Hello, everybody! I like to draw your attention to the page "Estimates of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_the_Palestinian_Refugee_flight_of_...). The page lists estimates of how many Palestinian refugees where created in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. There are quite a few different estimates out there, all diverging from each other. Therefore, and because Jayjg insisted on inserting the number 472,000 in the article History of Israel (Ihttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Israel&diff=6566071...), I felt that a separate page was necessary.
Recently, that page has suffered a violent revert war, in which me, Jayjg and Viriditas was the combatants. The issue is over the following text:
472,000 According to the "Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine", as cited by Mitchell Bard on the Jewish Virtual Library. [1]
[1] links to this page: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf14.html#2
Jayjg insists on retaining that source, while I want it removed. Yes, it is true that Mitchell Bard claims he is getting the estimate 472,000 Palestinian refugees from the UN document "Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine," but a large part of that document is availible online, from UN:s own site:
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/ab14d4aafc4e1bb985256204004f55fa?OpenDocu... That document does not mention any estimate of the total number of refugees. However, this page:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/decade/decad170.htm
Contains some more bits of "Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine" which mention the number "360,000 Arab refugees and 7,000 Jewish refugees requiring aid in that country and adjacent States." Because of this information and the fact that the number 472,000 Palestinian refugees cannot be traced to any other source, I doubt that the UN Mediator ever wrote it. I've also had an e-mail conversation with Mitchell Bard and he has so far refused to quote the full line(s) from where his number 472,000 comes from. To me, that and the fact that he is an editor of a strongly pro-Israel site (www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org), does make his claim less believable.
That is the reason I didn't want the page Estimates of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948, to tell the reader that the UN Mediator (Count Folke Bernadotte) wrote 472,000. Because currently there is no evidence for that, other than that Mitchell Bard has written it. Therefore, I wanted the text to read as follows:
472,000 According to Mitchell Bard on the Jewish Virtual Library. [1]
But if someone can provide a more definite source than Mitchell Bard, the situation changes.
The other reason that the number 472,000 should not be attributed to the UN Mediator's report is that it was written before September 16, 1948, many months before the conflict ended. Israel's operations in the Galilee hadn't even begun! It is estimated that in that operation 1-200,000 Arabs were driven from their homes.
How can you make an estimate of something that hasn't occured yet?! ...
This I have told Jayjg many times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Palestine-info/Ignoring_the_datum), and after many days of exhausting discussion, he has changed his paragraph a little:
472,000 by September 16, 1948 according to the "Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine", as cited by Mitchell Bard on the Jewish Virtual Library. [1]
But that is still far from factual. What Mitchell Bard really claimed can be seen when visiting his article:
"This meant no more than 650,000 Palestinian Arabs could have become refugees. A report by the UN Mediator on Palestine arrived at an even lower figure -- 472,000"
This claim is made in a paragraph in which he is discussing how many "Palestinians became refugees in 1947-1949." There is no mention of the fact that the report was published September 16. If you read the paragraph it becomes clear that what he is trying to do is to lure the reader to believe that the UN Mediator estimated that 472,000 Palestinians became refugees due to the war. Therefore, the new version that Jayjg tried with is also bad - noone but people knowledgeable about Israeli-Palestinian history knows that a large number (hundreds of thousands) of Palestinian refugees was created after September 1948. They will be fooled.
And also, Mitchell Bard did definitely not claim that the UN Mediator counted 472,000 Palestinian refugees by September 16, 1948.
To solve this dispute, I tried with a footnote:
1: Mitchell Bard alleges that the UN official record "Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine" estimates that the number of refugees was 472,000. The progress report was published on September 16, 1948, ten months before the hostilities and the refugee flight ended. Large parts of the report is availible here (http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/ab14d4aafc4e1bb985256204004f55fa?OpenDocu...). It is estaminated that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians left in the months after September, 1948. The number 472,000 should therefore not be seen as an estimate of the total number of refugees, rather as an estimate on how many Palestinian refugees there were in September 1948.
This compromise was not acceptable to Jayjg who has continued to revert. So now I'm at loss of what to do. I've posted a Request for Comments but it hasn't helped very much. One editor said that my attention was an attempt to skew the article to a particular POV. Another said the number might be comparing apples to oranges.
This mail is long, probably too long for people to read. The issue isn't very important and there are many much worse instances of POV in Wikipedia than this one. But that is why it is so astonishing to me that it has taken so much time to try and correct one minor POV detail. I've tried to discuss for over three months now with Jayjg, but it just doesn't seem to work. His editing behaviour is very hostile - if something is even slightly POV according to his perception he will always revert instead of trying to fix it or working out a compromise. I've written for Wikipedia for over four years but I've never encountered an editor quite like him.
I don't know what to do. Do you?
I think we can all agree that it's reasonable to ask Mitchell Bard to support his citation, and you claim you have done this and he refuses to do so. The citation of Mitchell Bard should carry the caveat that he has been asked to support his claim and refused to do so. The date of the estimate is also relevant and should be noted in the text. If these are factual statements about which we can all agree, fine, otherwise there may be a bit more haggling to do.
I think we can all agree that it's reasonable to ask Mitchell Bard to support his citation, and you claim you have done this and he refuses to do so. The citation of Mitchell Bard should carry the caveat that he has been asked to support his claim and refused to do so. The date of the estimate is also relevant and should be noted in the text. If these are factual statements about which we can all agree, fine, otherwise there may be a bit more haggling to do.
The date of the estimate is in the text. As for Bard's "refusal to support his claim", aside from the fact that it is un-verified, I don't see exactly why Bard (or any other person) would be obligated to respond to every anonymous individual who e-mailed him on the internet demanding information, or how his response (or lack thereof) would be relevant to a well-cited reference.
Jay.
JAY JG said:
I don't see exactly why Bard (or any other person) would be obligated to respond to every anonymous individual who e-mailed him on the internet demanding information, or how his response (or lack thereof) would be relevant to a well-cited reference.
Well if as I have done one has gone to the UN report on the UN website (which is probably incomplete because its author was assassinated by Jewish renegades very shortly after sending part of it) and failed to find the full text, and nevertheless found conflicting texts on (for instance) Avalon, it is absolutely imperative that the citation, which is ''de facto'' incorrect, either be remedied by the originator or omitted entirely. Be a good chap, remove your claim or modify it to conform with the known facts.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
I don't see exactly why Bard (or any other person) would be obligated to respond to every anonymous individual who e-mailed him on the internet demanding information, or how his response (or lack thereof) would be relevant to a well-cited reference.
Well if as I have done one has gone to the UN report on the UN website (which is probably incomplete because its author was assassinated by Jewish renegades very shortly after sending part of it)
Um, no, he signed it shorly before being assasinated, but there's no indication it was "incomplete" as of that date.
and failed to find the full text, and nevertheless found conflicting texts on (for instance) Avalon,
Which "conflicting texts" do think you've found?
it is absolutely imperative that the citation, which is ''de facto'' incorrect, either be remedied by the originator or omitted entirely.
"De facto incorrect" in what sense?
Be a good chap, remove your claim or modify it to conform with the known facts.
Be a good chap, and bring your claims (along with links, citations, etc.) to the Talk: page for discussion there.
Jay.
BJörn Lindqvist (bjourne@gmail.com) [050121 22:10]:
Because of this information and the fact that the number 472,000 Palestinian refugees cannot be traced to any other source, I doubt that the UN Mediator ever wrote it. I've also had an e-mail conversation with Mitchell Bard and he has so far refused to quote the full line(s) from where his number 472,000 comes from. To me, that and the fact that he is an editor of a strongly pro-Israel site (www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org), does make his claim less believable.
You know, it really would have been more convincing if you'd actually mentioned your efforts to check the reference on the talk page, rather than just reverting without doing so. This would also have avoided 3RR blocks.
I've tried to discuss for over three months now with Jayjg, but it just doesn't seem to work. His editing behaviour is very hostile - if something is even slightly POV according to his perception he will always revert instead of trying to fix it or working out a compromise. I've written for Wikipedia for over four years but I've never encountered an editor quite like him.
Did you inform him of your efforts to verify the reference with Mitchell Bard?
I don't know what to do. Do you?
Detailing your correspondence with Bard on the talk of the article strikes me as a good start!
- d.
Thank you for posting this. It nicely addresses the case of references being used which when you check them out, turn out to not actually support the information which they supposedly support. The advancement of references to support information implies that when the supposed reference is consulted you will find (and not by exhaustive search) information which backs up the information inserted in Wikipedia; not a confused and ambiguous situation.
As we offer no alternatives to you other than giving up or breaking Wikipedia rules yourself, the problem must be solved using our dispute resolution procudure. Your request for comment is a good start, as is continued discussion with Jayjg. If those actions do not result in agreement, you may try mediation. If mediation fails after a good faith effort (or if it is refused or not engaged in with good faith) you can then request arbitration (hopefully the mediation committee itself will do that in such cases).
Jayjg has been the "victor" in a recent arbitration since the other party aggressively broke most Wikipedia policies. However it has long been observed that there are problems with bias in the articles which concern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I will not support anti-Semitism masquerading as "balance" but I will welcome responsible insistance on our Neutral Point of View policy. Hopefully the rest of the Arbitration Committee is of the same mind.
Fred
From: BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com Reply-To: BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:10:41 +0100 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Situation deadlocked, how to solve it?
Hello, everybody! I like to draw your attention to the page "Estimates of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_the_Palestinian_Refugee_flight_of_... 948). The page lists estimates of how many Palestinian refugees where created in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. There are quite a few different estimates out there, all diverging from each other. Therefore, and because Jayjg insisted on inserting the number 472,000 in the article History of Israel (Ihttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Israel&diff=6566071... id=6554019), I felt that a separate page was necessary.
Recently, that page has suffered a violent revert war, in which me, Jayjg and Viriditas was the combatants. The issue is over the following text:
472,000 According to the "Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine", as cited by Mitchell Bard on the Jewish Virtual Library. [1]
[1] links to this page: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf14.html#2
Jayjg insists on retaining that source, while I want it removed. Yes, it is true that Mitchell Bard claims he is getting the estimate 472,000 Palestinian refugees from the UN document "Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine," but a large part of that document is availible online, from UN:s own site:
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/ab14d4aafc4e1bb985256204004f55fa?OpenDocu... nt That document does not mention any estimate of the total number of refugees. However, this page:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/decade/decad170.htm
Contains some more bits of "Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine" which mention the number "360,000 Arab refugees and 7,000 Jewish refugees requiring aid in that country and adjacent States." Because of this information and the fact that the number 472,000 Palestinian refugees cannot be traced to any other source, I doubt that the UN Mediator ever wrote it. I've also had an e-mail conversation with Mitchell Bard and he has so far refused to quote the full line(s) from where his number 472,000 comes from. To me, that and the fact that he is an editor of a strongly pro-Israel site (www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org), does make his claim less believable.
That is the reason I didn't want the page Estimates of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948, to tell the reader that the UN Mediator (Count Folke Bernadotte) wrote 472,000. Because currently there is no evidence for that, other than that Mitchell Bard has written it. Therefore, I wanted the text to read as follows:
472,000 According to Mitchell Bard on the Jewish Virtual Library. [1]
But if someone can provide a more definite source than Mitchell Bard, the situation changes.
The other reason that the number 472,000 should not be attributed to the UN Mediator's report is that it was written before September 16, 1948, many months before the conflict ended. Israel's operations in the Galilee hadn't even begun! It is estimated that in that operation 1-200,000 Arabs were driven from their homes.
How can you make an estimate of something that hasn't occured yet?! ...
This I have told Jayjg many times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Palestine-info/Ignoring_the_datum), and after many days of exhausting discussion, he has changed his paragraph a little:
472,000 by September 16, 1948 according to the "Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine", as cited by Mitchell Bard on the Jewish Virtual Library. [1]
But that is still far from factual. What Mitchell Bard really claimed can be seen when visiting his article:
"This meant no more than 650,000 Palestinian Arabs could have become refugees. A report by the UN Mediator on Palestine arrived at an even lower figure -- 472,000"
This claim is made in a paragraph in which he is discussing how many "Palestinians became refugees in 1947-1949." There is no mention of the fact that the report was published September 16. If you read the paragraph it becomes clear that what he is trying to do is to lure the reader to believe that the UN Mediator estimated that 472,000 Palestinians became refugees due to the war. Therefore, the new version that Jayjg tried with is also bad - noone but people knowledgeable about Israeli-Palestinian history knows that a large number (hundreds of thousands) of Palestinian refugees was created after September 1948. They will be fooled.
And also, Mitchell Bard did definitely not claim that the UN Mediator counted 472,000 Palestinian refugees by September 16, 1948.
To solve this dispute, I tried with a footnote:
1: Mitchell Bard alleges that the UN official record "Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine" estimates that the number of refugees was 472,000. The progress report was published on September 16, 1948, ten months before the hostilities and the refugee flight ended. Large parts of the report is availible here (http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/ab14d4aafc4e1bb985256204004f55fa?OpenDocu... ent). It is estaminated that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians left in the months after September, 1948. The number 472,000 should therefore not be seen as an estimate of the total number of refugees, rather as an estimate on how many Palestinian refugees there were in September 1948.
This compromise was not acceptable to Jayjg who has continued to revert. So now I'm at loss of what to do. I've posted a Request for Comments but it hasn't helped very much. One editor said that my attention was an attempt to skew the article to a particular POV. Another said the number might be comparing apples to oranges.
This mail is long, probably too long for people to read. The issue isn't very important and there are many much worse instances of POV in Wikipedia than this one. But that is why it is so astonishing to me that it has taken so much time to try and correct one minor POV detail. I've tried to discuss for over three months now with Jayjg, but it just doesn't seem to work. His editing behaviour is very hostile - if something is even slightly POV according to his perception he will always revert instead of trying to fix it or working out a compromise. I've written for Wikipedia for over four years but I've never encountered an editor quite like him.
I don't know what to do. Do you?
-- mvh Björn _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder (fredbaud@ctelco.net) [050122 00:33]:
As we offer no alternatives to you other than giving up or breaking Wikipedia rules yourself, the problem must be solved using our dispute resolution procudure.
Which starts with the talk page. Please, put the results of reference hunting work on the talk page rather than revert warring!
- d.
David Gerard said:
Fred Bauder (fredbaud@ctelco.net) [050122 00:33]:
As we offer no alternatives to you other than giving up or breaking Wikipedia rules yourself, the problem must be solved using our dispute resolution procudure.
Which starts with the talk page. Please, put the results of reference hunting work on the talk page rather than revert warring!
You know, I'm new here, just three-and-a-bit months, but I have some rules. I didn't originate them, I kinda absorbed them. I recommend them to all. And you know what? I quite often follow them myself! The best one is this: if you have good reason to believe that somebody is going to have a problem with your edit, *make a posting on the talk page describing the edit, explaining why you're making it, and inviting all other editors to revert if they want. Make it plain that you will not under any circumstances be drawn into an edit war. Invite all and sundry to discuss the edit. *Then do the edit on the article*. If the edit is reverted, *do not engage in an edit war*.
And if and when there is a discussion. *listen* to what people say. Everybody loves to be listened to. And then, when you've done enough listening, if you're still sure that your edit enjoys so much support that it's the right thing to do, *ram that sucker in again* and *invite people to revert it if they think that is the right thing to do.* If this doesn't work for you, it's probably because you haven't yet learned how to build a consensus.
Thank you for posting this. It nicely addresses the case of references being used which when you check them out, turn out to not actually support the information which they supposedly support. The advancement of references to support information implies that when the supposed reference is consulted you will find (and not by exhaustive search) information which backs up the information inserted in Wikipedia; not a confused and ambiguous situation.
Hold on there, I don't think it shows anything of the kind. He hasn't seen the source itself, he merely claims to have written Bard, and not received a response that was to his liking. That's quite a different thing.
As we offer no alternatives to you other than giving up or breaking Wikipedia rules yourself, the problem must be solved using our dispute resolution procudure. Your request for comment is a good start, as is continued discussion with Jayjg. If those actions do not result in agreement, you may try mediation. If mediation fails after a good faith effort (or if it is refused or not engaged in with good faith) you can then request arbitration (hopefully the mediation committee itself will do that in such cases).
I that an even better start would be for Bjorn to actually post some of the information he has on the Talk: page, rather than simply reverting the article and bringing his evidence (such as it is) here instead.
Jayjg has been the "victor" in a recent arbitration since the other party aggressively broke most Wikipedia policies.
I didn't feel victorious; the whole experience (and that with Alberuni) made me seriously consider leaving Wikipedia. Other editors did leave.
However it has long been observed that there are problems with bias in the articles which concern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I will not support anti-Semitism masquerading as "balance" but I will welcome responsible insistance on our Neutral Point of View policy. Hopefully the rest of the Arbitration Committee is of the same mind.
Well, I'm certainly of the same mind.
Jay.
Thank you all for your replies.
Yes, it may have been a mistake of me not to mention my efforts to verify Bard's claim. But I have referred Jayjg to the text of the document in question at UNISPAL. Plus, I have also mentioned that that document (which Bard gets his 472,000 claim from) states that there were "some three hundred thousand Arab refugees." In short, I have tried very hard to explain why I think the way Jayjg wants the source to be written is bad. I have written all this multiple times at the talk page.
But I should have mentioned my e-mail conversation with Bard on the talk page. The reason I hesitated to do so, is that I wanted to give Bard enough time to answer. I didn't want to embarras myself by first saying that Bard is a liar and then have to withdraw that if he shows me his sources. After my 24 hour ban is up I will post it. Personally, I very strongly doubt that he has ever looked at the documents he purports to be citing from. A common technique when you write something that has to fit a particular view is to use second hand sources. Search for "472,000" and "UN Mediator" on Google and you will see what I mean. Hundreds of articles, forum messages and mailing-list postings, all claiming to be citing the UN Mediator. But how many of them have taken a look at the original documents?
Here are some more sites I've used trying to locate the missing source:
http://documents.un.org/welcome.asp?language=E http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/ http://lib-unique.un.org/
As we offer no alternatives to you other than giving up or breaking Wikipedia rules yourself, the problem must be solved using our dispute resolution procudure. Your request for comment is a good start, as is continued discussion with Jayjg. If those actions do not result in agreement, you may try mediation. If mediation fails after a good faith
I'm prepared to try mediation as the revert wars are not limited to "Estimates of the Palestinain Refugee Fligt of 1948," are present on other pages as well that I and Jayjg has edited. Or rather, that I have edited and Jayjg reverted.
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I will not support anti-Semitism masquerading as "balance" but I will welcome responsible insistance on our Neutral Point of View
I hope this comment about veiled anti-Semitism is not directed against me. If it is, it is a very strong and offensive insult. Not to mention, entierly baseless.
I am just hoping for a responsible editor.
Fred
From: BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com Reply-To: BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:59:23 +0100 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Situation deadlocked, how to solve it?
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I will not support anti-Semitism masquerading as "balance" but I will welcome responsible insistance on our Neutral Point of View
I hope this comment about veiled anti-Semitism is not directed against me. If it is, it is a very strong and offensive insult. Not to mention, entierly baseless.
Bjorn, you said you would post your correspondence with Bard Mitchell once your 24-hour block was up. I'd be grateful if you would do that, because it speaks to the issue of whether Mitchell should be used as a source on Wikipedia again. I'd be interested to see, for example, whether he has simply not responded to your query, or whether he has actually been evasive.
Many thanks,
Slim
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:59:23 +0100, BJörn Lindqvist
But I should have mentioned my e-mail conversation with Bard on the talk page. The reason I hesitated to do so, is that I wanted to give Bard enough time to answer. I didn't want to embarras myself by first saying that Bard is a liar and then have to withdraw that if he shows me his sources. After my 24 hour ban is up I will post it. Personally, I very strongly doubt that he has ever looked at the documents he purports to be citing from.
Bjorn writes:
Yes, it may have been a mistake of me not to mention my efforts to verify Bard's claim. But I have referred Jayjg to the text of the document in question at UNISPAL. Plus, I have also mentioned that that document (which Bard gets his 472,000 claim from) states that there were "some three hundred thousand Arab refugees."
You haven't seen the document in question, as I've explained many times. You've seen excerpts from another document, which lists 360,000 refugees *requiring aid*, and Bard also cites this document and mentions this figure.
In short, I have tried very hard to explain why I think the way Jayjg wants the source to be written is bad. I have written all this multiple times at the talk page.
And I have tried very hard to explain to you, multiple times on the Talk: page, why your reasoning is incorrect.
But I should have mentioned my e-mail conversation with Bard on the talk page. The reason I hesitated to do so, is that I wanted to give Bard enough time to answer. I didn't want to embarras myself by first saying that Bard is a liar and then have to withdraw that if he shows me his sources. After my 24 hour ban is up I will post it. Personally, I very strongly doubt that he has ever looked at the documents he purports to be citing from. A common technique when you write something that has to fit a particular view is to use second hand sources. Search for "472,000" and "UN Mediator" on Google and you will see what I mean. Hundreds of articles, forum messages and mailing-list postings, all claiming to be citing the UN Mediator. But how many of them have taken a look at the original documents?
Well, Bard cites this:
Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, Submitted to the Secretary-General for Transmission to the Members of the United Nations, General Assembly Official Records: Third Session, Supplement No.11 (A\648), Paris, 1948, p. 47 and Supplement No. 11A (A\689, and A\689\Add.1, p. 5; and "Conclusions From Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine," (September 16, 1948), U.N. doc. A/648 (part one, p. 29; part two, p. 23 and part three, p. 11), (September 18, 1948).
That's pretty explicit, whereas your "suspicions" are just that, suspicions, with absolutely no foundation in actual evidence.
I'm prepared to try mediation as the revert wars are not limited to "Estimates of the Palestinain Refugee Fligt of 1948," are present on other pages as well that I and Jayjg has edited. Or rather, that I have edited and Jayjg reverted.
I welcome mediation, formal or informal, as well. Whatever it takes to solve the problem, and especially get the dispute of this mail-list, where it does not belong.
I hope this comment about veiled anti-Semitism is not directed against me. If it is, it is a very strong and offensive insult. Not to mention, entierly baseless.
For what it's worth, I've never seen Bjorn do or say anything anti-Semitic on Wikipedia, and do not suspect him of anti-Semitism. I do, however, consider that his attempts to advocate on behalf of Palestinians, and his creation of the "Palestine-info" userid to do so, have made him lose sight of critical Wikipedia policies, the primary one being NPOV.
Jay.