User talk:Alberuni: Difference between revisions

Hi Alberuni, and welcome to Wikipedia.

Thankyou for finding the time to sign up and contribute to our little project. If you're in doubt about anything, you might want to check out some of these pages:

• Welcome, newcomers - a general introduction, and a good starting point
• The help centre and FAQs
• The Manual of Style - a guide to the community's writing conventions

It's also a good idea to sign the new user log and add a little about yourself.

When contributing to a talk page, you can sign your name by typing four tildes after your comments, like this: ~~~~. Some people do not pay attention to unsigned comments. An important note: Please do not add this signature to encyclopedia articles you may edit, even if you have created them. Wikipedia articles are owned by the community, not by any one person.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me at my talk page, or at the Help desk or Village Pump.

But above all, make sure you be bold when contributing, and have fun!

-- TPK 00:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Grand Mufti

Contents moved to Talk:Grand Mufti --iFaqeer 19:02, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

But don't be be too bold

Like taking truths out of factual articles, cf September 11, 2001 attacks Matt Stan 19:50, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

New users in particular are often entranced by the openness of Wikipedia and dive right in. That's a good thing. But please note: be bold in updating pages does not mean that you should make deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Abortion. In many such cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. An incautious edit to such an article can be akin to stirring up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may react angrily. Matt Stan 19:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I was trying to edit for readability. The article is over 30kb and I believed the long section on Previous Revelations needs to be broken out to other pages. The conspiracty stuff like Michael Moore's comments need to go to the conspiracy section or conspiracy wiki. Just MHO. Feel free to revert. It's a free encyclopedia!Alberuni 19:58, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What article are you folks talking about? Maybe others can help?--iFaqeer 20:23, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

9/11 Report

You mentioned that I may have been confusing the two 9/11 reports in a recent edit. I've made tons of edits today regarding the 9/11 Commission Report; which edit were you referring to? Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 17:19, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Hamdi

You did a great job on Hamdi, very quick, too. Maurreen 03:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So? Is this NOT neutral enough for you?

Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals

On the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking 9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International. The poll of New York residents was conducted from Tuesday August 24 through Thursday August 26, 2004. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.5.

The poll is the first of its kind conducted in America that surveys attitudes regarding US government complicity in the 9/11 tragedy. Despite the acute legal and political implications of this accusation, nearly 30% of registered Republicans and over 38% of those who described themselves as "very conservative" supported the claim.

The charge found very high support among adults under 30 (62.8%), African-Americans (62.5%), Hispanics (60.1%), Asians (59.4%), and "Born Again" Evangelical Christians (47.9%).

see http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

You appear unclear on the concept of Neutrality. It is neutral to state that a poll of New York City residents indicates that nearly half believe U.S. government leaders knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance. It is not neutral to refer to a site reporting those results as a "campaign to educate the public about the Sept. 11th coverup." You see, the cover-up is not a neutral fact. It is an opinion. Surely, you can make more of an effort to be polite and to separate opinions from facts, can't you? Alberuni 05:28, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Insurance claims 9/11

Nice detail that you've added here (and pretty quick as I only put about insurance claims on there a few mins ago - I know my wording wasn't up to much, so I was hoping someone would replace it with something better asap (especially as I think the financial aspects of the disaster are worth mentioning in the article, albeit that they're much much less significant than the loss of life). Out of interest, where did you get your info from, or are you just v familiar with it all? Jongarrettuk 20:41, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. The insurance disputes are an interesting issue but, yes, a sideshow to the main issues of direct loss of life, geopolitical wars and macroeconomic shifts caused by 9/11. I found this and this as sources for the info. Alberuni 20:48, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan

Well done on finding that. It looks to need quite a lot of NPOV work, probably including the title. Susvolans 15:26, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and support. I agree with your perception that this page needs alot of editing for NPOV. I would go further and say that there are many pages dealing with the Mideast that need this type of work. Some people intentionally inject a biased perspective into this encyclopedia as part of a propagandistic agenda. Others are unable to frame issues related to their closely held beliefs/biases into a more objective and neutral description. It's somewhat annoying to see blatant one-sided propaganda passed off as neutral fact but I guess this is an inevitable problem with any open source project dealing with highly controversial issues. Alberuni 15:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

P.S. There is nothing "biased" going on. Jordan took East Jerusalem and the West bank by military force and occupied it in defiance of the world community and even against the wishes of local Arabs. See What did the Arabs do about Jordan's annexation of the parts of Palestine they captured?. Also, several "Occupation" articles, unrelated to the Middle East, already exist on Wikipedia, see List of military occupations and Belligerent occupation. Thank you. IZAK 06:00, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your unbiased concern for victims of oppression and military occupation, like the one Israelis have been perpetrating against Palestinians for the past 37 years, for instance. Your heartfelt humanitarian concern for the plight of the Palestinians suffering under the Jewish state is to be commended. Kudos on your good work. Alberuni 14:20, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sarcasm is not a subsitute for logic. IZAK 09:13, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I was not being sarcastic. Is your concern for victims of military occupation one-sided, pro-Israeli and dishonest? Alberuni 03:55, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From what you seem to perceive it seems you are on a true Jihad yourself, so I would be carefull of false accusations if I were you. IZAK 08:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[I]/////[P] => [I-P]

Hello Alberuni, I made the following proposal on Talk:Occupation of Palestine. Would you be interested in taking part in this?

I very much oppose the creation of alternative articles. True, it will be very difficult to write a single article that will still be readable and not just a point-counterpoint list. But the whole point of the NPOV policy is to avoid the proliferation of alternative articles. If it happens for Israel//Palestine, then it will set a precedent to be imitated on all controversial topics. Also, if there are alternative Israel//Palestine articles, they will each tend to become far more POV than they are now. I think that we need to write an article that manages to incorporate fair descriptions of the conflicting POVs into one single narrative. This would be very hard work, and it would require a lot of editors on this topic to open their minds and change their intransigeant stance, but if we succeed, it would be a very big achievement, and (at the risk of sounding a bit pompous now) I think it might actually contribute to the understanding necessary for a genuine peace process. On the other hand you are right that it is much easier to start fresh. Also, all attempts to improve tha current Israel//Palestine articles are pretty futile, because they always descend into bickering about details. We really need to focus on the bigger picture, that's essential to writing a readable and enlightening article. I think Buff has given us a good outline of points of that bigger picture. So here is what I suggest:

1. Those who share a similar critique of the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict article get together and make a thorough analysis of where that article fails ;
2. We make a list of the main points where the article fails, as well as a list of what we can keep ;
3. Those who agree with the criticisms list get together and start a draft for a completely new article (at this point, those who disagree with the criticisms would not be allowed to pick it apart through the usual bickering about the details) ;
4. This new draft article would be based on Buffs outline above as well as the two lists from the current article ;
5. Only after we finish with the new draft do we ask those who defend the status quo of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article to contribute and edit the draft, and adapt the broad narrative to incorporate their views - but edits by those (from both sides) who do not try to engage constructively will be rigorously reverted ;
6. When the draft has stabilised somewhat, we make it into the new Israeli-Palestinian conflict article.

In a nutshell, the strategy I propose for writing a NPOV Israel//Palestine consists of:

• hammering out a narrative supported by a broad consensus - when we have achieved that it won't be too difficult to deal with the details
• thereby marginalising those who refuse productive co-operation and try to destroy a consensus-based narrative (which has always been the aim of the NPOV policy)

Tell me what you think of this. - pir 15:55, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Quoting Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" Nice idea in principle but I suspect an "Israeli/Palestinian narrative with a broad consensus" is a pipe dream. People on both sides of this conflict have extremely different and often conflicting POVs making the issue resistant to negotiation, compromise, and consensus. As long as this is an open-source project, people will be free to continuously edit out each others' versions and edit in their own biased views. Just like in "real-life", the side that is more organized and technologically savvy imposes its will on the other side. Alberuni 16:11, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Alberuni, thanks for the link to that other article. I don't necessarily disagree with you (on the likelihood of a "Israeli/Palestinian narrative with a broad consensus"), but what do you suggest? Do you think that the current state of these articles is acceptable? I think they are very bad, not in the sense that they would contain a lot of inaccuracies or heavy POVs, but in the sense that there's so much bickering about details, and in the end they don't allow a reader to find out what the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about. I think that's unacceptable. Personally, I didn't have a clue about this conflict until very recently, it's just impossible to understand it from the reporting in the mainstream press. I think it would be very important for Wikipedia to help and address this problem.

Also, I think it is not just morally but also tactically a good idea to make the first move towards building a concensus, because then the other side has to decide to either engage constructively or to adopt a rejectionist stance. The former would constitute a significant progress, the latter would expose them in the eyes of observers. In addition taking such an initiative helps to build trust, which is the very basis for co-operation.

In my eyes, it's very important to write an improved I-P article as a draft. Once we have done that there are several ways to go on (1) engage with the intransigeant "supporter of Israel" faction and make it into the main I-P article ; (2) if that fails, we can try the "two state" approach with a split article (I agree with you that it doesn't work on Wiki, but it could be a transitory solution that would help to find a proper solution, like the "two-state solution" could in my mind be transitory to the binational solution of the real I-P conflict ... funny how articles here really reflect the real world!) ; (3) if that fails we can have an alternative article to I-P conflict. Any of these three outcomes would be an improvement to the current situation, plus it would help to organise Wikipedians who could be described as more anti-Zionist. - pir 10:25, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wish you well. I think HistoryBuffER did a great job starting to point out the biases in that article. It's going to take alot of work no matter how you slice it. It's probably best to work within the existing Wikipedia system to submit one edit at a time, contesting the biased statements and slowly but surely chipping away at the pro-Israeli slant until a more objective NPOV emerges. I'll try to do my part and will look forward to reading your edits and those by others who want to make Wikipedia a more useful resource. Alberuni 14:01, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From Talk:Jewish refugees [1]

The Jews living in Arab countries were Arabs, just like their Christian and Muslim fellow citizens. Self-determination and sovereignty applies to nations, not religious groups. Many Arab Jews worked to liberate their countries from European colonialism. The Jews are not a nation unto themselves despite the Zionist propaganda. ... Alberuni 14:15, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, you are misled, colleague. May I kindly suggest you learn the basics before editing articles on the subject. Pick any reputable source (e.g. A History of the Jews by Paul Johnson). Good luck. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your trouble with an admin

I personally have never seen Jayjg abuse his sysop priveleges, but I am aware that a few users (notably User:xed and User:blankfaze) consider him a "rogue administrator." Others consider him to be a fine contributor.

When you have trouble with a user, whether it's a sysop or not, the best way to procede is to first try your best to assume good faith in the user. Don't accuse people of things like stalking you, and don't use inflamatory language (like "Why not call it Ziopedia?"). If you're sure there's a problem, try to talk it over with the person on his or her talk page, in as non-confrontational a way as possible. If this doesn't work, you can request mediation. I hope this helps! – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 20:24, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I will follow your advice but I see no future in collaborations with Jayjg.Alberuni 20:29, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your sage advice Quadell. I've been pleading with Alberuni to work co-operatively, and to talk things over with me on my Talk: page, and even been very positive about some of his edits, but as yet to no avail. Jayjg 20:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Final attempt at a return to civility

Alberuni, your many ad hominem statements towards me on Talk: pages over the past couple of weeks have violated some primary Wikipedia rules, including (but certainly not limited to) Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. In a number of cases you have knowingly made false statements about my actions, in particular accusing me of re-directing articles which you are aware I have never re-directed. Though I have generally ignored these violations, at times I have requested that you cease this behaviour, and instead reserve the Talk: pages for discussions of article content (not me), and work collegially with me in editing articles. I have even complimented you on some of your edits, in an attempt to defuse the situation. However, so far you have rejected my requests (as well as those of other editors) to cease these personal attacks. I am requesting again that you indicate to me clearly and without qualification that you will follow Wikipedia norms regarding etiquette. I am placing this note on your Talk: page to indicate to you how seriously I take this. Respectfully, Jayjg 21:24, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)