Grinq

Hello Grinq, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! nadav (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Re: Jerusalem

Hello. Concerning your edit, the legality of the annexation is a complicated subject that deserves extensive treatment and footnotes. Merely inserting the statment by itself violates WP:V. We have extensive info on the subject at Positions on Jerusalem, which is linked to in the article's lead, and further discussion in Jerusalem itself. nadav (talk) 05:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You raise a point that deserves wider discussion. I hope you will not mind that I copied your statement to talk:Jerusalem. nadav (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ludicrously late in the proverbial day (just now paying attention to how to respond on talk pages over half a decade after these earlier comments), I would remark here that it's true the edit I made conflicted with general "Verifiability" protocol. As I recall, it was an interpolation to state that the occupation of Jerusalem is illegal under international law, for which I lazily made no citation. Not good enough: no contest. It would have been very easy to find citations in abundance, which I failed to do. A more important relevant point, which I certainly failed to make at the time like everyone else as best I can see, is that to have a detailed treatment of the "complexity" of an issue somewhere in the text or elsewhere (regardless of whether such treatment actually did exist in the article under discussion here, at the time or at any other), but then, elsewhere in the text, to characterize the situation bluntly with no equivocation, is a basic, fundamental failure of "objectivity" or "neutrality" - while nevertheless being much easier to justify in normative terms than comprehensively including complexity-acknowledging equivocations which can be seen to undermine the validity of normative or widely-held ideologies, beliefs or assertions. I assert that this comment as a whole does not violate the guidelines on relevance, because meditation on my precept should directly inform the drafting of individual statements on the subject at hand as well as in general; this isn't abstract philosophy but a critical practical point on editing for neutrality and verifiability.Grinq (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Rybka

I noticed you deleted some information which was referenced to Rybka's book about Bohuslav Martinů. Did the information added to the article misrepresent the information in the book? --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the "information" I deleted did not even claim to be factual in nature. It was pure speculation. The idea that wild, irresponsible and libelous speculation, whether it originates in a book or a scrawl on a bathroom wall, should wind up in an encyclopedia article and be called 'information' should give us all queasy feelings! Grinq (talk)