the Rome Statute?

   (a)     Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
       (i)     Wilful killing;

       (ii)     Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;

       (iii)     Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;

       (iv)     Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

       (v)     Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;

       (vi)     Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;

       (vii)     Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;

       (viii)     Taking of hostages.

The depopulation as a whole was mostly not forced, with few exceptions (lydda and ramle)

And how does it count as terrorism? Terrorism must be committed by non-state actors. When it's done by a state the laws of war apply. And it's not a war crime. So yeah. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Did the expulsions start on May 14? When did the Haganah, Etzel, and Lehi suddenly become state actors? And your blatant POV pushing is becoming tiresome. So yeah. — MShabazz /_Stalk 05:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

When Israel became a state. After Israel was established irgun, lehi, and the haganah joined together and became the IDF. Massacres before then by can aptly be called zionist terrorism, massacres after are war crimes.--Monochrome_Monitor 06:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

My point is you have to go by a case by case basis. There's no nuance. It is illogical to have the page in both categories- they are mutually exclusive. The "expulsions" were a minority, I repeat. --Monochrome_Monitor 06:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Monochrome Monitor: what you are doing now, is really bad editing: you go around imposing rather controversial changes, without discussing them first! You should have been editing long enough to know this isn´t on. Please self-revert. Also, who the heck said that states do not commit massacres? Are you going to change, say, My Lai Massacre into My Lai War Crime? (Not that it wasn´t both). Again; please self-revert, Huldra (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Um.... you misunderstand me. Massacres can be anything. war crimes, terrorism... But terrorism applies to non-states and war crimes to states. My edits were very reasonable. The deir yassin massacre was committed pre-israel and by irgun, it can be called zionist terrorism. but massacres committed by the IDF- ie, after israel was established- can only be called war crimes.--Monochrome_Monitor 06:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC) @Huldra:

Since you stopped arguing that it's terrorism or a war crime, can you please self-revert?--Monochrome_Monitor 06:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your POV pushing or I will file a report at WP:AE. Removing war crimes from Israeli categories and adding it to Palestinian categories is hypocrisy, especially when the explanations in your edit summaries are conveniently and ideologically inconsistent. (Original research much?) Use the talk pages or -- better yet -- start a centralized discussion at WP:IPCOLL. — MShabazz /_Stalk 11:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't remove a single war crime. I ADDED the category war crimes in places they weren't before. It's not original research either. Terrorism:

The Chairman of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee has stated that the Committee was conscious of 12 international Conventions on the subject, and none of them referred to State terrorism, which was not an international legal concept. If States abused their power, they should be judged against international conventions dealing with war crimes, international human rights law, and international humanitarian law. Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said that it is "time to set aside debates on so-called 'state terrorism'. The use of force by states is already thoroughly regulated under international law" I didn't add war crimes to palestinian articles. I added terrorism. Literally the exact opposite. Please double check before making threats of sanctions.--Monochrome_Monitor 13:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Liar, liar, pants on fire. — MShabazz /_Stalk 13:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC) Well that's the thing. Palestine is supposed to be a state now, yes? I honestly don't know what to call it. But the lebanon conflict is older. --Monochrome_Monitor 13:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC) I agree it's one or the other. But ironically I thought I would be accused of bias for calling palestinian crimes terrorism and israeli ones war crimes due to the pejorative-ness of the term "terrorism". --Monochrome_Monitor 13:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

1. "Addressing Security Council, Secretary-General Calls On Counter-Terrorism Committee To Develop Long-Term Strategy To Defeat Terror". Un.org. Retrieved 2009-08-10.