This entire thing (for thoose who don't know what i'm talking about, see (en)WC and http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Category_talk:Israel , basicly PVJ wants to put a line on cat Israel saying that some countries don't recognize its exsitance) has gone on far to long. First of all the dispute itself is going in circles, and I don't like arguments that arn't getting anywhere, but secondly Its starting to attract attention at wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel&direction=prev&... and I'm worried we may have a giant flamefest + a mob from wikipedia on our hands. I don't know how to get a solution all parties agree on, but we need something quite quickly imo.
Bawolff
Err, you're saying "it's attracted attention at Wikipedia" as if it isn't your fault. Though I see where you're coming from. And I'm not blaming you, you did a good thing.
I've proposed two things, both of which turned down by the disputor. The first one was that anything newsworthy involving people affiliated with Israel or done by the Israeli government would be categorized as "Israel". Anything newsworthy involving people affiliated with Palestine or the Palestine Government Authority or something like that would be categorized as "Israel". My second compromise was merging the Israel and Palestine categories/portals to make "Israel and Palestine".
On 10/20/06, bawolff bawolff+wn@gmail.com wrote:
This entire thing (for thoose who don't know what i'm talking about, see (en)WC and http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Category_talk:Israel , basicly PVJ wants to put a line on cat Israel saying that some countries don't recognize its exsitance) has gone on far to long. First of all the dispute itself is going in circles, and I don't like arguments that arn't getting anywhere, but secondly Its starting to attract attention at wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel&direction=prev&... and I'm worried we may have a giant flamefest + a mob from wikipedia on our hands. I don't know how to get a solution all parties agree on, but we need something quite quickly imo.
Bawolff _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
I think it's time for an adminstrative ruling, perhaps ArbCom. I mean his he Admin, he should at least agree to not entirely disrupt the process.
On 10/20/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Err, you're saying "it's attracted attention at Wikipedia" as if it isn't your fault. Though I see where you're coming from. And I'm not blaming you, you did a good thing.
I've proposed two things, both of which turned down by the disputor. The first one was that anything newsworthy involving people affiliated with Israel or done by the Israeli government would be categorized as "Israel". Anything newsworthy involving people affiliated with Palestine or the Palestine Government Authority or something like that would be categorized as "Israel". My second compromise was merging the Israel and Palestine categories/portals to make "Israel and Palestine".
On 10/20/06, bawolff bawolff+wn@gmail.com wrote:
This entire thing (for thoose who don't know what i'm talking about, see (en)WC and http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Category_talk:Israel , basicly PVJ wants to put a line on cat Israel saying that some countries don't recognize its exsitance) has gone on far to long. First of all the dispute itself is going in circles, and I don't like arguments that arn't getting anywhere, but secondly Its starting to attract attention at wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel&direction=prev&...
and I'm worried we may have a giant flamefest + a mob from wikipedia on our hands. I don't know how to get a solution all parties agree on, but we need something quite quickly imo.
Bawolff _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Seeing as I've tried to intervene, do you think that I would have to recuse if it went to ArbCom? (Remember, I'm on the Arbitration Committee).
On 10/20/06, Patrick Mannion patrick.mannion@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's time for an adminstrative ruling, perhaps ArbCom. I mean his he Admin, he should at least agree to not entirely disrupt the process.
On 10/20/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Err, you're saying "it's attracted attention at Wikipedia" as if it isn't your fault. Though I see where you're coming from. And I'm not blaming you, you did a good thing.
I've proposed two things, both of which turned down by the disputor. The first one was that anything newsworthy involving people affiliated with Israel or done by the Israeli government would be categorized as "Israel". Anything newsworthy involving people affiliated with Palestine or the Palestine Government Authority or something like that would be categorized as "Israel". My second compromise was merging the Israel and Palestine categories/portals to make "Israel and Palestine".
On 10/20/06, bawolff < bawolff+wn@gmail.com> wrote:
This entire thing (for thoose who don't know what i'm talking about, see (en)WC and http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Category_talk:Israel , basicly PVJ wants to put a line on cat Israel saying that some countries don't recognize its exsitance) has gone on far to long. First of all the dispute itself is going in circles, and I don't like arguments that arn't getting anywhere, but secondly Its starting to attract attention at wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel&direction=prev&...
and I'm worried we may have a giant flamefest + a mob from wikipedia on our hands. I don't know how to get a solution all parties agree on, but we need something quite quickly imo.
Bawolff _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
-- Autism is both a gift and a curse at the same time; But I think of it as a gift. _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
I don't think arbcom just coming out of the blue and saying - Its more neutral to have/not have that statement on the cat is going to help anything, as it will proablly just trigger a lot of "Arbcom doesn't have the authority to make random rulings/ Be wary of the arbcom cabal", which would proablly be correct, as arbcom can doesn't do article issues. I think the sides of this argument (myself included as I'm against having the disclaimer thingy) are too far apart to reach an acceptable comprimise. But nonetheless, something needs to be done to stop this arguing.
On 10/20/06, Patrick Mannion patrick.mannion@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's time for an adminstrative ruling, perhaps ArbCom. I mean his he Admin, he should at least agree to not entirely disrupt the process.
On 10/20/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Err, you're saying "it's attracted attention at Wikipedia" as if it isn't
your fault. Though I see where you're coming from. And I'm not blaming you, you did a good thing.
I've proposed two things, both of which turned down by the disputor. The
first one was that anything newsworthy involving people affiliated with Israel or done by the Israeli government would be categorized as "Israel". Anything newsworthy involving people affiliated with Palestine or the Palestine Government Authority or something like that would be categorized as "Israel". My second compromise was merging the Israel and Palestine categories/portals to make "Israel and Palestine".
On 10/20/06, bawolff < bawolff+wn@gmail.com> wrote:
This entire thing (for thoose who don't know what i'm talking about, see (en)WC and
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Category_talk:Israel ,
basicly PVJ wants to put a line on cat Israel saying that some countries don't recognize its exsitance) has gone on far to long. First of all the dispute itself is going in circles, and I don't like arguments that arn't getting anywhere, but secondly Its starting to attract attention at wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel&direction=prev&...
and I'm worried we may have a giant flamefest + a mob from wikipedia on our hands. I don't know how to get a solution all parties agree on, but we need something quite quickly imo.
Bawolff _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
-- Autism is both a gift and a curse at the same time; But I think of it as a gift. _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Yes, I remember, The majority would probably have to recuse (Not to mention that even if no one even heard of this argument before, It probably still wouldn't have an accepted statement from arbcom, as its exceeding our mandate - http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Arbitration_Committee#No_article_issues... ). Actually well were on that subject, when is the next arbcom election. It should be soon.
On 10/20/06, bawolff bawolff+wn@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think arbcom just coming out of the blue and saying - Its more neutral to have/not have that statement on the cat is going to help anything, as it will proablly just trigger a lot of "Arbcom doesn't have the authority to make random rulings/ Be wary of the arbcom cabal", which would proablly be correct, as arbcom can doesn't do article issues. I think the sides of this argument (myself included as I'm against having the disclaimer thingy) are too far apart to reach an acceptable comprimise. But nonetheless, something needs to be done to stop this arguing.
On 10/20/06, Patrick Mannion patrick.mannion@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's time for an adminstrative ruling, perhaps ArbCom. I mean his he Admin, he should at least agree to not entirely disrupt the process.
On 10/20/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Err, you're saying "it's attracted attention at Wikipedia" as if it isn't
your fault. Though I see where you're coming from. And I'm not blaming you, you did a good thing.
I've proposed two things, both of which turned down by the disputor. The
first one was that anything newsworthy involving people affiliated with Israel or done by the Israeli government would be categorized as "Israel". Anything newsworthy involving people affiliated with Palestine or the Palestine Government Authority or something like that would be categorized as "Israel". My second compromise was merging the Israel and Palestine categories/portals to make "Israel and Palestine".
On 10/20/06, bawolff < bawolff+wn@gmail.com> wrote:
This entire thing (for thoose who don't know what i'm talking about, see (en)WC and
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Category_talk:Israel ,
basicly PVJ wants to put a line on cat Israel saying that some countries don't recognize its exsitance) has gone on far to long. First of all the dispute itself is going in circles, and I don't like arguments that arn't getting anywhere, but secondly Its starting to attract attention at wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel&direction=prev&...
and I'm worried we may have a giant flamefest + a mob from wikipedia on our hands. I don't know how to get a solution all parties agree on, but we need something quite quickly imo.
Bawolff _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
-- Autism is both a gift and a curse at the same time; But I think of it as a gift. _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
--
- Brian
Caution: The mass of this product contains the energy equivalent of 85 million tons of TNT per net ounce of weight.
On 10/20/06, Brian W bawolff@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I remember, The majority would probably have to recuse (Not to mention that even if no one even heard of this argument before, It probably still wouldn't have an accepted statement from arbcom, as its exceeding our mandate -
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Arbitration_Committee#No_article_issues... ). Actually well were on that subject, when is the next arbcom election. It should be soon.
If all goes as planned, Arbitration Committee elections will run the two weeks before January 31, 2007.
-N.
ok, thanks. I should really try to remember those dates...
bawolff On 10/20/06, Nathan Reed nathanreed@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/20/06, Brian W bawolff@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I remember, The majority would probably have to recuse (Not to mention that even if no one even heard of this argument before, It probably still wouldn't have an accepted statement from arbcom, as its exceeding our mandate -
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Arbitration_Committee#No_article_issues...
). Actually well were on that subject, when is the next arbcom election. It should be soon.
If all goes as planned, Arbitration Committee elections will run the two weeks before January 31, 2007.
-N.
--
Nathan Reed nathanreed@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
The ArbCom should not enter any dispute unless some party requests arbitration.
The ArbCom does not and should not rule on content disputes.
You could have a public poll to decide how to address Israel, though I don't really like the idea. If you *do* have a public poll (which would set policy, I suppose) be certain to require membership in the community for at least a two-weeks or a month and a certain minimum number of edits. Else, we will probably be flooded with newcomers...
-N.
On 10/20/06, Patrick Mannion patrick.mannion@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's time for an adminstrative ruling, perhaps ArbCom. I mean his he Admin, he should at least agree to not entirely disrupt the process.
On 10/20/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Err, you're saying "it's attracted attention at Wikipedia" as if it isn't your fault. Though I see where you're coming from. And I'm not blaming you, you did a good thing.
I've proposed two things, both of which turned down by the disputor. The first one was that anything newsworthy involving people affiliated with Israel or done by the Israeli government would be categorized as "Israel". Anything newsworthy involving people affiliated with Palestine or the Palestine Government Authority or something like that would be categorized as "Israel". My second compromise was merging the Israel and Palestine categories/portals to make "Israel and Palestine".
On 10/20/06, bawolff < bawolff+wn@gmail.com> wrote:
This entire thing (for thoose who don't know what i'm talking about, see (en)WC and http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Category_talk:Israel , basicly PVJ wants to put a line on cat Israel saying that some countries don't recognize its exsitance) has gone on far to long. First of all the dispute itself is going in circles, and I don't like arguments that arn't getting anywhere, but secondly Its starting to attract attention at wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel&direction=prev&...
and I'm worried we may have a giant flamefest + a mob from wikipedia on our hands. I don't know how to get a solution all parties agree on, but we need something quite quickly imo.
Bawolff _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
-- Autism is both a gift and a curse at the same time; But I think of it as a gift. _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
I personally believe it is inaccurate to describe this as a content situation. If ArbCom were to intervene, it would be if PVJ or another party were to take it too far.
(Please note none of my statements are on behalf of the Arbitration Committee.)
On 10/20/06, Nathan Reed nathanreed@gmail.com wrote:
The ArbCom should not enter any dispute unless some party requests arbitration.
The ArbCom does not and should not rule on content disputes.
You could have a public poll to decide how to address Israel, though I don't really like the idea. If you *do* have a public poll (which would set policy, I suppose) be certain to require membership in the community for at least a two-weeks or a month and a certain minimum number of edits. Else, we will probably be flooded with newcomers...
-N.
On 10/20/06, Patrick Mannion patrick.mannion@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's time for an adminstrative ruling, perhaps ArbCom. I mean his he Admin, he should at least agree to not entirely disrupt the process.
On 10/20/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Err, you're saying "it's attracted attention at Wikipedia" as if it isn't your fault. Though I see where you're coming from. And I'm not blaming you, you did a good thing.
I've proposed two things, both of which turned down by the disputor. The first one was that anything newsworthy involving people affiliated with Israel or done by the Israeli government would be categorized as "Israel". Anything newsworthy involving people affiliated with Palestine or the Palestine Government Authority or something like that would be categorized as "Israel". My second compromise was merging the Israel and Palestine categories/portals to make "Israel and Palestine".
On 10/20/06, bawolff < bawolff+wn@gmail.com> wrote:
This entire thing (for thoose who don't know what i'm talking about, see (en)WC and http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Category_talk:Israel , basicly PVJ wants to put a line on cat Israel saying that some countries don't recognize its exsitance) has gone on far to long. First of all the dispute itself is going in circles, and I don't like arguments that arn't getting anywhere, but secondly Its starting to attract attention at wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel&direction=prev&...
and I'm worried we may have a giant flamefest + a mob from wikipedia on our hands. I don't know how to get a solution all parties agree on, but we need something quite quickly imo.
Bawolff _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
-- Autism is both a gift and a curse at the same time; But I think of it as a gift. _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
-- Nathan Reed nathanreed@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
On 10/20/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
I personally believe it is inaccurate to describe this as a content situation. If ArbCom were to intervene, it would be if PVJ or another party were to take it too far.
The ArbCom must not intervene unless an editor requests arbitration. The Arbitration Committee is charged with resolving disputes between editors -- this issue could be framed as a dispute between editors, I suppose. I would be loathe to take it up, however.
-N.
Yes, I do know how Arbitration on Wikimedia projects work.
On 10/20/06, Nathan Reed nathanreed@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/20/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
I personally believe it is inaccurate to describe this as a content situation. If ArbCom were to intervene, it would be if PVJ or another party were to take it too far.
The ArbCom must not intervene unless an editor requests arbitration. The Arbitration Committee is charged with resolving disputes between editors -- this issue could be framed as a dispute between editors, I suppose. I would be loathe to take it up, however.
-N.
-- Nathan Reed nathanreed@gmail.com
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
I know you do and didn't mean to imply otherwise... Just being adamant and clear on a public list. Don't want readers to be confused. :D
-N.
On 10/20/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I do know how Arbitration on Wikimedia projects work.
On 10/20/06, Nathan Reed nathanreed@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/20/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
I personally believe it is inaccurate to describe this as a content situation. If ArbCom were to intervene, it would be if PVJ or another party were to take it too far.
The ArbCom must not intervene unless an editor requests arbitration. The Arbitration Committee is charged with resolving disputes between editors -- this issue could be framed as a dispute between editors, I suppose. I would be loathe to take it up, however.
-N.
-- Nathan Reed nathanreed@gmail.com
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
How is People's Republic of China and Taiwan dealt with? Is it mentioned on each category that some don't recognise one or the other's existance? If so, then the same should be mentioned on the Israel category: a fair number of countries do not recognise it and we shouldn't just assume the position of the US/EU.
There is, in my mind, a significant difference between the ROC and Israel. Israel is recognized by at leat 161 foreign states. The ROC is recognized by no more than 24 states. Israel is a member of the UN, the ROC isn't...
It is and should be mentioned that Taiwan/ROC is a disputed territory. As concerns international law, its status is uncertain. Israel's status isn't disputed in the same way.
-N.
On 10/21/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
How is People's Republic of China and Taiwan dealt with? Is it mentioned on each category that some don't recognise one or the other's existance? If so, then the same should be mentioned on the Israel category: a fair number of countries do not recognise it and we shouldn't just assume the position of the US/EU.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com) _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
On 22/10/06, Nathan Reed nathanreed@gmail.com wrote:
There is, in my mind, a significant difference between the ROC and Israel. Israel is recognized by at leat 161 foreign states. The ROC is recognized by no more than 24 states. Israel is a member of the UN, the ROC isn't...
It is and should be mentioned that Taiwan/ROC is a disputed territory. As concerns international law, its status is uncertain. Israel's status isn't disputed in the same way.
-N.
There is a difference in scale, agreed. I think the fact that 31 states (16%) don't recognise Israel makes it significant enough to mention on the category.
Le 22 oct. 06 à 09:31, Oldak Quill a écrit :
On 22/10/06, Nathan Reed nathanreed@gmail.com wrote: There is, in my mind, a significant difference between the ROC and Israel. Israel is recognized by at leat 161 foreign states. The ROC is recognized by no more than 24 states. Israel is a member of the UN, the ROC isn't...
It is and should be mentioned that Taiwan/ROC is a disputed territory. As concerns international law, its status is uncertain. Israel's status isn't disputed in the same way.
-N.
There is a difference in scale, agreed. I think the fact that 31 states (16%) don't recognise Israel makes it significant enough to mention on the category.
no, i don't agree.
Categories are used to categories wikinews articles, this is not an encyclopedia entry. Categories are here to help seach an article using topics. "Israel", "Taiwan" are word (i insist on word, i do not say country) used to classify an article, it's okay and it's not wikinews job to do more.
Remember that ALL countries are build with tears and blood and struggles.
Many countries have recognition/acknolegment problems.
Israel of course, Tawain (and remember that theres' aboriginals (i don't know the correct word) living in Taiwan that do not agree at all with Chinese blood people claiming about their isle... (more complex than many think)
France : may i speak of separatism currents in Corsica, Britanny (french since middle age... ), Basques Country, Catalan, and Savoy launched during the cold war.
And i forgot over sea territories and border problem with foreign countries even french people don't know about. (see CIA fact book)
what about Belgium, United Kingdom , Spain, ....
And If i make a poll in Algeria, or India do you really think that i'll don't find people wanting to go back under France or England power ?
What about a poll in others countries in Africa ?
it's a mess.
and i repeat that it's not the role of wikinews categories to fix that mess and it's not a place for activists of any kind.
PS: I launched a poll about using ISO country name norm, but we need more good will than norm in that case.
jacques divol :)
On 22/10/06, divol jacques.divol@laposte.net wrote:
no, i don't agree.
Categories are used to categories wikinews articles, this is not an encyclopedia entry. Categories are here to help seach an article using topics. "Israel", "Taiwan" are word (i insist on word, i do not say country) used to classify an article, it's okay and it's not wikinews job to do more.
Remember that ALL countries are build with tears and blood and struggles.
Many countries have recognition/acknolegment problems.
Israel of course, Tawain (and remember that theres' aboriginals (i don't know the correct word) living in Taiwan that do not agree at all with Chinese blood people claiming about their isle... (more complex than many think)
France : may i speak of separatism currents in Corsica, Britanny (french since middle age... ), Basques Country, Catalan, and Savoy launched during the cold war.
And i forgot over sea territories and border problem with foreign countries even french people don't know about. (see CIA fact book)
what about Belgium, United Kingdom , Spain, ....
And If i make a poll in Algeria, or India do you really think that i'll don't find people wanting to go back under France or England power ?
What about a poll in others countries in Africa ?
it's a mess.
and i repeat that it's not the role of wikinews categories to fix that mess and it's not a place for activists of any kind.
PS: I launched a poll about using ISO country name norm, but we need more good will than norm in that case.
jacques divol :)
It is necessary to say that Israel's status as a country is under dispute if you call Israel a county in the category. If you don't say "Israel is a country in the Middle East" then there is no need to say that its status as a country is not recognised by all.
Le 22 oct. 06 à 10:56, Oldak Quill a écrit :
On 22/10/06, divol jacques.divol@laposte.net wrote: no, i don't agree.
Categories are used to categories wikinews articles, this is not an encyclopedia entry. Categories are here to help seach an article using topics. "Israel", "Taiwan" are word (i insist on word, i do not say country) used to classify an article, it's okay and it's not wikinews job to do more.
Remember that ALL countries are build with tears and blood and struggles.
Many countries have recognition/acknolegment problems.
Israel of course, Tawain (and remember that theres' aboriginals (i don't know the correct word) living in Taiwan that do not agree at all with Chinese blood people claiming about their isle... (more complex than many think)
France : may i speak of separatism currents in Corsica, Britanny (french since middle age... ), Basques Country, Catalan, and Savoy launched during the cold war.
And i forgot over sea territories and border problem with foreign countries even french people don't know about. (see CIA fact book)
what about Belgium, United Kingdom , Spain, ....
And If i make a poll in Algeria, or India do you really think that i'll don't find people wanting to go back under France or England power ?
What about a poll in others countries in Africa ?
it's a mess.
and i repeat that it's not the role of wikinews categories to fix that mess and it's not a place for activists of any kind.
PS: I launched a poll about using ISO country name norm, but we need more good will than norm in that case.
jacques divol :)
It is necessary to say that Israel's status as a country is under dispute if you call Israel a county in the category. If you don't say "Israel is a country in the Middle East" then there is no need to say that its status as a country is not recognised by all.
it's seems that Israel is a good illustration of Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This country exists and don't exists the same time !
great !
i am half joking but i have no better answer.
in fact, the bias is : a country does not need the recognition/ acknolegment of anyone.
a country exists by itself.
it's strange that everybody forget that fact...
jacques divol
On 22/10/06, divol jacques.divol@laposte.net wrote:
i am half joking but i have no better answer.
Better than pretending to have one (as I'm about to do).
in fact, the bias is : a country does not need the recognition/ acknolegment of anyone.
a country exists by itself.
it's strange that everybody forget that fact...
I would support this positions although they would put us in a difficult position. It would require us to acknologe autonomous breakaway cities/towns (so called [[Micronations]]): Sealand and whatnot. This wouldn't necessarily be bad. -- Meh, Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
I think that everyone is kinda missing the point here. Israel may or may not be disputed, it may or may not be illegitimate but it does exist. It doesn't matter if it's a country or not. The following link is a list of categories on wikinews: http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Categories how many of them are countries? does it matter that by far the majority aren't? no. Why does Israel have to be a country to have a category? Does the Africa category say it isn't a country?
The whole debate is entirely irrelevent. Having a cateogry "Israel" is making no judgement on israel's legitimacy it just reflects the undeniable fact that there is a thing which is called Israel. The fact that it is a category implies on other claim.
paz -rjs.
On 23/10/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/10/06, divol jacques.divol@laposte.net wrote:
i am half joking but i have no better answer.
Better than pretending to have one (as I'm about to do).
in fact, the bias is : a country does not need the recognition/ acknolegment of anyone.
a country exists by itself.
it's strange that everybody forget that fact...
I would support this positions although they would put us in a difficult position. It would require us to acknologe autonomous breakaway cities/towns (so called [[Micronations]]): Sealand and whatnot. This wouldn't necessarily be bad. -- Meh, Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
Oldak Quill wrote:
It is necessary to say that Israel's status as a country is under dispute if you call Israel a county in the category. If you don't say "Israel is a country in the Middle East" then there is no need to say that its status as a country is not recognised by all.
This perhaps points the way towards a solution in this case. If the category, which is a tool of navigation, simply avoids making any claim of any kind, this problem can be avoided completely.
I do not personally agree that it is necessary, anytime and in any context one mentions Israel or Taiwan or any other disputed place or area, that one mention the dispute. In some cases doing so may actually generate the opposite of neutrality by calling too much prominence to a dispute, that is to say, this gives the disputants the moral right to raise their point in every possible context.
However, my view, as I just stated it, is not universally shared, and Oldak Quill (for example) has staked out a different but respectable position.
His compromise position, not to say "Israel is a country in the middle east", but rather to simply have Israel as one place among many (some of which are countries, some of which are not).
I don't think this is a dispute between editors at the moment. It may latter turn into one, but it isn't yet. (IMHO)
-bawolff
On 10/20/06, Nathan Reed nathanreed@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/20/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
I personally believe it is inaccurate to describe this as a content
situation. If ArbCom were to intervene, it would be if PVJ or another party were to take it too far.
The ArbCom must not intervene unless an editor requests arbitration. The Arbitration Committee is charged with resolving disputes between editors -- this issue could be framed as a dispute between editors, I suppose. I would be loathe to take it up, however.
-N.
--
Nathan Reed nathanreed@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
I hate voting, but I think that might be the only way. Definitly would need requirements though, as we've already got one new person here because of this.
-bawolff
On 10/20/06, Nathan Reed nathanreed@gmail.com wrote:
The ArbCom should not enter any dispute unless some party requests arbitration.
The ArbCom does not and should not rule on content disputes.
You could have a public poll to decide how to address Israel, though I don't really like the idea. If you *do* have a public poll (which would set policy, I suppose) be certain to require membership in the community for at least a two-weeks or a month and a certain minimum number of edits. Else, we will probably be flooded with newcomers...
-N.
On 10/20/06, Patrick Mannion patrick.mannion@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's time for an adminstrative ruling, perhaps ArbCom. I mean his
he Admin, he should at least agree to not entirely disrupt the process.
On 10/20/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Err, you're saying "it's attracted attention at Wikipedia" as if it
isn't your fault. Though I see where you're coming from. And I'm not blaming you, you did a good thing.
I've proposed two things, both of which turned down by the disputor. The
first one was that anything newsworthy involving people affiliated with Israel or done by the Israeli government would be categorized as "Israel". Anything newsworthy involving people affiliated with Palestine or the Palestine Government Authority or something like that would be categorized as "Israel". My second compromise was merging the Israel and Palestine categories/portals to make "Israel and Palestine".
On 10/20/06, bawolff < bawolff+wn@gmail.com> wrote:
This entire thing (for thoose who don't know what i'm talking about, see (en)WC and
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Category_talk:Israel ,
basicly PVJ wants to put a line on cat Israel saying that some countries don't recognize its exsitance) has gone on far to long. First of all the dispute itself is going in circles, and I don't like arguments that arn't getting anywhere, but secondly Its starting to attract attention at wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel&direction=prev&...
and I'm worried we may have a giant flamefest + a mob from wikipedia on our hands. I don't know how to get a solution all parties agree on, but we need something quite quickly imo.
Bawolff _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
-- Autism is both a gift and a curse at the same time; But I think of it as a
gift.
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
-- Nathan Reed nathanreed@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Not exactly a vote is needed. A strawpoll to get a general idea of where the community in general lies, however, is in order.
I'm going to be created a page on Wikinews (a project page) about this whole debacle where the whole dispute about israel vs palestine will be hosted so all the discussion will be centralized.
On 10/20/06, bawolff bawolff+wn@gmail.com wrote:
I hate voting, but I think that might be the only way. Definitly would need requirements though, as we've already got one new person here because of this.
-bawolff
On 10/20/06, Nathan Reed nathanreed@gmail.com wrote:
The ArbCom should not enter any dispute unless some party requests arbitration.
The ArbCom does not and should not rule on content disputes.
You could have a public poll to decide how to address Israel, though I
don't
really like the idea. If you *do* have a public poll (which would set policy, I suppose) be certain to require membership in the community for
at
least a two-weeks or a month and a certain minimum number of edits.
Else, we
will probably be flooded with newcomers...
-N.
On 10/20/06, Patrick Mannion patrick.mannion@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's time for an adminstrative ruling, perhaps ArbCom. I mean
his
he Admin, he should at least agree to not entirely disrupt the process.
On 10/20/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Err, you're saying "it's attracted attention at Wikipedia" as if it
isn't your fault. Though I see where you're coming from. And I'm not
blaming
you, you did a good thing.
I've proposed two things, both of which turned down by the disputor.
The
first one was that anything newsworthy involving people affiliated with Israel or done by the Israeli government would be categorized as
"Israel".
Anything newsworthy involving people affiliated with Palestine or the Palestine Government Authority or something like that would be
categorized
as "Israel". My second compromise was merging the Israel and Palestine categories/portals to make "Israel and Palestine".
On 10/20/06, bawolff < bawolff+wn@gmail.com> wrote:
This entire thing (for thoose who don't know what i'm talking
about,
see (en)WC and
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Category_talk:Israel ,
basicly PVJ wants to put a line on cat Israel saying that some countries don't recognize its exsitance) has gone on far to long. First of all the dispute itself is going in circles, and I don't
like
arguments that arn't getting anywhere, but secondly Its starting
to
attract attention at wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel&direction=prev&...
and I'm worried we may have a giant flamefest + a mob from
wikipedia
on our hands. I don't know how to get a solution all parties agree
on,
but we need something quite quickly imo.
Bawolff _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
-- Autism is both a gift and a curse at the same time; But I think of it
as a
gift.
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
-- Nathan Reed nathanreed@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org