User talk:Ravpapa/Archive 5

Talkback

Hello, Ravpapa. You have new messages at Barniv's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mr Bar-Niv is very upset as he believes you have "destroyed" the article. Please resolve this issue with him, thanks. Bmusician 15:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am joseph10741. I am the author of the Rami Bar-Niv Wikipedia page. I have been on vacation for a few weeks, and upon my return I am shocked to see and learn that what I worked on for several months has disappeared from Wikipedia. The history on the page shows me that you removed a massive amount of my work on April 20, at 5:38. You have not communicated with me to consult with me. You have no right to destroy my work. I am the author and you are not. Please return the page to the way it was before you removed my work. I happen to be a literary agent and that is how I came across Rami’s manuscript, which I read and it inspired me to get involved. Please return my page to the way it was, and I request that you consult with me about any questions or concerns you may. Sincerely, Joseph De Alejandro [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph10741 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Joseph,

I am sorry you are so upset. If you feel strongly that my rewrite is inappropriate, I suggest that you ask for other editors' comments. You can do this by posting the following at the top of the talk page of the article:

{{rfc|bio|media}}

and adding a brief statement of your concerns after this code. You can also post a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music asking for the opinion of other editors. This might be more productive than continuing to discuss it just with me. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Classical as opposed to popular

Ravpapa, as you (and others) pointed out in that interminable and exhausting debate last October at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 14#Delete "Every album by notable musician gets own article" guideline? and the following RfC, classical music has virtually nothing in common, nor overlap, with popular music. These problems will just keep coming up forever unless and until Wikipedia:WikiProject Music can be broken up to distinguish the two. Kleinzach has pointed me to some of the history on infoboxes, and it's pretty much the same situation: let the Pink Floyd crowd do their own thing, and leave classical alone. Do you have any idea how to go about getting this accomplished? Or has it already been tried? Milkunderwood (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

No and yes. But I think that the increasing bickering that goes on (I assume you are following the latest infobox crisis) is a sign that the Wikipedia project is aging. The halcyon days, when you could still write a huge blockbuster like Chamber music or Music of Israel are gone. What is left for us to do but add minutiae here and there, and to argue? --Ravpapa (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

What a wonderfully cynical answer. But I'm sure you're right. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Stories Project

Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share.

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project, or if you know anyone with whom I should speak.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

[email protected]

Victor Grigas (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office ^connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Jerusalem

Hi, I would appreciate it if you'll add your opinion here: Talk:Jerusalem#Better wording#We are running out of bits. --MeUser42 (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Reread the section. I did express my opinion. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little disappointed you didn't make it blink. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm disappointed that you didn't make it blink. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

צדיקים מלאכתם נעשית בידי אחרים No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

כסיל לא יבין זאת --Ravpapa (talk) 07:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't be so hard on yourself. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I was refering to you --Ravpapa (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Nooo! No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 November 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your thoughtful and determined contributions that make a difference on one of the most difficult topic areas on Wikipedia. And, more importantly, not giving up on it, year after year after year. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have always been proud of my work on the article Theodor Billroth, though I didn't realize it was such a difficult topic area! --Ravpapa (talk) 07:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There may be something you might be interested in

I think we're kind of maybe coming to a consensus about something and I've put forward the idea that after we work out the semantics, you should put a little flourish on it to give it flavor. Would you be game? ClaudeReigns (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem 2". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 January 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Yedioth Ahronoth op-ed

You wouldn't happen to be able to locate the op-ed by Gilad Sharon discussed here and here would you? nableezy - 20:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Try this: http://mattotarim1.blogspot.co.il/2011/03/blog-post_14.html --Ravpapa (talk) 05:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, happy New Year, nableezy - 22:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, --WGFinley (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: rounding up step one

Hello. This is a boilerplate message for participants in the moderated discussion about the Jerusalem RfC - sorry for posting en masse. We have almost finished step one of the discussion; thanks for your statement and for any other contributions you have made there. This is just to let you know I have just posted the proposed result of step one, and I would like all participants to comment on some questions I have asked. You can find the discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Judging the consensus for step one - please take a look at it when you next have a moment. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hate in Jerusalem

After a previous discussion with you, I finally decided to follow up and support your point. I noticed a number of statements in Racism in Israel have direct bearing on Jerusalem:

• Rabbi David Batzri and his son Yitzhak were investigated by Police after they made racist remarks against Arabs and protested against a mixed Arab-Jewish school in Jerusalem.

• Jerusalem reported the highest number of racist incidents against Arabs. The report blamed Israeli leaders for the violence, saying "These attacks are not the hand of fate, but a direct result of incitement against the Arab citizens of this country by religious, public, and elected officials."

• On 21 December 2010, when a gang of Jewish youths was arrested in Jerusalem after carrying out a large number of attacks on Arabs. A girl aged 14 would lure Arab men to the Independence Park, where they were attacked with stones and bottles and severely beaten. The teens confessed to nationalistic motives.

• After a soccer game in March 2012, in which Beitar Jerusalem F.C. defeated a rival team at Jerusalem's Teddy Stadium, a group of at least a hundred Beitar fans entered the nearby Malha Mall chanting racist slogans and allegedly attacked Arab cleaning workers, whom some reports described as Palestinians. The police was criticized for initially failing to make arrests; it later investigated the incident, issuing restraining orders against 20 soccer fans and questioning several suspects among the cleaning crew seen waving sticks at the fans.

• Numerous racist attacks against Jews have taken place throughout Arab localities in the Galilee and in Arab areas of Jerusalem, including murders. Among the people killed in such attacks was Kristine Luken, an American tourist stabbed in a forest near Jerusalem after being seen wearing a Star of David necklace. In Jerusalem, Jews driving through Al-Issawiya have been subjected to ambushes by crowds, as was a repairman who had been hired by a resident. Emergency services vehicles have also been attacked while passing through the neighborhood. Jews who travel to the Mount of Olives also risk violence.

• [During October 2000], Thousands of Jews counter-rioted against Arabs in Nazareth, Bat Yam, Petah Tikva, Tiberias, Tel Aviv, Acre, Nazareth Illit, Lod, Rosh HaAyin, Or Akiva and Jerusalem, throwing stones at and beating Arabs, vandalizing and torching Arab homes and property, attacking Arab traffic, and chanting "Death to the Arabs!".

I am not sure what treatment should be given at Jerusalem, but here is some current-day evidence of Jerusalem being a 'capital of hate'. Given the statement that Jerusalem has "the highest number of racist incidents toward Arabs" it should not be hard to find further examples if this is something you'd like me to look for. ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two

Hello. This is to let you know that we have now started step two in the Jerusalem RfC discussion, in which we will be deciding the general structure of the RfC. I have issued a call for statements on the subject, and I would be grateful if you could respond at some time in the next couple of days. Hope this finds you well — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two question

Hello everyone. I have asked a question about having drafts versus general questions at the Jerusalem RfC discussion, and it would be helpful if you could comment on it. I'm sending out this mass notification as the participation on the discussion page has been pretty low. If anyone is no longer interested in participating, just let me know and I can remove you from the list and will stop sending you these notifications. If you are still interested, it would be great if you could place the discussion page on your watchlist so that you can keep an eye out for new threads that require comments. You can find the latest discussion section at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Step two discussion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ravpapa. Maybe you noticed it already, but I have just redacted parts of your comment in the step two discussion. I don't really regard those parts of your comments as incivil or anything - I just think it is better not to group editors together by their position, and especially not to assume that they are not open to compromise. If we assume that editors are unwilling to compromise, it has the effect of polarising discussion and making it harder to reach an agreement. Of course, what everyone really wants is the opposite, where all the editors can work together to find an agreement. I hope this explains why I redacted what I did, but please do ask if you have any questions about it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. Probably for the best. As someone who has been long involved in this dispute - too long, in fact - I am constantly reading the subtext in editors' comments, looking at how their suggestions are in subtle ways strategies for promoting their positions. Perhaps my involvement has made me too Machiavellian. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't go as far as to say it was Machiavellian! At this point, I could get really deep about the reasons that I am so keen on avoiding labelling editors and avoiding opinions in comments (see also my post on Dlv999's talk page). However, I will just say that it is very easy for people to slip into a mindest of "us-versus-them", and that doing so isn't actually at all helpful in getting everyone what they need. People are bound to slip into these kinds of patterns given the nature and length of this dispute, and breaking this pattern of thinking is precisely the reason that I'm here. (Well, that, and to organise the discussion in a logical way, I suppose. :) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. This is just a quick message to let you know that unless there is significant ongoing discussion, I intend to wrap up step two in a few days, probably on Thursday 31st 28th February. I invite you to have a look at the discussion there, especially at question five where I have just asked a question for all participants. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

"He was Jewish."

Hi Ravpapa-- Is it just me? I looked at Fredric Wertham earlier tonight, being reminded of the comic book controversy by my new NYTimes Headlines email, and there it was again: "He was Jewish." What relevance could that sentence possibly have to his career, or to the controversy? I deleted it, with the edit summary (del "He was Jewish" as irrelevant - would we say "He was [Protestant/Catholic/Muslim/Buddhist/etc]"?)

I'm not generally aware of the religion (or ethnicity, if that's what it is) of Gentiles being always mentioned in articles as a matter of course, unless it's pretty relevant. I have no idea who is Jewish or not, but if so, it seems that I can always rely on Wikipedia editors to go out of their way to tell me about it. I do not get the impression that it's Jewish pride; and I must say it's starting to leave a bad taste in my mouth. So is it just me? Have you ever noticed anything to this effect? Milkunderwood (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no opinion one way or the other. If he were a Kyrgestani or an American Indian, I suppose you wouldn't object. Jews are a kind of borderline case - they are a minority but not a very minor one. In any case, he was a psychiatrist, and among psychiatrists Jews might well be a majority. Ravpapa (writing from a foreigner's computer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.236.31.112 (talk) 11:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know. Maybe it is just me. It's a hard question. Just for the hell of it I looked up Merrill Moore just now, because he was the first psychiatrist who came to mind; and there's not a word about his ethnicity or religion. Milkunderwood (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

note re discussion

Hi. I expressed some comments on some of the ideas which you expressed at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion. feel free to drop by if you wish, and to add any comments further if you wish to do so. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

yes I saw your comments. Thanks for the support. I have nothing more to add at this point - prolixity simply adds obfuscation. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Your Dissertation Challenge

Dear Ravpapa,

I'm a third-year Ph.D. student studying journalism at Ohio University who would like to pursue a dissertation topic along the lines that you laid down in your very eloquent essay, "The Politicization of Wikipedia." My initial challenge is narrowing my focus to a half-dozen (or thereabout) of the most relevant controversial articles for my case studies.

I hope you can help me with the following questions:

Does it make sense to limit my topic to the ongoing battle over the Arab-Israeli conflict? If not, what other topics should I consider?

Should I choose from among articles with a disputed POV or those that led to requests for arbitration, or both?

A little about me. I'm a veteran journalist of 30 plus years who retired three years ago to pursue a second career in journalism education. I'm fascinated by the potential of Wikipedia to be a democraticizing influence but also aware of its limitations. I would be proud to advance in any small way I can the open, egalitarian process that Wikipedia has set as its goal.

Sincerely,

Jim DeBrosse E.W. Scripps School of Journalism Ohio University [email protected] 937-307-9111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.82.204 (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step three

Hello all. We have finally reached step three in the Jerusalem RfC discussion. In this step we are going to decide the exact text of the various drafts and the general questions. We are also going to prepare a summary of the various positions on the dispute outlined in reliable sources, per the result of question nine in step two. I have left questions for you all to answer at the discussion page, and I'd be grateful for your input there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding Jerusalem RFC

A request for clarification has been submitted regarding the ArbCom mandated Jerusalem RFC process. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: finalising drafts

Hello. We have almost finished step three of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, but before we move on to step four I would like to make sure that all the participants are happy with the drafts that we have chosen. The content of the drafts are likely to dictate what ends up in the actual article, after all, so I want to make sure that we get them right.

So far, there hasn't been much interest in the process of choosing which drafts to present to the community, and only three editors out of twenty submitted a drafts statement. I have used these three statements to pick a selection of drafts to present, but we still need more input from other participants to make sure that the statements are representative of all participants' wishes. I have started discussions about this under question seven and question eight on the RfC discussion page, and I would be grateful for your input there.

Also, there have been complaints that this process has been moving too slowly, so I am going to implement a deadline. If there haven't been any significant objections to the current selection of drafts by the end of Wednesday, 8 May, then I will move on to step four. Questions or comments are welcome on the discussion page or on my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step four

Hello everyone. We are now at step four of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, where we will decide the details of the RfC implementation. This is the home stretch - the RfC proper will begin as soon as we have finished this step. Step four is also less complicated than the previous steps, as it is mostly about procedural issues. This means it should be over with a lot more quickly than the previous steps. There are some new questions for you to answer at the discussion page, and you can see how the RfC is shaping up at the RfC draft page. Also, when I say that this step should be over with a lot quicker than the previous steps, I mean it: I have set a provisional deadline of Monday, 20th May for responses. I'm looking forward to seeing your input. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: final countdown

Hello again, everyone. I have now closed all the questions for step four, and updated the RfC draft. We are scheduled to start the Jerusalem RfC at 09:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC). Before then, I would like you to check the draft page, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, and see if there are any errors or anything that you would like to improve. If it's a small matter of copy editing, then you can edit the page directly. If it's anything that might be contentious, then please start a discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#The final countdown. I'll check through everything and then set the RfC in motion on Thursday. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC has started

Hello again everyone. We have finally made it - the RfC is now open, and a few editors have chimed in already. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. I'm sure you don't actually need me to tell you this, but please go over there and leave your comments. :) You are the editors most familiar with the Jerusalem lead dispute on Wikipedia, so it would be very useful for the other participants to see what you have to say. And again, thank you for all your hard work in the discussions leading up to this. We shall reconvene after the results of the RfC have been announced, so that we can work out any next steps we need to take, if necessary. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Deadwood, stillborn fossils

I always thought you had the best solution, and knew it wouldn't kick. People are conservative and politicized round that joint. Tinkering with a line, and focusing on just one boring recent patch won't help. Frustrated I imagined a wikiable (the art of the possible) ravpapa-style Ist para this afternoon. I then came back after an hour and read it and imagined a hundred posssible POV objections, that would ignore its sequence of city name/natural environment/religious focus/conflict/modern claims as to status, etc. so I won't post it, if only to save everyone the distraction of another humongous thread. Still, I'm putting it here, hoping it will at least stimulate you can come up with something more musical there. Cheers

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ^ⓘ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds  ^ⓘ) is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world. Nestling in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea, it straddles Israel and the West Bank and its combined population makes it the largest city in that region. It is deemed sacred by the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam - each of whose traditions single it out for a foundational event: the chosen seat of David’s kingdom, it became the hearth of Judaism, the site of the crucifixion of Jesus, and of Muhammad’s visionary ascension to heaven. Powers - pagan, religious and secular - have vied to conquer and reconquer it intermittently for millenia, and each has left its mark in the city’s monumental architecture, rich mosaic of cultures, languages, ethnic groups and identities.Both Israel and the State of Palestine claim the city as their capital, the former maintaining its primary governmental institutions there, while the Palestinian National Authority foresees Eastern Jerusalem as its seat of power. Neither claim is widely recognized internationally, and its ultimate status is to be determined by peace negotations. Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Our paradox is that, were you to post this on the talk pages of 25 of the participants in this arid RFC, each would agree individually that it is far better than any of the alternatives. But as a committee, we are committed to the exaltation of the mediocre. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's never going to be approved if you don't put it through the gauntlet. :) There's no need for pessimism here; there are plenty of fresh faces at the RfC, and if the draft is good then people will support it. Personally, I'd remove "it became the hearth of Judaism" so as to preserve the rule of three. I'd also use less figurative words in a few places: "Located in" instead of "Nestling in", and just "its" instead of "rich mosaic of". In my experience, cold hard facts win out over these kinds of words on Wikipedia. And you need em dashes with no spaces outside "pagan, religious and secular" to match the first time that structure is used. Feel free to take or leave my advice on the content, but I am guessing you will regret it if you don't submit this as a draft in some form or other. And if people object to it, you can just make another draft that addresses the points they object to, so there really isn't much to lose. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very kind of you to comment. I don't think it would fly, if only because I don't have the best of reputations, and anything with my name attached to it gets some (several very good editors) upset!

I've been comparing the various proposals to the lead as we have it, and one thing that struck me is that different proposals touch on different elements (a) capital or not capital (b) location (c) antiquity. My worry was 'how on earth to patch whatever is accepted, back into the Ist para. We are all mulling and proposing changes on that page without regard to the niceties of context. The real problem has been to iron out the first para so that fights don't continue for the next three years, over every other sentence than the new one we agree to. But that's not our brief, even if certain proposals implicitly enlarge the remit.

There are two reasons for my deciding to write some of the phrasing you (rightly) challenge. I've always thought wiki articles must aspire to compete with the best books, in precision, comprehensiveness and reliability but also in style. WP:NPOV does have this unfortunate collateral damage of reducing style to grey Gradgrindism, a muster of marshalled facts. That certainly should be the overriding narrative concern for the main body of the article but at Shakespeare Authorship Question, which got to FA status, our master craftsman there, Tom Reedy, was given the leeway to make the lead swing engagingly before the casual browsing readers' eyes, before they were given the strict technical regimen of facts. I've no doubt you're right technically, though.

I've tried to look at the deep emotional attachments and commitments many editors have to the city, and tailored the opening part to cater to that. In the past, on this and other articles (Hebron, for example, where User:Tewfik and I worked out a reasonable compromise in 2007), 'pro-Pal' (ugh!) objected to the connotative colour of 'Judean'. I think that is being too nitpicky, and over-politicizing language. 'Nestling' has that purpose.

I added, 'became the hearth of Judaism' for the same reason. Stylistically, you're dead right in terms of the rhythmic and conceptual balance. In defence, I thought non-Israeli/Jewish editors should make some significant gesture to respond to their anxieties. It would help our resolution of many problems in the lead if others consent to some minor gesture of recognition, and don't see an extra phrase as WP:Undue for one party, but rather a nod at the fact that the heart of Judaic feeling, unlike Christianity and Islam (cf.Rome, Mecca), historically pulsed around the image of this city. From the outset I think all editors must accept the obvious, and not retrowrite the facts for POV-balancing: the centrality of Judaism in establishing Jerusalem as a cynosure of faith began there. The priority is a fact. Jerusalem is emblematic for Christians and Muslims because they are successor faiths to Judaism, whose role here is foundational.

'rich mosaic'. Again, this might look flowery, but it is a commonly used metaphor and introduces an issue we have ignored, the fascinating diversity of the city's history. Each POV (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) struggles for narrative ascendency, instead of doing the obvious, showing how rich the complex cultural variegation of Jerusalem was over history. If the link I now provide to the opening chapter of Meron Benvenisti's City of Stones, works, the point I was struggling to make would be clearer reading pp.3-9.

em dashes. I think I've seen them often, but never asked what they do, or mean. I'm sorry, I'm a poor technical editor - I just see words, not formats. Wouldn't know how that is to be done.

I suppose you're right, that I'm wimping a bit. Rav and I would, in our own different ways, have preferred a different kind of lead text, more Gibbonian if lighter. I'll give your suggestion more thought then, if only out of consideration for the hard and impossibly tedious ground-work you've been sucked into. If I change my mind, however, on principle I'd have to leave the text as I wrote it. If I accepted your emendations, it would look to some like some insidious connivance in which I was manipulating your neutrality, or that it was a collaborative text between the wild swirling jihadi fanatic some think I am, and the director of the orchestra, who must never 'waive' the baton to privilege a wooden-windy soloist to the exclusion of the brass, percussion and string players! Cheers Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I can tell that you're attached to your wording, so there's no need to change it on my account. It would be poor form as a moderator for me to become attached to any particular version of the lead. My suggestion is merely what I think would be the most acceptable version for the commenters at the RfC. But if people do disagree with the parts I mentioned, then it's not the end of the world - it might just mean more people end up in the "support with revisions" column. And also, my comment was intended as a (metaphorical) kick up the behind - you can't come to a consensus if you don't even start the discussion. :) So get that thing out there, in some form at least, and then the discussion can begin. Oh, and for the em dash thing you should probably have another read of MOS:DASH. It's not that complicated, honest. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Passover Plot

Hi Ravpapa. I noticed this at Articles for Creation (given its level of sourcing, it's highly likely to be accepted in due course) and wondered about its neutrality. For example, sentences like 'In Israel the case became known as the “Passover Plot” and was viewed as another attempt by the Reagan Administration to embarrass the Jewish State while massive arms sales to the Arab States were pending Congressional approval' - this may be a neutral summary of the source cited, but I haven't been able to access the source (yet) so am not really sure. Any thoughts?

I don't think there are any WP:BLP implications, but that's also possible. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I have never heard of this guy, do not recall his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair (at first, I confused him with Oliver North, but quickly realized my error). I can't find him in Google, he does not appear in the Iran-Contra article, and none of the sources cited in the proposed article are available without going to a library or newspaper archive, and even then maybe not. To my knowledge, the Iran-Contra affair was never called "The Passover Plot" (which is the name of a popular movie of the 1980s). Someone somewhere may have written that Iran-Contra was an attempt to embarrass Israel; there were a lot of charges and countercharges going around then, and this particular one was certainly not mainstream or worthy of mentioning here.

I will try to look a little further tomorrow. But, based on what I know now, I would treat the article with caution. --Ravpapa (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! This article is now in the mainspace at William Northrop. I will keep digging. (Nicholas Bridgestock was an interesting one.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC: breakdown of results

Hello again everyone. Now that the Jerusalem RfC has been closed and there has been time for the dust to settle, I thought it would be a good time to start step six of the moderated discussion. If you could leave your feedback over at the discussion page, it will be most appreciated. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Translation of Death and the Maiden

Dear Ravapapa,

The translation you restored is a "singing" translation, which is to say it is devised to fit the notes. This makes strict accuracy of meaning impossible: rhythm is necessarily privileged over exactness. Indeed, you can see from the version you suppressed (which IS accurate almost word-for-word) that there are significant differences between what the poem says in German and what the translator says. While a singing translation can be useful for one who wishes to sing the Lied in English, or who wishes to follow a performance, it is completely inappropriate for a reader interested in the exact meaning of the words Schubert set. At concerts or on recordings that provide translations of vocal pieces, singing translations have largely vanished.

A singing translation, in this case, is thus an irrelevant source, whether published or not. Nor, in my view, is the translation I provided in any sense "original research" of the sort excluded from Wikipedia . The meaning of German words, after all, is known to everyone who speaks German--widespread common knowledge that does not to be sourced. Anyway, these are my thoughts. I leave to you the decision over whether to re-revert or not. Sincerely, BFolkman — Preceding unsigned comment added by BFolkman (talk • contribs) 13:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You raise a good point. The main reason I reverted is that you left the footnote, which was certainly wrong but probably just an oversight. Well, I raised the issue here. Let's see what others say. Ravpapa (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I also raised it on the talk page of the article. Ravpapa (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:AE

Since I´m in danger of exceeding my limit on WP:AE#Gilabrand, I hope I can address you here.

You write, (twice now), that the question is whether or not the Kafr Lam-reference should be in the lead or not of Habonim. But, as I wrote to you here: "Gilabrand did not move the fact that Habonim is built on lands of the former Palestinian village of Kafr Lam from the lead of the article, to further down: she removed it completely. Instead she inserted that the "medieval" Cafarlet fortress is at the same location: thereby neatly erasing a millennium of Arab history at the place." Gilabrands response was that The statements removed from Habonim are unsourced. But, as has been noted, the fact that Habonim is built on the land of Kafr Lam could easily been found in the Kafr Lam -article (impeccably sourced to Benny Morris, 2004). Instead she introduces, on the Habohim page, a link to an unsourced Israeli tourist page: http://www.gemsinisrael.com/cafarlet.html

This is a long-term pattern: whenever she does not like a fact, she removes it outright. Even if it is very easy to find sources. But if she likes an (unsourced) fact, she does not remove it, or even mark it with "citation needed".

Now, I do not mind that people introduce an "Israeli perspective". And I´m sure you realise: there are lots and lots of editors who do just that on Wikipedia. (And never gets blocked or gets before WP:AE.) What Gilabrand does, (and what gets her so detested) is not that she brings the "Israeli perspective", but that she again and again and again and again removes/falsifies/distort/ anything she thinks represent the "Palestinian perspective." And it is *quite* frustrating spending time finding and adding the best sources available, just to see it removed by Gilabrand.

Many of commenting editors/admins at WP:AE have noted that Gilas worst POV-pushing gets deleted/reversed. The problem is that there are very few editors who edit Palestinian villages/towns (articles have typically under 30 "watchers"), and it is the same people again and again who has to clean up after her. Also, since these articles have so few "watchers", you never know how long it will stay in. For example; the complete falsehood/fabrication she inserted into the lead at Hittin stayed there for more that a year. I stand by my earlier words: she is one of the the worst offenders in the whole I/P area. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, you may be right. I won't argue. As you know, I have had not a few run-ins with Gilabrand, and am always on the other side of the barricades from her when arguments arise. I just think that a plurality of opinions makes Wikipedia a livelier place. But I'm done posting there. che sarà, sarà. Ravpapa (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. Btw, I also like the "plurality of opinions", absolutely. And I´ve had very heated debates with some of the pro-Israeli editors, say Brewcrewer. Still, it has never, ever been in my mind to try to have him sanctioned: I have never seen him falsify/distort sources. It is not the diversity of opinion which bothers me (I love that!) ..it is the dishonesty. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Never give up so fast

I replied as below, and found an ec and then your request had disappeared. One never fights over factual inquiries. Either an answer exists, or the query's scepticism is vindicated. For what it's worth this was what I wrote:

Dunno what Zero was looking at but I was surprised at your edit simply because I had many memories of newspapers talking about his imprisonment in the Mukata. I have now checked the NYTs, and got this:-

'Today, although there are several hundred people who either live or work in the Mukata, about 20 of whom are described by the Israelis as important terrorists, the compound's most important prisoner is Arafat himself. Since late September 2002, when the Israel Defense Forces systematically destroyed most of the complex, Arafat has been unable to leave the Mukata. He has stayed holed up there knowing that were he to venture out, even just to Ramallah's main mosque, the Israeli military would probably seize and expel him, arrest those who took refuge with him in 2002 and finish the destruction that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel is generally believed to have halted only under intense pressure from the Bush administration. For most ordinary Palestinians, Arafat's imprisonment in the Mukata mirrors what they view as their own: since the start of the second intifada in 2000, and in particular since 2002, the Israeli occupation has made most Palestinians prisoners in their own towns and villages on the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip'. David Rieff 'Arafat among the ruins,' NYT April 25, 2004 Nishidani (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You and zero are right. I had forgotten.Ravpapa (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Cause of Yasser Arafat's death

Hi Ravpapa. I have the Lancet article. I can send it to you if you drop me an email. Dlv999 (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding our discussion on the talk page, in my opinion the authors of the hospital report used very precise language and were careful NOT to categorically rule out the possibility of poisoning. They simply state the facts that the tests they carried out did not "suggest intoxication to explain the condition of the patient."The difference for me here is between saying we found no evidence to support the hypothesis (what the report says), and saying we have disproved the hypothesis (what the suggested lead says). In my mind the Lancet article is consistent with the hospital report.

Regarding differing interpretations of the medical report, it's interesting to look at the NYT [1] and Haaretz [2] articles of 8th Sept 2005 covering the report's publication. NYT claims that the illness was "caused by an unidentified infection" - which is odd because the hospital report states that they were unable to ascertain the cause of the illness. Haaretz (correctly) points out that the immediate cause of death was brain haemorrhage, but that the doctors were unable to ascertain the underlying cause for the collection of symptoms that lead to Arafat's death. Discussing the report, the NYT says that "poisoning was highly unlikely and dispels a rumor that he may have died of AIDS." Meanwhile Haaretz' coverage says that poisoning and AIDS are the two of the three "main possibilities" for cause of death (along with infection). Dlv999 (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Your request for undeletion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that a response has been made at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion regarding a submission you made. The thread is Joseph Hallman. JohnCD (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joseph Hallman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christopher Rouse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Classical Music, Composition Task Force Revival

Hello, I'm Tal Brenev. I've recently left a message at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Classical music/Compositions task force, in an attempt to revive the WikiProject. I will try to send a message to everyone on the list of participants, so as to get more suggestions and/or ideas. If you would like to participate, leave a message at the WikiProject Talk Page, or on my talk page. Thanks!

---Tal Brenev (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Music's talk page. Message added 16:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC). Tal Brenev (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your edits at List of military occupations talk page. A voice of reason in this strange topic area as always. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to String Quartet No. 12 (Dvořák) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• "Šourek1">Šourek. p.89</ref>) shortly after the [[Symphony No. 9 (Dvorak)|''New World'' Symphony]]), sketching the manuscript in three days and completing it in three weeks. "As for my new Symphony,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)