Deuterium

The owner of this account is now User:FuManChoo | talk.

Thanks for visiting my Talk: page. If you are considering posting something to me, please: *Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. *Use headlines when starting new talk topics. *Do not make personal attacks or use the page for harassment. *If you delete my comments on your talk page, do not expect me to keep your comments on my talk page. Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted. Thanks again for visiting.

Old talk archived at Archive 1

Removing information from Anti-Muslim sentiment

Hello, I was just wondering why you removed the following sections from the anti-Muslim sentiment page. I don't believe removing information simply because it is mentioned on another page (Islamophobia) is a good reason to do so, nor is it supported by policy.

An earlier poll of Americans, commissioned by CAIR, suggested that one in four Americans believe Muslims value human life less than others and teach their children to hate.

In 2006 the Sunday Herald Sun commissioned a Gallup Poll, published on July 30, which reported that four in ten of those Australians surveyed "believe Islam is a threat to our way of life" and One in three people are more fearful of Muslims since the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Deuterium 05:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sunday Herald Sun reference added 06:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Unecessary duplication

The whole Anti-Muslim sentiment question comes down to unecessary duplication of content. I removed the content for this reason. An alternate solution would be to link to the pertinent section of the islamophobia article like so:

Main article: Islamophobia

or similarly. (→Netscott) 05:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Also you should know that I don't agree with the "causes" section as I believe it consists primarily of original research and it just appears out of place in that article. (→Netscott) 05:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is the duplication of this content "unnecessary"? Surely these polls showing anti-Muslim sentiments have relevance to the page in question (anti-Muslim sentiment) and are necessary in that sense.

And I agree about the "causes" section, it seems to be highly opinionated original research. Deuterium 05:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty the Greenleftbelt ref. is questionable (even in the islamophobia article) based upon the fact that it's an editorial article. The Al Jazeera ref is better though it appears that CAIR could have directly authored it and CAIR has quite a bit of criticism directed towards it. This type of article by Al-Jazeera appears more credible in terms of Anti-Muslim/Islam sentiment. (→Netscott) 06:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So your concerns are about the reliability of the sources, not the duplication? Well, the Green Left weekly editorial references a Sunday Herald gallup poll. A second in Google came up with the source, which verifies the claim.

Al Jazeera is a respected and popular international news agency, not a press release service. I don't think CAIR authored that piece. Deuterium 06:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

As well it is the usage of the term "islamophobia" that I disagree with. Let me just make this clear: I share Dr. Ahmad Kamal Abul Magd's view expressed in this Islamonline.net article surrounding the term. (→Netscott) 06:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems both original sources (Sunday Herald Sun and Al Jazeera) qualify as WP:RS. Just because you don't agree with their use of the term "Islamophobia" doesn't seem a good reason to delete the information. Note that SHS didn't use "Islamophobia", only the GLW did. Deuterium 06:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, well the SHS article had a mis-citation then for it was pointing to the Greenleft page. It is true that a disagreeance with the term is not reason to remove material from Wikipedia... but I would suggest leaving Islamophobia material to the Islamophobia article and Anti-Muslim material to the Anti-Muslim sentiment article. Doing so will strengthen each article independently of each other and of course reduce duplication. (→Netscott) 06:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So you won't object if I re-add the material? (I added the proper SHS citation above to my original comment and dated my correction.) The problem with your suggestion is that there is considerable overlap between Islamophobia and Anti-Muslim sentiment, so it is to be expected that they will share similar sources and information. AFAIK, there is no policy against duplication or redundancy per se on wikipedia, and at the very least the citations should probably be kept in both articles. Deuterium 06:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I admit that I am not aware of any policy against duplication (I suspect I could probably find something if I searched though). Why not try adding the same content but from a different angle? Find other souces that utilize the same reference material in discussion of anti-Muslim sentiment itself? (→Netscott) 06:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. I think we both agree the disputed content is relevant to the article in question and factual. Many other pages share content such as sources, prose, images, sounds. I don't see why this case is any different. Deuterium 07:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to be edit warring so restore the content. I'll just bring it to talk on the article. (→Netscott)

Thanks, will do. Deuterium 07:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia American poll

Would you kindly find a reliable source pointing to that poll and describing it as demonstrative of islamophobia? The article could be deprotected then. (→Netscott) 07:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to cite the quotation found in this article in Islamophobia but your insistence at not finding a citation above is keeping the article locked down. (→Netscott) 09:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Foreign relations of Israel (deleted message to User:Jayjg)

Hello. Why did you replace this

According to David Albright of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "Faced with sanctions, South Africa began to organize clandestine procurement networks in Europe and the United States, and it began a long, secret collaboration with Israel." although he goes on to say "A common question is whether Israel provided South Africa with weapons design assistance, although available evidence argues against significant cooperation."

with this

According to David Albright of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "... available evidence argues against significant cooperation."

Surely the larger quote is more accurate and representative of what he actually says in the paper, rather than a misrepresentative sentence fragment? The sentence fragment is not evidence against a joint programme but only applies to "weapons design assistance".

Secondly, why did you remove the fact that Chris McGreal wrote in the Guardian? That's a relevant fact; he did not self-publish his article.

Thirdly, why did you restore the sentence "Israeli ambassadors spoke publicly against racism in apartheid South Africa." despite the fact there are no citations that ambassadors did do such a thing?

Fourthly, why did you replace "Israel developed a relationship with South Africa during the 1970s and 1980s." with "There are controversial claims that Israel developed a relationship with South Africa during the 1970s and 1980s."? Are you denying that Israel and South Africa did have a relationship during the 70s and 80s, against the many sources in the article? Do you have sources that claim this?

Thank you, Deuterium 00:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. I will look into the ambassador issue, and if I cannot find sources for that, I will remove it. -- Avi 01:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

But how does that relate to any of my questions? I am not using Wikipedia as a soapbox, I just want to add relevant, correct information such as full, proper quotes instead of sentence fragments. Deuterium 01:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian is referenced, in italics I believe, in the reference section, so you should have no worries about people thinking it was self-published. -- Avi 01:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello (deleted message to User:Jayjg)

Why did you remove my questions to you regarding Foreign relations of Israel? Please see WP:TALK: "Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings."

I await your reply on my talk page, where I have reproduced my original message. Deuterium 00:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Friendly reminder

WP is an encyclopedia, and not a soapbox for propaganda or conspiracy theories. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So a story reported by The Sunday Times, Wired, The Village Voice, Jane's is a "conspiracy theory" and "propaganda"? Try again. Deuterium 00:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding: WP is not a place to spread rumours and don't misquote the sources. Also, content disputes belong to article's talk page. No need to crosspost over multiple pages. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What source am I supposedly misquoting? And is there any policy for your claim that "content disputes belong to article's talk page"? Regardless, I do need to post in people's personal pages if they don't reply on the article's talk page and continue to revert. Deuterium 01:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Karl Meier (deleted from User talk:Netscott [1])

Moved from WP:AN. Deuterium 04:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I know of the history surrouding this issue User:Karl Meier's latest edits relative to the Islamophobia article stem primarily from new User:Deuterium's tendentious influence on it. As a long term editor on that article I should know. Even I have had to deal with this User:Deuterium's disruption there myself (User:Jacoplane would verfiy my statement about Deuterium as being true generally about him). I'm not going to try to act as a lawyer in Karl Meier's defense but I do agree with the ex-post-facto arguments of others. Although User:Karl Meier's last edits there haven't been in accord with the later agreed upon disruption clause of ArbCom's ruling he has made numerous beneficial edits to the article to which I commended him. (→Netscott) 01:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If you've got problems with me, bring it to me or take it to an RFC. Otherwise stop harassing me and making irrelevant personal attacks on pages that have nothing to do with me. Unlike Meier, I have often participated in the talk discussion and added content to that page such as the very poll in question, rather than just reverting constantly. And I am not on probation. Nor I am a "new user". I find your comments here evidence of bad faith and some kind of grudge against me. Deuterium 01:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Deuterium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), one need only look at your block log and the recent history of your talk page as well as this section and this section or User:Jacoplane's talk page to verify what I've posted here about the tendentious nature of your editing. Even User:Pilotguy was reverting your deletion of User:Jacoplane's friendly counsels on your talk page. Your charge of harassment itself is tendentious. (→Netscott) 01:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Your block log is somewhat more full than mine, I have to say, and the issues on my talk page have long since been resolved satisfactorily to everyone except for you. I don't see what relevance all this has here.

This isn't about me, it's about User:Karl Meier, and the fact that you can't help to bring me up, despite the many other people who share my point of view on the Islamophobia page (BYT, HisExcellency, ABakharev) and have opposed Meier's reverting, is harassment and clear evidence of a personal grudge. Just let go of this fixation you seem to have on me and move on. I'm not responsible for what Meier chooses to do, no matter how much you wish it to be so. Deuterium 01:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello (deleted from User talk:Netscott [2])

Why did you delete the dialogue about User:Karl Meier and then move it to my talk page? You're the one who made the allegations and started this, not me. And see WP:TALK: "Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings." Deuterium 05:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikistalking (deleted from User talk:Netscott [3])

Regarding this, please stop wikistalking me. If you have problems with my edits to Jonathan Pollard, then by all means tell me and contribute to the article. Otherwise, leave me alone and don't try to stir people up against me. Deuterium 06:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ambassadors

I have found that on October 11, 1961, the Israeli ambassador to the UN voted to censure Eric Louw's speech upholding apartheid (the Liberian censure), unlike the US, the UK, etc. This actually set Israeli-South African relations back quite a bit. However, I have not found a suitable reference that I am comfortable posting on wiki, as the excerpted page of the book on Amazon only has the results of the vote, and I have been digging through UN records, and have found mention of the vote, but not the actual roll call, so I do not consider that verifiable enough for me to add.

I have the following:

• http://www.anc.org.za/books/reich4.html “The most celebrated recent case of anti-Semitism, however, came from the Prime Minister, Dr Verwoerd, himself. Following Israel's vote at the United Nations against South Africa in 1961, the Prime Minister wrote a private letter to a Cape Town professional man declaring that Israel's attitude towards the Republic was 'a tragedy for Jewry in South Africa'. The fact that so many Jews had favoured the Progressive Party and so few the Nationalist Party in the last election had not passed unnoticed.”
• http://www.sahistory.org.za/pages/chronology/main-chronology-1960snew.html “1961 11 October South Africa signs multilateral treaty amending the Phyto Sanitary Convention of 1954.The Foreign Minister, E. Louw, defends South Africa?s apartheid policy in the United Nations, against African criticism. On the same day the Assembly adopts a Liberian censure motion on South Africa, with sixty-seven in favour, one against, twenty abstaining, nine not participating in the vote (including the Britain and the United States) and three absent.”

It is page 46 and 47 of this book Community and Conscience: The Jews in Apartheid South Africa (Tauber Institute for the Study of European Jewry Series) (Library Binding) by Gideon Shimoni

I am in the midst of registering for a Google account, which should allow me access to see those pages. If I can confirm it, that would be verifiable enough for me to add it to the article. Thanks. -- Avi 14:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Parochialism in Sydney

Hi Deuterium. This article was created during discussions at Talk:Westies (people) and to resolve a NPOV issue in the Wikipedia. You are welcome to participate in this discussion.--WikiCats 12:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis

predicted no such thing. Have you read the WSJ article? - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Al-Aqsa intifada (deleted from User talk:Jayjg [4])

Yes, I know that you delete talk messages about pages (against WP:TALK policy), but you didn't reply on the talk page so what am I supposed to do when you keep reverting?

Anyway, here is the message again, regarding this revert by yourself.

In regards to the bolded section of this sentence: "The killings were captured on video by an Italian TV crew and broadcast on TV; the picture (to the right) of one of the lynchers waving his blood-stained hands from the window, shocked and outraged many around the world, and became another iconic image."

The sources cited do NOT make any mention of any worldwide shock or outrage, or of the photograph being an iconic image. In fact the second source goes to any empty earthlink page. Can somebody please provide sources for these claims or can they be removed?

Regards, Deuterium 11:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFA#Netsnipe

Question: How many other editors do you know who would label two reverts in row followed by a pledge to actually contact John Dugard himself (which I have actually done so with a request for him to CC: his reply back to info-en-q at wikimedia.org for independent verification) to be edit-warring? Please don't let your political partisanship cloud your opinion of my suitability as an administrator on your second WP:RFA vote ever. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  02:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Baruch Goldstein

When I had removed the change you made to the Baruch Goldstein article, adding the Category:Terrorists, I did my own research within Wikipedia and I provided an explanation for my change in the edit summary: "Terrorism is the systematic use or threatened use of violence to intimidate a population or government and thereby effect political, religious, or ideological change. Criteria not met." I would sincerely hope that you will provide clear, concise and accurate explanations of your changes in the edit summary, whenever you make a change, especially to an article of this nature. Simply reverting a change for no other reason than because you disagree with the change is not justified in this or any other case. Alansohn 21:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a matter of definitions, not of common sense. As the article Terrorism describes, a terrorist is not just someone who kills a lot of people; it needs to be part of an effort to use the violence as part of an organized effort against a population, successful or not. While many suicide bombers make it easy to determine their motivations by producing videos before they head out to kill innocents, we have no discernible evidence that Goldstein planned this as part of a terrorist plot. That he was a member of Kach and the JDL does not define him as a terrorist, nor would membership in Hamas or Hezballah make one a terrorist by definition. I agree 100% that he "killed innocent people, and ... acted in blatant contravention to the principles and ethics of the Jewish state and the Jewish people." Neither the Knesset's vote to condemn the massacre, nor its vote to ban Kach and Kahane define Goldstein as a terrorist. The 2001 survey is very interesting in judging Israeli perceptions of Goldstein, but still does not define him as a terrorist. Alansohn 22:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your whitewash in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

[5] "This is not widely accepted" on what planet? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Human rights in Israel

Hello,

Your addition there (about the "no-sex" contract) was in the wrong place (was in "ethinic minorities", should have been in "migrant workers").

But that's not the problem. It's just not very important. It's one incident (that may have been legal - if the signed willingly, to get a job), that doesn't reflect on the situation. Don't get me wrong - the migrant workers' conditions are usually quite bad, but it doesn't have anything to do with this. It's because of very low pay, not getting paid at all, some incidents of physical punishment, bad/dangerous working conditions, unlivable "living quarters", employers taking away workers passports, and others. Try to find something that'll paint a more complete picture of the situation. okedem 09:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Baruch Goldstein

Might I enquire as to why you think that a person who belonged to two officially designated terrorist organizations (JDL and Kach) and who committed a premeditated massacre of 29 civilians should not belong in the terrorist category? Deuterium 14:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me make something very clear: Is Baruch Goldstein a terrorist? Yes. Do I consider him so? Yes. However, the category itself is a violation of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not an authority on who is and is not a terrorist. For example, Osama bin Laden is not in the terrorist category, when in fact he is the most infamous terrorist. Why? Because different points-of-view consider different people terrorists or not terrorists. Wikipedia is not to take a side. —Aiden 14:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If your motive here is simply because you dislke the existence of the terrorist category, then why aren't you removing the other 100 or so entries in Category:Terrorists? Why have you singled out Goldstein to be removed from the category?

This also seems a WP:POINT violation - if you dislike the category you should push for it's deletion via the regular channels, not disrupt articles that use the category. Deuterium 14:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The terrorist category has been nominated multiple times for deletion and has come very close, but so far has not been deleted. But that is a red herring. Baruch Goldstein is on my watch list, as I helped to find sources for the article when it was in a much unpolished form. Other articles are not. As this is an article I frequently edit, the least I can do is help it to maintain a neutral point-of-view. The editors of other articles should do the same. —Aiden 14:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually Bin Laden is listed as a terrorist - under "Saudi Arabian terrorists". Look, if we start with this, the "terrorist" category won't list anyone. For every terrorist you'll always find someone who calls him a "freedom fighter", or something. The question is whether the person used terror to advance a political goal. Al Qaeda does that. Baruch Goldstein - seems like it, since he was a member of extreme rightwing groups, and had a very negative view of arabs. I'm not sure of the political goal he was trying to advance, though. okedem 14:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

But many people believe Goldstein preempted a Hamas attack on Jews, and likewise do not consider him a terrorist. While I do not personally believe this, I understand Wikipedia policy to state that one view of any issue should not be presented as fact or advocated over another view. Likewise, as long as some people do not consider Goldstein a terrorist, Wikipedia cannot adhere to its own policy of NPOV and at the same time brand Goldstein a terrorist. —Aiden 15:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Only an extremist minority believe that Goldstein pre-empted a Hamas attack, and there is scant evidence for it. Just because a tiny minority disputes something doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to take them seriously. I'm sure there are still flat-earthers around, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia can't say that the Earth is a sphere and categorize it as such. Deuterium 15:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And it's worth noting that even his supporters believed he was committing an act of terror designed to disrupt the peace process - Goldstein is not known to have given any reasons for his actions. However, immediately after the attack, Mike Guzofsky, spokesman for Kahane Chai in New York and a close friend of Goldstein said, "He wanted to stop the peace process dead. He couldn't have picked a better day – Purim, when Jews fight back." (from Cave of the Patriarchs massacre)Deuterium 15:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir. As I said I consider Goldstein a terrorist like I consider other terrorists terrorists. However, Wikipedia policy remains the same. We cannot advocate one point-of-view over another. This is why Osama bin Laden's article calls him an "Islamist" and not a terrorist, why HAMAS' article calls the group an "Islamist organization" and not a terrorist organization, and why many hundreds of other terrorist-related articles, which for the sake of neutrality, do not designate their subjects as terrorists. Many people have strong feelings on these subjects, but Wikipedia policy remains the same. —Aiden 15:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The flat-earth analogy is spot on. In all this NPOV madness, things are getting ridicules here. Just because some people disagree, doesn't mean we can't write things. Everything is disputed by someone, and we can't let that stop us from writing articles.

Bin Laden uses terror tactics to achieve political goals - thus he is a terrorist. Some may claim his acts are justified (because of "american imperialism" or whatever), but the fact remains that he wishes to instill terror in the hearts of westerners to advance his objectives - that is indisputable, I believe. That makes him a terrorist, according to the very definition of the word. okedem 22:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Goldstein's act would be more accurately described as a Hate Crime, and be added to "Category:Hate Crimes". okedem 08:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)