Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:40, 9 January 2007

For older history, check as well as the archives:

1. /Archive 1

Occupied territories

What do you think of my following contribution?

The West Bank (current), and the Gaza Strip (until 2005), are called occupied territories by those advocating the strongest Palestinian position. However, neither territory is deemed soverign. These lands were allegedly liberated from Turkey in World War I, at the end of which the League of Nations was formed. And the League of Nations had granted Great Britain a mandate over this land, which was then a part of Mandatory Palestine. Accordingly, Great Britain was not an occupying power in relation to this land. It was an occupyer when the land belonged to the Ottoman Empire during the Great War. The British subsequently relinquished their mandate and these territories were occupied, as a consequence of war, by Egypt and Jordan. In the 1967 War Israel liberated this land from its late conquerors. The Balfour Declaration had been adopted by the League of Nations, and the United Nations is deemed a successor organization to the League. Accordingly, the terms of this Declaration are deemed International Law. Consequently, Israel has the legal right to claim this land as its own - under International Law. However, the State of Israel has decided that it is not in its best national interests to assert its soverignity over these two pieces of land. A major reason for this is the existence of a large Arab population, and relatively small Jewish population in Settlements.

Can you re-visit the cite? Thanks. Best regard, Ludvikus 16:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Besides the obvious POV (excuse me, I call them "occupied territories", and I don't "advocate the strongest Palestinian positions"), you are grossly over-linking, as usual. Why does League of Nations need to be wikilinked four times in one paragraph? Why does International Law need it twice in a dozen words? All that aside for the brief moment, whose definitions are you using here? What experts in the field make the points that you are asserting? At the moment, this looks like pure original research. --jpgordon 17:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's my source:

• Douglas J. Feith, William V. O'Brien, Eugene V. Rostow, Paul S. Riebenfeld, Malvina Halberstam, & Jerome Hornblass

Israel's Legitimacy in Law and History, Proceedings of the Conference on International Law and the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Sponsored by The Lois D. Brandeis Society of Zionist Lawyers, October 21, 1990, New York

ed. Edward M. Siegel, Esq.

assoc. ed. Olga Barrekette

(New York: Center for Near East Policy Research, 1993)

ISBN 0-9640145-0-5

About my alleged over linking, its precisely because I want my readers, especially those who are highly uninformed, to have immediate access to the precise meaning of the words I use, words which are often technical, and not subject to personal whim. I am absolutely shocked that you, for whom I have had some respect before, would have the nerve to announce proudly that you use occuppied territories with respect to Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip? Where did you find that except in the political popular literature of breeding-heart liberals, probably like yourself, who are so overwhelmed with grief over the suffering of Paletinians, that they forget that it was the gas-chamber ovens in Europe under Hitler, that made Israel the only place on Earth that would absorb the remnants of the six-million!

So tell me more about your POV view regarding territories occupied by Israel!!!

Happy New Year, Ludvikus 23:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year, and you have no idea whatsoever what my opinions are, and your suggestions are obnoxious, so please go pester someone else. --jpgordon 23:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

A request for assistance

Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 05:52 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi Jgordon- I posted to a number of the editors of the Amelia Earhart article in order to see if there was consensus in the move. Otherwise, the usual response is one or two people and not a clear idea of what to do. Sorry if it gets anyone upset. Bzuk 06:04 3 January 2007 (UTC).

• Good luck. --jpgordon 06:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hoover Dam

Thanks for the message. The story about the carbon monoxide is straight from the BBC's "Seven Wonders of the Industrial World". These programmes were meticulously researched and so are reliable references. I hope the series has been seen over on your side of the pond, because it is superb. I have now cited the episode on the Hoover Dam to support the story. I have also made a mental note not to use 'interestingly'. JMcC 08:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate/Workshop

I think we are almost ready to take Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate/Workshop to voting. When you feel comfortable with the proposals, please take them to /Proposed decision and fix Template:ArbComOpenTasks so the case shows up in voting. I remain somewhat uncertain regarding Dionysus, Probably all the workshop sections on the individual users don't need to go to /Proposed decision. Fred Bauder 15:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Done. --jpgordon 06:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

about Lee Isaacs

• Keep Lee Isaacs is my vote. This photographer is quite notable. Editor Hoary decided long ago he didn't want Isaacs' on WP for whatever reason. We both obviously see, along with others, that Isaacs work is as notable as half of the photographers on WP whether its art photography and/or commercial photography. I fleshed out alot of this article but I do understand to google Lee Isaacs is not easy since alot of people have his first and last name as a middle name and last name. I have a book here, UPsouth, that has many examples of his work. This is a Warhol project grant through Space One Eleven. He is in good company as far as the notoriety of the other artists here is concerned. Emma Amos and bell hooks are in the book along with Willie Cole and Marie Weaver. Cole is the only other male in this project. Maybe someone could sift through some of this. Artsojourner 06:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I only noticed that you too have had a problem with other people deleting your work I meant no harm at all. I assure you. Artsojourner 06:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Forgery & the Protocols of Zion

Greatings, Jpgordon.

I hope I can explain my point to you here.

Forgery would have meant that the Okhrana went out of its way to make the manuscript look like it was written on Jewish paper (with watermarked Star-of-David markings, for example), that the handwriting was by the hand of Jews (waterever that means).

That they had to do this to convince the censors that the mauscript presented was authentic.

But there is no evidence for that. In fact, Serge Nilus was a gullible religious fanatic, and he was moved by the words of the text into believing - he did not needed to be convinced very much that the document was real - an actual, original recording of minutes.

Anyway, if there was a forgery presented to Nilus, scholars do not say much about it except that Nilus gives different stories about the manuscript he received.

So the appropriate word is hoax, not forgery.

Hoax means a scam, presenting something as true when it is not.

PS: In fact, the story, changed as subsequently told by Nilus, that somebody copied from the original. So what Nilus would have had would be fiction, not a forgery, because it was stated that it was NOT the original document! Do you understand this point?

Best regards, --Ludvikus 20:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Feel free to discuss this on the article talk page, not here. Thank you. --jpgordon 20:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy - Help!

Dear Jpgordon,

• I've encountered two, stubborn, opinionated (expressing personal POV) editors,

a Ben Nelson, and a Dbuckner

Whatever you think of me, I have confidence that if you visit Philosophy,

and just put your 2-cents in, things will improve - the cite is frozed because of an Editors War (I represent the Western front - not that it has been named that!

I think you might have fun - even find yourself siding with me, of all people, no?

Best regards, yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Occupied territories and the United Nations

For your reference (you name is mentioned by me on the OT talk page)

    The fact should be emphasized that only
    what the Security Council formally passes
    has the force of International Law.
    The terms occupied and territories are used by the Security Council
    in its formal resolutions, although rarely juxtaposed together.
    The question is, what is its meaning?
    It is my reading (but not a mere personal opinion)
    that its use in that context (above)
    has to do with the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
    But User:Jpgordon seems to be blind
    to its perjoritive political epithet connotation,
    as a cognate for our occupied land,
    as used by Hamas. And in that context,
    there is no distinction made between
    the West Bank, the Gaza strip, Jerusalem,
    or the whole of Israel.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 18:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Leave me alone. --jpgordon 18:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem editor

Hello. There has been a huge amount of disruption on the Philosophy page from an obsessive editor called Ludvikus. I see you have had 'visits' from this person. Do you know of anyone else who has had difficulty in that area? He seems to have upset a huge number of people. Do drop in by my talk page. Best. Dbuckner 19:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

re: article bans

Fair enough. I can think of some old examples that would fit your description (self-promoter in conflict with unrelated editor) and really needed a set of article bans. The current Starwood case also fits the description but is garden variety spamming plus random annoying user behavior, not at the level of evil of some other incidents that have gone by. I may propose a somewhat milder remedy there and see what happens. Reminds me, I should add some more evidence to that case. It seems to be somewhat stalled, maybe due to the holiday. 67.117.130.181 23:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Router?

Hiyas Jpgordon. I see that you're having a brick-wall conversation with Router (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at Talk:PayPal. I've been looking at his contribution history, and I'm convinced that he's a single purpose account solely trying to use Misplaced Pages as his personal soapbox. ALL of his edits have been to add those attack sites to articles, add criticism sections (and resist any changes to them, see Farmers Insurance). Thoughts? I had brought this up on AN, but only got a comment from an anon. Syrthiss 12:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• First thing I'm doing is asking arbcom for a clarification on the definition of "attack site" from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to attack site. --jpgordon 14:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let me know how that goes. Syrthiss 14:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Follow WP:RFAR#Attack sites. --jpgordon 15:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion then, with both WP:EL and the principles from the case Thatcher131 linked I think we (I, if you want me to be the hatchet-man) would be on solid ground certainly for removal of the sites and reasonably for blocking Router if he continues to add them. I'm still leaning towards throwing away the key on Router as a SPA, but could be talked down from the ledge. Syrthiss 15:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please, be the hatchet-man; I really should have asked someone else to do it in the first place, given that I could appear to have a conflict of interest there. --jpgordon 15:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)