Fandriampahalamana (talk | contribs) |
→Conjecture: final |
||
Line 324: | Line 324: | ||
:::::::::::::::::: Come on dude, if this is all you're gonna do, leave it alone, eh? If you know you're caught and you have nothing left to say to the arguments presented, then just leave it be and no-one has to mention it again. [[Special:Contributions/203.45.146.36|203.45.146.36]] ([[User talk:203.45.146.36|talk]]) 04:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
:::::::::::::::::: Come on dude, if this is all you're gonna do, leave it alone, eh? If you know you're caught and you have nothing left to say to the arguments presented, then just leave it be and no-one has to mention it again. [[Special:Contributions/203.45.146.36|203.45.146.36]] ([[User talk:203.45.146.36|talk]]) 04:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::::::::::: I suppose I should have followed my first instinct, which was that having a discussion with you would be a waste of time. My second instinct is that you’ll get bored eventually and wander away, which I may end up precipitating by declining further parley. For the final time (I hope), if you have no real work to contribute, and no understanding of WP policy, I’m not interested in having my work challenged by you. <font color="green">[[User:IronDuke|IronDuke]]</font> 22:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Don't understand. Which bits outside the quotes don't you like; and to what do you want them changed? [[User:Fandriampahalamana|Fandriampahalamana]] ([[User talk:Fandriampahalamana|talk]]) 19:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC) |
::::::::::::Don't understand. Which bits outside the quotes don't you like; and to what do you want them changed? [[User:Fandriampahalamana|Fandriampahalamana]] ([[User talk:Fandriampahalamana|talk]]) 19:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:48, 3 August 2010
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Conjecture
On July 13 Nableezy added another part of Thomas's statement explaining in the edit summary that "all right, you want specifics add specifics, not just one part of the story".
This is not a give or take (all right!), that I'll grant you your POV and therefore I'll add my POV. Every article needs to be pure and NOPV.
The words "speaking of Palestinians" is conjecture, a POV conjecture and cannot be used. She did not use it and we can't put words into her mouth. There was so much discussion of not even using "Jews" or "Israel" although it is clear that she meant them. Using "speaking of Palestinians" is pure conjecture and cannot be used. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- That is absolute nonsense. She says "get the hell out of Palestine" and she then says "remember, these people are occupied and it is their land." "these people" is undoubtedly referring to the Palestinians. But since you doubt that, here is a source that says that. [1]: Questioned about the Palestinians by Rabbi Nesenoff for RabbiLIVE.com, Thomas said, "Remember, these people are occupied and it's their land. It's not Germany, not Poland." And another, [2]: Turning her attention to the Palestinians, she said, "Remember, these people are occupied. And it's their land," adding the Jews should "go home" to Poland and Germany. I realize some people dont like to use the term Palestinian, but the rationale for removing this quote is utter and sheer nonsense. nableezy - 21:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- This exchange further illustrates my point that we are not going to reach consensus when we pick and choose specifics that fit our own interpretations. The back and forth reverting on this issue has been going on for weeks now. I suggest that we settle with (*) above. If there are reasoned objections to (*), let's hear them. Precis (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- In case there is no consensus for (*), I would choose F's construct over N's, for the following reason. Note that F's wording has the form "She retired after negative reaction to her remarks X." Now, N adds wording that conveys the extra information "She said X because of Y." I think Y belongs in the article, but not in the lead, as Y has little to do with the negative reaction. Moreover, we don't even know if Y is the unique reason that she said X. Precis (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agere with Nab that "Palestinians" is clearly meant here. I would disagree, though, with inserting that into the lead. The meat of the controversy lies in remarks which are already quoted there. IronDuke 00:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I dont think any of the quotes should be in the lead, I think it should say "following uproar caused by controversial remarks about Israel and Palestine". Just saying "she said X" without including anything else only tells a part of the story, the part that is the most sensational. nableezy - 01:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's exactly right, and it's the sensational part that led to her resignation. We don't need, for example, the whole dialogue in the lead, just what got her in trouble. IronDuke 03:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I hope you'll indulge me and answer two questions that rightfully can be called leading questions. Should each section of a BLP, on its own, particularly the lead, be "neutral", as "neutral" is defined by WP:NPOV? Is it "neutral" to only include one aspect of a story? If you dont want to answer those two questions (or if you do, answer this one too), do you have any objection to not including any of the quotes and just saying "following *some description here* reactions to comments made about Israel, Jews, and Palestine"? nableezy - 03:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- When have I ever not indulged you, Nab? Anwer 1) Yes. Answer 2) Depends -- it certainly could be. 3) Yes, strong objection. IronDuke 23:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I hope you'll indulge me and answer two questions that rightfully can be called leading questions. Should each section of a BLP, on its own, particularly the lead, be "neutral", as "neutral" is defined by WP:NPOV? Is it "neutral" to only include one aspect of a story? If you dont want to answer those two questions (or if you do, answer this one too), do you have any objection to not including any of the quotes and just saying "following *some description here* reactions to comments made about Israel, Jews, and Palestine"? nableezy - 03:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's exactly right, and it's the sensational part that led to her resignation. We don't need, for example, the whole dialogue in the lead, just what got her in trouble. IronDuke 03:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I dont think any of the quotes should be in the lead, I think it should say "following uproar caused by controversial remarks about Israel and Palestine". Just saying "she said X" without including anything else only tells a part of the story, the part that is the most sensational. nableezy - 01:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, she could have been referring to Israeli Arabs. In fact, it is likely that she was referring to Israeli Arabs because otherwise she would have said something like, "Tell them to go to Tel-Aviv or Haifa or Eilat." She wasn't referring to the "occupation" of Judea/Samaria. She was referring to Israel proper.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I construed her words to mean "Israel out of Israel [which she calls Palestine], Jews out of the region"—but we mustn't construe editorially. Any attempt to interpret her thinking involves conjecture or spin—imprudent always, totally out of order in a BLP. I can (and do), support the "(*)" version, verbatim (i.e., including all three terms, Israel, Jews, and Palestine). It is minimalist, neutral, free of conjecture. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Im not construing anything. Even if it were not blindingly obvious that "these people" is a reference to the Palestinians, I have provided 2 sources that explicitly say that she was talking about the Palestinians. And here apology for the comments says "I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians", though she did not say "Palestinian" in her actual comments. I really cannot believe I have to argue this point, it is so obvious that it takes real effort to miss it. nableezy - 02:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Concur with Hertz--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that all three terms are necessary. Some have argued that "Jews" should be left out because Thomas didn't use that word. But that argument is specious. Consider an exchange such as Q: Is the Earth flat? A: Yes it is. The respondent never mentioned the word "Earth", but his remark is still about the Earth. Precis (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I construed her words to mean "Israel out of Israel [which she calls Palestine], Jews out of the region"—but we mustn't construe editorially. Any attempt to interpret her thinking involves conjecture or spin—imprudent always, totally out of order in a BLP. I can (and do), support the "(*)" version, verbatim (i.e., including all three terms, Israel, Jews, and Palestine). It is minimalist, neutral, free of conjecture. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Exactly Precis, you got it right. Those who've argued that "Jews" should be left out are the ones who want "Palestinians" put in. This is called hypocrisy. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Fan, not only is this not what Precis said, but it's not true. I argued that 'Jews' should be left out (though I no longer hold this position), and I haven't argued that 'Palestinians' should be put in. And anyway, it's not hypocrisy if there is some principled reason for including one and not the other, as seems to be the case with Nableezy (the one can be reliably sourced, the other can't, apparently). 203.45.146.36 (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Are you Nableezy's lawyer? I object to "principled" reasons as it is synonymous with POV. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
‘Principled’ is not synonymous with POV; a principle one might be guided by is NPOV. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- And yes, Precis, I definitely take your point that she made claims about Jews. I no longer think the word 'Jews' should be left out. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand the words you (Precis) suggested to be used but I must object to them based on a whole slew of arguments which I simple don't have the time now to rehash. If someone wants to see what those arguments are just lookup my first 25 comments (now archived) on this talk page. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh come on Fan, just come on! Putting forward a whole bunch of arguments, having a bit of back and forth with someone, then leaving the discussion is not putting paid to the issue! Just putting forward arguments is not enough to justify your revision (especially with my EXPLICIT requests -- plural! -- above to respond to some further issues before making things the way you want them to be) is just not enough. It's just a plainly silly suggestion, Fan. Come on, mate. Seriously. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't just have a back and forth with someone, I actually clearly explained why certain words put in or left out makes the lead POV. Those arguements still stand and will stand the test of time regardless how many archiving is done. I am not a policeman who needs to be here all the time, especially when I see that others here understand me clearly. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I’m sorry, you put forward an argument that will stand the test of time. Well I did too! Come on, Fan, that’s pretty easy to claim – I directly responded to you and you issued no objections. You don’t get to win by just declaring yourself the winner. I found your ‘arguments’ to be horribly confused and that’s the nicest thing I can say about them. As for why, well, that’s in the archive. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Therefore to solve all POV problems and have the lead clean and neutral, I went along with the using of Thomas's words. I would have preferred a correct interpretation which is clear and based on reliable sources, but seeing that it is not going to happen in an article like this which seems to have very few neutral editors like me, therefore I suggest that only Thomas's words be used and no conjecture be used at all even if it has a reliable source. Using reliable sources that suits one can still be POV pushing and should be unacceptable. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nonsense. When she says "these people" it is obviously a reference to the Palestinians. And I provided sources that explicitly say that she was referring to the Palestinians. You can propose to not use reliable sources all you like, but what matters are the policies of this website. And do not accuse others of hypocrisy unless you would like them to critique your editing behavior. And if you did not notice your revert includes "Jews" and excludes "Palestinians". Is that hypocrisy? nableezy - 21:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hah, Fan, you, neutral? YOU'RE the neutral one? Oh my; as Nab says, just ... oh forget it. My Lord, though, really? 203.45.146.36 (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes really, surprise, there are neutrals editors and I count myself among them. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I know there are neutral editors; it is your inclusion of yourself in that group that surprises me. Your motivations haven’t exactly been hard to glean, Fan. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's nice to know that you know already motivations. We'll ask you when we need to know. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- No high ground for you, Fan: you accused others of being NPOV -- my comments (which never actually accused you of being POV, you'll note) came only in the wake of that. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 05:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, Precis's (*) above is neutral, and you reverted it, so put it back if all you're looking for is neutrality. None of what you say above is any objection to (*). Now, please, do me the courtesy I ask above before you go and make the page how you want it again. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Like F, I prefer the status quo to (*) in principle, because it succinctly summarizes the "meat of the controversy", as Ironduke put it. But pragmatically, I see a problem of stability. The present selection of quotes tends to inflame those who feel the quotes were taken out of context. To judge from past history, future editors will be continually attempting to tack on mitigating quotes and extra context, and the lead is no place for this. Precis (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Well I don't see that 'the status quo' does succintly summarise the "meat of the controversy," for the reasons I've stated, but anyway you're saying that (*) should be used so I guess I shouldn't argue. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I'm changing it back till Fan gives me the courtesy I've given everyone else. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- What courtesy are you talking about? I always clearly explain my edits, always. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Mmm, that probably was unfair of me; I apologise. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
It's been reverted again, with no explanation, no discussion, no time elapsed, and no consideration given to the various requests made above. This being the case, I shall revert it until someone can finally give me a reason why the shorter version is POV and the longer version isn't; or, at the very least, until some basic standards of courtesy are met by certain gunh-ho editors. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Ironduke said the reversion was unexplained. Not sure where he's been. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see you making the case, but perhaps I missed it. Feel free to point it out to me. Oh, and speaking of where I've been, can you say exactly what accounts/IPs you are now or have ever used? It helps to keep track of things. IronDuke 23:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I’ve been making it for a long time. First, see my response to the suggestion that it should be changed in the first place (Fan’s initial change is really the thing that needs to be justified, as it came first; not my reversion to what came before Fan’s changes), in ‘Factual and NPOV suggestion for the lead;’ then ‘ISRAEL should get the hell out of Palestine?;’ and specifically ‘Controversy in lead.’ These are all archived now, because they were left alone by editors for a long time. And I, unlike you, gave people a long time to respond before I made the page how I wanted it to be. No more, I say! Not without the same courtesy in return. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- What exactly needs to be justified? The lead as it stands was not my first choice, as I had made clear numerous times; but it's better then all other suggestions because at least it's NPOV. Again what can be more neutral then Thomas's own words? Her own words, leaves no room for misinterpretation. I find hard to understand any arguments that prefer an ambiguous lead or a controversial one. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
No, but you were the one who initially changed the lead, and that was never justified – not by you or by others since. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
So are as I’m aware, I’ve just been using the one IP address. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Could you point to a diff or summarize your point, please. Thanks. IronDuke 01:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, sure. Well the first point is that I'm actually just resisting a change made by, I think, Fan. His arguments for the changes were no good (see archive for elaboration), so until some good argument is made I'm just correcting an unjustified addition.
But the main point (and this is not my own) is that we shouldn’t puts words in Thomas’ mouth. What actually happened is that Thomas was asked a leading question (or, at least, it could be interpreted as such -- and I think it’s only fair that readers get to make their own minds up about that just as we get to do) and she responded. She never said that Jews should go back to Poland, Germany, and America and everywhere else (or that Israel should get the hell out of Palestine). As Precis points out, Thomas' claims were about Jews, but one can less clearly argue that the words of an interviewer should be reported as part of the statement of an interviewee.
In addition, I’ve mentioned that the virtues of the lead I prefer are that it is at the very least correct (she certainly did resign after negative reaction to claims she made about Israel, Jews and Palestine), and that it conforms to wikipedia guidelines (in that it’s a summary of the content – perhaps too summarised, but a summary nonetheless). These virtues, and my criticism of the other suggested lead, have never been successfully challenged (I have had a bit of a back-and-forth with Fan about one of these points, but in the end he left it and the discussion got archived because it was left alone for a fair amount of time).
And look, I’m not saying the above is right, and if you look back at the archive you will see me being very explicit about that. But at the moment the only arguments I’ve heard in response to me are “Epefleeche don’t likey” and the abandoned arguments of Fan. Yet the lead is constantly changed back to the one I criticise, and changed with such haste. I not only give arguments: I wait a fair amount of time for people to respond, to discuss (as is the purpose of this page). Neither of which I can say about those who revert my reversions. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- There’s no such a thing as an abandoned argument, and that's the prime reason for archives, for one to go back and read them. We can't expect every newbie to go read them, but we could expect that from those who are active here for some time. Therefore not being here to answer every comment should not be construed as agreement, especially when other editors are arguing the same self evident rules of upholding all WP rules of neutrality. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
This is just epithets – I’m arguing Wiki rules of neutrality too, and you know it. You may disagree with my arguments; but, as it stands, you haven’t (well, not in a ‘giving reasons’ sense). 203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- You still have not answered my question. Your lead includes the word "Jews" when Thomas never said that word yet does not include the word "Palestinian". Is that the same hypocrisy you accused others of or not? And if not why not? nableezy - 21:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- @.36 (and Nab, a bit). HT's remarks were unequivocally about Jews. It's definitely possible to take a contrary view, but only if you lack an understanding of syntax. What got HT into trouble was not her remarks about Palestinians, but about Jews. That's why it's briefly quoted in the lead (and it takes up very little room). Helps give a great precis of the article. IronDuke 23:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Cmon, you think I dont realize that? We have an editor amongst us who claims it is "hypocrisy" to infer that "these people" is a reference to Palestinians and thus we cannot include "Palestinians" as Thomas never said the word "Palestinians" if we dont include "Jews" (which, oh by the way, my version did). I am inquiring as to why it is not "hypocrisy" to use "Jews" when Thomas never uses the word "Jews" and not include "Palestinians". Perhaps I do this more for my own amusement that any serious concern, but when confronted by such logic I feel compelled to call it out. That and I really dislike being called a hypocrite. nableezy - 23:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, my mistake. IronDuke 23:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Cmon, you think I dont realize that? We have an editor amongst us who claims it is "hypocrisy" to infer that "these people" is a reference to Palestinians and thus we cannot include "Palestinians" as Thomas never said the word "Palestinians" if we dont include "Jews" (which, oh by the way, my version did). I am inquiring as to why it is not "hypocrisy" to use "Jews" when Thomas never uses the word "Jews" and not include "Palestinians". Perhaps I do this more for my own amusement that any serious concern, but when confronted by such logic I feel compelled to call it out. That and I really dislike being called a hypocrite. nableezy - 23:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Ironduke, I agree with what you say; I am not calling for the abandonment of the word Jews. That is why when I revert the thing, I keep that word. My point is that the article makes an equivocation between assenting to something and saying something. The article claims the former happened when in fact it was the latter. Now you may say that’s not important, but it’s not an idiosyncrasy of mine: lots of people think that’s not a fair equivocation to make – law courts, for instance, strive to avoid leading questions. I think the readers should get to make their mind up over whether or not it matters, just as you and I got to do. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- If people who actually have objections to the above could present them here before rather than after changes are made, that would be appreciated; it would avoid that whole 'reversion-reversion-reversion' back-and-forth that goes on. I may be alone in this, but I find that kind of thing irksome. Thanks 203.45.146.36 (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Ironduke, could I get a bit more elaboration? I'll try to spell it out a bit more, but it would be easier if I knew a little bit more about where your confusion lies. You said "HT's remarks were unequivocally about Jews." Right, so I have no problem with saying that she made comments about Jews. I'm saying the sentence should end: "...she made about Israel, Jews and Palestine." So I'm wondering if you actually have a disagreement with me. Perhaps this is to do with the fact that I'm using an IP address rather than a username? Perhaps this is getting me confused with someone else? If so, I again apologise for any confusion I caused; it was not my intent. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Fan says it best below (and you needn't have wondered if I disagreed, I've made it plain). Once again, remarks about Palestinians did not get her in trouble, remarks about jews did. IronDuke 02:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Ironduke, could I get a bit more elaboration? I'll try to spell it out a bit more, but it would be easier if I knew a little bit more about where your confusion lies. You said "HT's remarks were unequivocally about Jews." Right, so I have no problem with saying that she made comments about Jews. I'm saying the sentence should end: "...she made about Israel, Jews and Palestine." So I'm wondering if you actually have a disagreement with me. Perhaps this is to do with the fact that I'm using an IP address rather than a username? Perhaps this is getting me confused with someone else? If so, I again apologise for any confusion I caused; it was not my intent. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- 36 here: What Fan says it OR. I know enough about Wikipedia to know that ain't okay. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Whad'Ya Know? See my comment after your next. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- 36, you already know that much about OR? What can I say, I'm kinda blown away by that -- congrats on being such a quick study. Your bald-faced assertion is otherwise meaningless, but good on yer just the same. IronDuke 03:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- 36 here: What Fan says it OR. I know enough about Wikipedia to know that ain't okay. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Ironduke, I appreciate your non-condescending and utterly interesting praise. Anyway, it may have been a bald-faced assertion here, but it's been explained and argued for by others over and over; if you don't agree, if you have some reliable source that confirms what Fan says, put it up. Till this point, no-one has. So please excuse my use of a conclusion that has long-since been argued for. Sorry. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- The sentence should not end with "...she made about Israel, Jews and Palestine", because she did not resign for making a comment about Palestine but for making a comment about the Jews of Israel. Forget about conjecture, the words you suggest is patently untrue; she didn’t resign because of that. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's OR. As Precis has pointed out to you numerous times. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- That’s right and that’s why we can’t have it. You're absolutely right that to end with "...she made about ...and Palestine" would be OR. For once we agree. Let's leave it that way. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's OR. As Precis has pointed out to you numerous times. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- The other thing, Fan, which I didn't have time to say yesterday, is that I'm not, nor have I ever, suggested that we claim she retired due to controversy over claims she made about Israel, Jews, and Palestine. I wouldn't say that it's "patently untrue" (I think, in fact, it may indeed be true), but I don't think we should use it as I think it's OR (unless Nab has soundly argued the opposite; I haven't so much been following his debate with you). My sentence is Precis' (*): "...retired following negative reaction to comments she made about Israel, Jews and Palestine." Perhaps you and I could come to an agreement, then -- what if I stopped arguing the use of the word 'Palestine' in that lead? I wouldn't mind having the sentence be "...retired following negative reaction to comments she made about Israel and Jews." This sentence may or may not be POV (I'll leave that to Nab, for the moment -- he seems to be pretty good, and I don't think he'd need a dolt like me to be 'his lawyer'), but at least it's not misrepresenting the facts. I shouldn't accuse you of ignoring my argument that the current lead (which 'uses her words') is a misrepresentation of what happened, but at least you've not made any objection to it the various times I've put it forward. I know both you and Epefleeche do want to use her words in the intro, and prima facie I have no objection to that (as I've said in an archived part of this page); it's just that I think the current wording is unfair (for the reasons I've put forward that no-one has taken issue with). So perhaps dropping the word Palestine, leaving out OR about why she retired, and not using her exact words in a confusing way, would take into account all of our issues? That is, perhaps we could agree on this as a compromise: "Thomas retired on June 7, 2010, following negative reactions to comments she made and Israel and Jews"? Not that I think chucking in the word 'Palestine' would be POV or OR (as I'm making no claim whatsoever about why she retired), but I'm not married to the word. What I'm married to is not misrepresenting what actually happened. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- If people who actually have objections to the above could present them here before rather than after changes are made, that would be appreciated; it would avoid that whole 'reversion-reversion-reversion' back-and-forth that goes on. I may be alone in this, but I find that kind of thing irksome. Thanks 203.45.146.36 (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- To Nableezy, I did not claim that it is "hypocrisy" to infer that "these people" is a reference to Palestinians; no that is definitely not hypocrisy; what is hypocrisy, is to infer that "these people" is a reference to Palestinians but not to infer that "tell them" means Jews and Israelis. It is hypocrisy to infer that "these people" is a reference to Palestinians but not to infer that "they go home" means the Jews and Israelis. It is sheer hypocrisy to infer that "these people" is a reference to Palestinians but in her answer to Nesenoff who asked her "so you're saying the Jews go back to Poland and Germany?" and she responded "and America and everywhere else" - that she wasn’t referring to Jews in Israel. Nableezy I didn’t mean necessarily you, but anyone who infers the one you inferred but won’t infer the other, is engaging in hypocrisy. Therefore to solve all these problems, Thomas’s words should be used without any qualifiers so that they can’t be misinterpreted. Why would anyone want a vague and an ambiguous lead when they can have a clear one? Fandriampahalamana (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- The "tell them" was in response to "any comments about Israel", the them refers to Israel, perhaps Israelis. But if you insist on using only her own words then perhaps you should remove the word "Jews" from 'and Jews should go back to "Poland. Germany.... and America and everywhere else.' as she never said the word "Jews". nableezy - 21:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- But she echoed it: (Nesenoff: So you're saying the Jews go back to Poland and Germany? Thomas: And America and everywhere else.) It doesn't belong in quotation marks, but is the clear reference of her comments. That's non-conjectural. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, but "these people" is also an unambiguous reference to the Palestinians. nableezy - 21:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not quite comparable or parallel, though, is it, as that word is never stated by either party in the conversation. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Then why did her apology reference comments "regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians"? nableezy - 21:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Who knows? I'm not a mind-reader, nor privy to her motives. You are being interpretive. The lead concerns the original comments and needs to focus on their inherent content. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- there are a number of sources that specifically say the comment about "these people are living under occupation" was a reference to the Palestinians. It is self-evident that line is a reference to the Palestinians, in fact it is so obvious that it takes real effort to not see that. nableezy - 22:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Who knows? I'm not a mind-reader, nor privy to her motives. You are being interpretive. The lead concerns the original comments and needs to focus on their inherent content. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Then why did her apology reference comments "regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians"? nableezy - 21:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not quite comparable or parallel, though, is it, as that word is never stated by either party in the conversation. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, but "these people" is also an unambiguous reference to the Palestinians. nableezy - 21:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- But she echoed it: (Nesenoff: So you're saying the Jews go back to Poland and Germany? Thomas: And America and everywhere else.) It doesn't belong in quotation marks, but is the clear reference of her comments. That's non-conjectural. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- The "tell them" was in response to "any comments about Israel", the them refers to Israel, perhaps Israelis. But if you insist on using only her own words then perhaps you should remove the word "Jews" from 'and Jews should go back to "Poland. Germany.... and America and everywhere else.' as she never said the word "Jews". nableezy - 21:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- And there are a number of sources that specifically say that she meant Jews and Israelis with her comment "Tell them" yet you weren't sure that she meant Israelis; in your words at 21:06 "perhaps Israelis". So why are you so sure here that she meant "Palestinians" and want to place it in the lead? It should take you at least as much effort to jump to this conclusion like the one you were afraid of and used a "perhaps". We can't write articles with any "perhaps" because it is conjecture and injecting our understanding into her words. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nableezy, her apology was written by a professional damage contol writer, but her coments were said by her. We can't use the words written later for her in an apology to conjecture what she meant in her comments. I think it's simple. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Nableezy I concur with Hertz who said what I wanted to say, but I had already prepared a line by line analysis so here it is.
If you can remove the word "Jews" and the statement would still make sense then it's fine with me. If some words need to be added for clarity they should not be based on conjecture.
"Tell them" means "Israel" (like you said) as the question was: "any comments on Israel"? Using our words "Israelis" or "Jews" would be conjecture.
"These people" means "the people of Palestine" because she is continuing her comment about Israel getting out of Palestine. Using our words “Arabs” or “Palestinians” would be conjecture.
“They go home” means “Israelis” or “Jews” as only people can go. Israel a country cannot go anywhere. Using our words “Israelis” or “Jews” would be conjecture except that in the next exchange it becomes clear that Thomas means “Jews” (like Hertz said).
In that exchange Nesenoff asks her: “So you're saying the Jews go back to Poland and Germany”? To which she answers: “And America and everywhere else”, so she is clearly saying that “Jews go back to Poland and Germany and America and everywhere else but Palestine” So using “Jews” would not be conjecture.
Lastly, Thomas says “Why push people out of there”? Here she clearly means the people who have lived in Palestine and she surely doesn’t mean the Jews but the Arabs, so maybe “Arabs” can be used even if she didn’t say it, but using “Palestinians” would already be pure conjecture. I think it’s pretty clear. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- "These people" is a reference to those "living under occupation". There is no ambiguity there. And sources say she was talking about the Palestinians, I already provided two, including a piece in ynet. nableezy - 22:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- In a previous comment of yours at 21:06 you write that: "The "tell them" was in response to "any comments about Israel", the them refers to Israel, perhaps Israelis". So to you it is "perhaps" Israelis, and you aren't definitely sure. Here she is speaking about people living there before, which in context she cannot mean the Jews living there before, therefore we must assume that she means "Arabs"; but that's still far less conjecture then using "Palestinians". And besides she never uses those words nor responds to others using it unlike her response to Nesenoff that Jews go back to Poland and Germany and America and everywhere else. So using "Jews" would not be conjecture but using "Palestinians" would. We can't inject our understandings into her words because that would be conjecture. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- The reason I express ambivalence about whether "tell them" is a reference to Israel or the Israelis is because the usage of them could conceivably be directed at the state, "tell Israel to get the hell out of Palestine", or the people, "tell the Israelis to get the hell out of Palestine". The usage of "people" in "these people" removes any ambiguity as to what "these" could refer to in "these people", it has to be a reference to a set of people. Besides that, there are reliable sources that say "these people" was a reference to the Palestinians. With that your argument about "inject[ing] our understandings" is moot, it is no longer simply "[my] understanding", it is something reported by numerous reliable sources. nableezy - 23:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- In a previous comment of yours at 21:06 you write that: "The "tell them" was in response to "any comments about Israel", the them refers to Israel, perhaps Israelis". So to you it is "perhaps" Israelis, and you aren't definitely sure. Here she is speaking about people living there before, which in context she cannot mean the Jews living there before, therefore we must assume that she means "Arabs"; but that's still far less conjecture then using "Palestinians". And besides she never uses those words nor responds to others using it unlike her response to Nesenoff that Jews go back to Poland and Germany and America and everywhere else. So using "Jews" would not be conjecture but using "Palestinians" would. We can't inject our understandings into her words because that would be conjecture. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Let me remind you. I said: "what is hypocrisy, is to infer that 'these people' is a reference to Palestinians but not to infer that 'tell them' means Jews and Israelis"; to which you said: "The 'tell them' was in response to 'any comments about Israel', the them refers to Israel, perhaps Israelis".
- The complete quote from Thomas is that: "tell them to get out of Palestine", meaning that she doesn’t recognize Israel (therefore calling it Palestine, even though he asked her about Israel), nor does she recognize the right of any Jews living there, telling them to get out. In case we aren’t sure that she meant that the Jews should get out, it becomes clear when she answers Nesonoff’s question: "So you're saying the Jews go back to Poland and Germany"? To which she responds: "and America and everywhere else", so she has made it clear that she means the Jews to get out. All this is clear from the direct exchange and words used, and no conjecture is needed to use "Israel" or "Jews". But to use "Israelis" which wasn’t used in the conversation would already be conjecturing and even you admitted to that when you said "perhaps Israelis", showing that you weren’t really sure, not withstanding you now saying that you were sure but said "perhaps" anyway because you meant that you weren't sure if she meant Israel the state or Israelis the people.
- Similarly to "Israelis" not used in their exchange, "Palestinians" was also not used, and we would need an interpretation to say that when she said "these people" she didn’t mean "Arabs" (the equivalent of "Jews") but meant "Palestinians" (the equivalent of "Israelis"). If Israelis is a "perhaps" then "Palestinians" is an even bigger "perhaps", so using it would be taking it a little too far by using conjecture. Besides, that from the last part of their exchange it becomes clear what she meant by "these people" that she meant the "Arabs"; because she refers to them as people "who have lived there for centuries" clearly meaning the "Arabs". To suggest that she meant that Palestinians as opposed to Arabs were living there for centuries would be putting words into her mouth and conjecture and we can't assume anything, but use what we have.
- To sum it all up, "Israel" and "Jews" can be used, because it is not conjecture. "Palestine" can be used because it is not conjecture. "Israelis" and "Palestinians" cannot be used, because it would be conjecture. "Arabs" although not explicit in the exchange, can probably be used and I would not object to it.
- I hope this is abundantly clear by now to everyone (what is conjecture and what is not conjecture) and we don’t have to rehash this over and over after being archived. Let's use her own words and not add any needless conjecture. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I won't take issue with anything you said above except the very last bit -- you say "Let's use her own words..." I'm fine with that in certain circumstances, but the way her own words are used in the current lead is unfair for the reasons I have said so many times and which no-one has taken issue with. I mean, it wouldn't be okay to say: 'Thomas retired after having intercourse with an elephant and saying "tell them to get the hell out of Israel"' -- at the least, that's not justified by the dictum "use her own words." It's not her own words that I object to, it's the bit that's not in quote-marks. And I don't think we could use her words and get a fair representation of what actually happened without making the lead unduly lengthy; but anyway, if one must use her own words (not sure why, when her words are in the article and we can have a clearly non-conjectural lead that doesn't have her words), then I'd prefer the bulky thing to the inaccurate thing. That's all I'm saying. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- If people who actually have objections to the above could present them here before rather than after changes are made, that would be appreciated; it would avoid that whole 'reversion-reversion-reversion' back-and-forth that goes on. I may be alone in this, but I find that kind of thing irksome. Thanks 203.45.146.36 (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think your hypothetical is possibly insulting, and I would advise you to rephrase, given that this is a BLP. Other than that, can't see what point you're maiking. IronDuke 03:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Um, I can't see how it's insulting, as I'm not saying anything about her whatsoever. But whatever, it doesn't matter, I won't say it again, other examples will suffice (if any are indeed needed) -- please elaborate on what about my point you don't understand. I have said it quite a few times in quite a few ways, and until I understand what you're stuck on I will be stabbing in the dark trying to rephrase it in a way that accounts for the bit you don't follow. Thanks 203.45.146.36 (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- THe most explicit phrasing of my point that I have given to you so far is, I think, "My point is that the article makes an equivocation between assenting to something and saying something. The article claims the latter happened when in fact it was the former. Now you may say that’s not important, but it’s not an idiosyncrasy of mine: lots of people think that’s not a fair equivocation to make – law courts, for instance, strive to avoid leading questions. I think the readers should get to make their mind up over whether or not it matters, just as you and I got to do." So just go through it and tell me what you don't follow. Thanks. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 03:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- I do indeed say it isn't important. You are quite correct when you say that "law courts... strive to avoid leading questions" if by "law courts" you imply "on TV and in movies." In real courts "leading" questions are asked as a matter of course. This has, of course, not a particle to do with Wikipedia policy, or even common sense, for that matter. I also emphatically agree with you that readers should always - must always -- make up their own minds, and that being a complete non sequitur here dims my enthusiastic agreement not at all. IronDuke 23:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- THe most explicit phrasing of my point that I have given to you so far is, I think, "My point is that the article makes an equivocation between assenting to something and saying something. The article claims the latter happened when in fact it was the former. Now you may say that’s not important, but it’s not an idiosyncrasy of mine: lots of people think that’s not a fair equivocation to make – law courts, for instance, strive to avoid leading questions. I think the readers should get to make their mind up over whether or not it matters, just as you and I got to do." So just go through it and tell me what you don't follow. Thanks. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 03:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Ironduke, you say: "You are quite correct when you say that "law courts... strive to avoid leading questions" if by "law courts" you imply "on TV and in movies."" Hah, well that's a fair point, I did oversimplify the issue; but again I think you're making too much of the example and not focussing on the merits of what it was an example of. So, okay, you don't like my 'for instance' (for whatever reason). But that was just a 'for instance' -- do you disagree with the rest? That is, do you disagree with: "[To think that there's an important difference between answering a leading question and making a statement] is not an idiosyncrasy of mine: lots of people think that’s not a fair equivocation to make"?
- As for whether it has a 'particle' to do with wikipedia policy, well we don't want to misrepresent the facts, do we? Especially when such a misrepresentation would influence a reader's opinion? If the reader is like me (and, perhaps, unlike the law courts) and does think that there is an important difference between answering a leading question and making a statement, then saying that the one happened when the other actually happened would influence the reader's opinion, right? And surely we don't want to do that? 203.45.146.36 (talk) 10:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe you making a classic distinction without a difference. If you can find a good RS who thinks the hair-splitting is notable, please quote them in the body of the article. I do not believe--see no evidence--that the reader’s opinion will be affected in the way that you indicate it will. IronDuke 18:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- As for whether it has a 'particle' to do with wikipedia policy, well we don't want to misrepresent the facts, do we? Especially when such a misrepresentation would influence a reader's opinion? If the reader is like me (and, perhaps, unlike the law courts) and does think that there is an important difference between answering a leading question and making a statement, then saying that the one happened when the other actually happened would influence the reader's opinion, right? And surely we don't want to do that? 203.45.146.36 (talk) 10:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, so you believe I am making a 'classic distinction without a difference.' I take it you mean by that that you don't think there is an important difference between answering a leading question and making a statement? That's okay, that's up to you. But if lots of readers would, then we shouldn't misrepresent the facts in a way that would influence those readers' opinions, right? I mean I can take that premiss as red, no?
- Right, so, let's just see what's left. You agree that an equivocation is being made between answering a leading question and saying something, yes? It seems you're saying that the distinction is there but it's just irrelevant. And okay, it's your prerogative to say that it's irrelevant, I'm just trying to get it clear where our disagreement lies. I mean, you could disagree with this and the above, but I take it from what you said that you don't. In any case, it's best to get the premisses separated; it helps for clarity.
- So I think we're stuck on whether or not the reader would think that there's an important difference between answering a leading question and making a statement. Perhaps you as the reader wouldn't give it a second thought (I, on the other hand, sure as shit do -- I don't think she meant 'Jews' and I think it in part because she never used the word (I think if she had have come up with the phrasing herself she wouldn't have used Jews as I'm guessing she's well aware that some Jews in Israel/Palestine can't 'go back' to wherever they came from as they/their family never left that area); and I also know I'm more likely to fail to instantly see the implications of certain phrasings when the phrasings aren't my own), but you're not necessarily 'the reader.' Now, obviously, there are lots of readers and we can't pander to the lowest common denominator (or maybe we should?), but if there are a significant number of potential readers who would have their opinion skewed by our wording in this article then (if you agree to the above two premisses) we'd want to avoid that.
- Let me try the old 'premiss-conclusion' thing so it's easier to see what's going on in my argument:
- 1) The article shouldn’t misrepresent the facts in a way that will influence the reader’s opinion.
- 2) 'The reader' is someone whose opinion is influenced by an equivocation between answering a leading question and making statement.
- 3) The article makes an equivocation between answering a leading question and making a statement.
- 4) Therefore, the article shouldn’t make an equivocation between answering a leading question and making a statement.
- I think that's valid. Now, I'm fully aware that I haven't given an argument whatsoever for 2) -- I had just assumed it was common knowledge. But what type/degree of evidence for 2) would be satisfactory for you? Obviously, 'the reader' shouldn't just be one weird guy (or could it, according to wikipedia policy?), it should be a significant number of people. So any source I find should say that a lot or a significant number of people place importance on the distinction between answering a leading question and making a statement. And obviously the source should be reliable -- perhaps a noted psychologist, or anthropologist, or something from a reputable anthropological journal, or perhaps the regular ol' reliable periodicals would do? And you probably don't want one source: one person can make a mistake. Two, three such reliable sources? I know that people don't often give more than this, but because of your scepticism perhaps you'd want more? I don't know -- you tell me.
- Note, though, that the above argument doesn't call for a reliable source to say that there is an important difference between answering a leading question and making a statement in this particular case. But that's okay: if someone says it's always important, that will apply to this particular case (in that this case is a particular of that generalisation). I hope you can concur with that.
- Anyway, as I'm lazy, I've not yet looked up if such sources exist to justify 2), so I'm not making up conditions that I know I can satisfy. In fact, I think it's quite conceivable that even if such sources exist I will be too lazy to put in the requisite effort to find them. I had hoped that you'd just know 2) to be true as I think I know it to be true, so this is a sticking point for me. But can we agree that if I do find the sources, you'll leave it alone; and if I don't find the sources, I'll leave it alone? Of course, you can doubt the applicability of my sources -- I may say that source x justifies y because of obvious implications in the source (which was the issue with Fan's sources, if I remember correctly). Then of course you should argue with me and I'd do it for you if you didn't! But can we agree that if I do get clearly applicable reliable sources then that that would settle the issue, and if I can't then that would also settle the issue too? Thanks for your time, 203.45.146.36 (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Also, could you perhaps explain why there is no onus on you to show that people’s opinions won’t be influenced by this misrepresentation of facts? Why ought we not err on the side of caution and not misrepresent facts unless it is proven that such a misrepresentation won’t influence a reader’s opinion? Just curious. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- For someone who self-indentifies as lazy, you sure put a lot of effort into your talk post. Perhaps you could direct it towards actually getting useful sources?
- Heh. Didn't see this before. I don't want to say that's not a good point -- it probably is. I'm not sure what to say to it. Let me try and explain what may be the case. Perhaps I was being a little too unfair on myself: I think I just characterised myself as 'lazy' because I kind of like pejoratives. If I was to be more accurate, I'd probably say that what's really causing me to avoid the Google-research thing is a desire (met or not) to be cautious. Basically, because my points on this page are more 'procedural' it doesn't require me to be an HT scholar or an Arab/Israeli expert or a US governance enthusiast -- it just requires that I apply a little bit of philosophical nouse to what other people have said. It requires, if you will, a 'transferable skill' -- whether I'm writing a Masters on the Philosophy of Science or critiquing an argument that assumes two mutually inclusive sentences are mutually exclusive, the same type of thought-processes are required. But the type of research you call for in the section below is, in my opinion, all too easy to be flippant about. I don't consider myself (despite what people may think about me being a POV editor -- check out my edit history, I'm hardly someone who gives a damn about Arab/Israeli affairs or anything of the sort) well enough versed in the issue to do a more-than-cursory examination of the evidence on offer, and I'm worried that any actual expert (not wiki-editor, mind; the bar for which is exceptionally low) would consider even a considerable effort on my part 'cursory' in the context of such a large debate. I could spend hours, or days, or weeks, on the internet, and my fear is that I would still have the type of knowledge that the writer I'm objecting to has; that is, not enough. I have no such fear of pointing out where others have gone wrong if all that is required is to read what they have written and analyse it in a logical manner. So that might explain why I put effort into the one task and not the other; although, 'laziness' sounds funnier. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes! At last we begin to agree. By your own admission, you know virtually nothing about I-P affairs or Helen Thomas, your knowledge is "cursory." Also, by your actions you do not understand WP policy at all. So you should probably... wait... I'm reading your post agin. You are offering something, and that's a"philosophical nouse" combined with an unnamed "transferable skill." If that doesn't smash my reliance on WP policy and reliable sources, I don't know what will. IronDuke 03:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Heh. Didn't see this before. I don't want to say that's not a good point -- it probably is. I'm not sure what to say to it. Let me try and explain what may be the case. Perhaps I was being a little too unfair on myself: I think I just characterised myself as 'lazy' because I kind of like pejoratives. If I was to be more accurate, I'd probably say that what's really causing me to avoid the Google-research thing is a desire (met or not) to be cautious. Basically, because my points on this page are more 'procedural' it doesn't require me to be an HT scholar or an Arab/Israeli expert or a US governance enthusiast -- it just requires that I apply a little bit of philosophical nouse to what other people have said. It requires, if you will, a 'transferable skill' -- whether I'm writing a Masters on the Philosophy of Science or critiquing an argument that assumes two mutually inclusive sentences are mutually exclusive, the same type of thought-processes are required. But the type of research you call for in the section below is, in my opinion, all too easy to be flippant about. I don't consider myself (despite what people may think about me being a POV editor -- check out my edit history, I'm hardly someone who gives a damn about Arab/Israeli affairs or anything of the sort) well enough versed in the issue to do a more-than-cursory examination of the evidence on offer, and I'm worried that any actual expert (not wiki-editor, mind; the bar for which is exceptionally low) would consider even a considerable effort on my part 'cursory' in the context of such a large debate. I could spend hours, or days, or weeks, on the internet, and my fear is that I would still have the type of knowledge that the writer I'm objecting to has; that is, not enough. I have no such fear of pointing out where others have gone wrong if all that is required is to read what they have written and analyse it in a logical manner. So that might explain why I put effort into the one task and not the other; although, 'laziness' sounds funnier. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is just boring attempts at ridicule. Do you have anything worthwhile to say, Ironduke? Surely you can understand that someone may say: "Source x says y. If y, then z. Therefore B" and you don't need to know a jot about what x, y, z and B are to say that's just not a good arugment.
- If all you've got to offer is ridiculous attempts at ridicule that have no bearing on the issues raised whatsoever, then please leave the editing to those of us with 'philosophical nouse.' 203.45.146.36 (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- "1) The article shouldn’t misrepresent the facts in a way that will influence the reader’s opinion."
- Wrong. The article shouldn’t misrepresent the facts at all, full stop.
- "2) 'The reader' is someone whose opinion is influenced by an equivocation between answering a leading question and making statement."
- Um, what? I don't know what the reader is influenced by. I see no equivocation (because there is none).
- "3) The article makes an equivocation between answering a leading question and making a statement."
- No.
- "4) Therefore, the article shouldn’t make an equivocation between answering a leading question and making a statement."
- No.
- I would welcome you doing anthropological research into the ways on which humans perceive things, but it would be OR in this article. If you have anything specific to HT, I am all ears. Otherwise, don't trouble yourself.
- And by the way, the whole "leading question" thing is a red herring anyway. It wasn't leading, it was simply a question. One which she answered. I don't know how else he could have asked it. And it doesn't matter, we're not on TV. You have no case, counselor. IronDuke 00:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- "1) The article shouldn’t misrepresent the facts in a way that will influence the reader’s opinion."
- 1) Okay, good.
- 2) That's something I said I hadn't yet argued for.
- 3) Oh, well, that's interesting. Okay, so that's what this is turning on then. I had thought it was 2, but given your response to 1), 2) is irrelevant, so it's really 3) that's in contention. Well it was good to sort that out.
- Now, why was it you don't agree with 3)? Because you think that it wasn't a leading question she was asked? Well what would a leading question be to you? As for how else he could have asked it, well I don't see why that's relevant; even if there is no non-leading alternative to some leading question x this does not automatically mean that x is not a leading question. That would certainly be an interesting definition of a leading question!
- Actually, thinking about it, 3) doesn't even matter given your response to 1), I think. We are most definitely misrepreseting the facts in the lead: we are saying she said something she didn't say. Now maybe it's irrelevant and maybe it's hair-splitting but the facts are not being accurately reported. She did not say for Jews to go back to wherever they came from; she didn't say Jews at all and I know you don't care and I know she assented to the use but it's plain as the nose on your face that she actually didn't say the word Jews even if that's irrelevant and doesn't matter and what-have-you.
- So surely you have no legs to stand on. If you really mean your response to 1) and you know that she didn't actually say the word 'Jews' then on what grounds are you telling me to not make a change of some sort?
- Just a quick PS: You say: "I would welcome you doing anthropological research into the ways on which humans perceive things, but it would be OR in this article." But I never talked about doing my own research, I talked about finding reliable sources for what I claim to be an anthropolgical fact. You also say, "If you have anything specific to HT, I am all ears. Otherwise, don't trouble yourself." But why can't you understand the concept of HT being a particular of a generalisation? Anyway, these things don't matter now as 2) isn't what troubles you, but still. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- You aren't getting this. Your thoughts about it possibly being a leading question are irrelevant. My refutation of your thoughts is equally irrelevant. You seem not to understand what WP:OR is. If you can find a RS that feels as you do about this specific case, go to it. Otherwise, the issue is dead. IronDuke 01:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not getting it because you're not making a whole bunch of sense, unfortunately. Look, first, given your response to 1), it doesn't matter whether it was a leading question or not -- all that matters is that the facts are not being accurately reported, whether it's a hair-splitting difference or a difference of great magnitude. You said that we should never misrepresent the facts; which would include facts which are less than a hair's breadth apart as well as facts that are more than a hair's breadth apart. You've admitted there's a hair-splitting difference so (given your response to 1) I'd agree that "the issue is dead."
- Also, not that it matters given what you've already admitted, but why do you fail understand how generalisations apply to all specific cases? The phrase "All X's are Ys" applies to all x's; why would I need to find a phrase that relates only to a given x?
- Beyond this, don't you see what a crazy precedent you'd be starting? If we have a wikipedia article that says "Thomas flew on rainbows and retired on June 7," and based this on (in an editor's opinion) there being only a hair-splitting difference between flying on rainbows and making the comments Thomas made, the rule 'Find a reliable source that says in this case flying on rainbows and making the comments Thomas made are not to be equated' is what you'd be asking for. Or, more generally, I guess the rule your appealing to would be, "If a wikipedia article makes an equivocation you think is crazy, you need to find a reliable source that says this particular equivocation is crazy.' If that's not your rule, then please rephrase it in a way that you are comfortable with. If it is your rule, Wikipedia would almost undoubtedly be allowed to say that "Thomas flew on rainbows and retired on June 7" as it is very unlikely a reliable source is ever going to write something so specific to a random wikipedia line. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hi everyone, been away but am back now. I see that our friend "203.45.146.36" is dying to make changes, and is asking me to explain my position before the 'reversion-reversion-reversion back-and-forth' starts.
- My position was made clear in the numerous above arguments (and the archived ones) that I would have preferred a "... resigned due to outrage over her comments about Israel" for which I have already brought numerous times the RS's stating so. But due to the need of some to water it all down by making vocabulary summersaults and insist on the un-grammarly "negative reaction" which won't tell the reader the truth why she resigned, therefore I’m left with no choice but to go with the second best option which uses Thomas's own words which will then make it clear as day to the reader why she resigned. I don't think that my word by word analysis above needs to be rehashed once again.
- In short, the sentence should not end with "...she made about Israel, Jews and Palestine", because she did not resign for making comments about Palestine but for making comments about Israel. Simple as pie.
- Using her own words seems to be the best way to go because it leaves no room for misinterpretation. Why would anyone want a vague and an ambiguous lead when they can have a clear one? If we can’t agree on our words (based on RS’s of course) then we have no choice but to use her own words, which is as NPOV as can be. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Fan, it's great you are responding and attempting to give reasons for you position, but please, don't ignore what I've said again. It's simply not enough to state what you said in the beginning when people have responded to you, given objections and proposed their own questions. In your next response, please try to take into account what I actually say. Otherwise I will have to assume that you are not really partaking in a discussion, but are simply being stubborn. I don't want to assume this, so prove me wrong :)
- Okay, so, first, you know by now that the sentence I'm referring to when I say 'We should use the sentence that ends in "...she made about Israel, Jews and Palestine"' is in full "Thomas retired on June 7, 2010, following negative reactions to comments she made about Israel, Jews and Palestine." This sentence makes no claims whatsoever about WHY she retired, so your objection that she retired because of this/that doesn't show this sentence to be wrong or flawed in any way. It's entirely possible that you're right about why she retired but that my sentence is entirely correct also because one does not contradict the other! You must address this if the debate is to go forward; otherwise you will simply fail to take account of the objection made to you.
- You say that using her own words is as NPOV as can be, and yet you know this is too simplistic a statement. You also know that, in this case, I have argued that this particular use of her words is misleading and misrepresents the facts. I would rehash my piont here if it was archived, but it is actually stated a number of times in this exact section. So please respond to that, too, or at least mention to pretend like you're actually reading replies.
- So please, respond to my allegations that your initial argument against my lead just don't work, and respond to my argument that the current lead is no good. I'm not 'dying to make changes,' I'm just 'dying' to actually figure out what we should go with and not responding to what I've said doesn't help that cause. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- What I think you’re missing, Fan, and what I think is leading to all your posts, is that I’m not asking you to explain your position (I knew what that was a long time ago and have long since given responses/objections to it), I’m asking you/anyone to explain what problems they have with what I’ve said. This is an important point as a recognition of it on your behalf would hopefully help us to further the debate rather than constantly re-set it to when the objections to you had not been posted. I really do think that, after all this time, we should be able to further the debate, and actually saying how/why I'm wrong (or even right) is really the only way to do that. Sorry if that sounds snide, I don't mean it to be, I just really hope that we can move beyond where we've been for a good long while now. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- There is no point in not quoting her. She wasn’t misquoted, it hasn’t been taken out of context. The only possible rationale to avoid the quote would be to try to protect HT, and we don’t do that here on an issue this big regarding a person this notable. IronDuke 18:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- What I think you’re missing, Fan, and what I think is leading to all your posts, is that I’m not asking you to explain your position (I knew what that was a long time ago and have long since given responses/objections to it), I’m asking you/anyone to explain what problems they have with what I’ve said. This is an important point as a recognition of it on your behalf would hopefully help us to further the debate rather than constantly re-set it to when the objections to you had not been posted. I really do think that, after all this time, we should be able to further the debate, and actually saying how/why I'm wrong (or even right) is really the only way to do that. Sorry if that sounds snide, I don't mean it to be, I just really hope that we can move beyond where we've been for a good long while now. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well that would depend on our argument above. Let's leave conclusions about 'the only possible rationale' until we're sure about that. I absolutely and totally disagree with you as I have no intention whatsoever of protecting HT except from unfairness and POV editing. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- She was not misquoted. There is nothing else to say. IronDuke 00:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Come on Ironduke you have to understand that's not all there is to say. Someone can be accurately quoted and yet the bits outside the quotes (the bits that as a matter of fact comprise the majority of most, if not all, articles on Wikipedia) be false. Let's just have our conversation above because this thread right here is getting a bit ludicrous. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Are you a wealthy individual, .36? The reason I ask is because you're going to have to start paying for my time pretty soon. I already obviated your point about "bits outside quotes." The quote was not out of context. Your opinion that it was is of no relevance; you must demonstrate it with sources -- for starters. IronDuke 01:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- And are you wealthy, Ironduke? The reason that I ask is because you're going to have to start paying me for my time pretty soon. Playlet time:
- YOU: "The earth is flat."
- ME: "Oh, why do you say that?"
- YOU: "Here, take a look at my arguments."
- ME: "Oh, I see; they're kinda shit, Ironduke. Here's why."
- YOU: "Oh, um ... gotta run! Anyway keep the page how I want iiiiiitt......." [He says while running into the distance].
- ME: "What a strange man."
- As for "I already obviated your point about "bits outside quotes."" Um, fine, so you disagree with the statement: "She was not misquoted. There is nothing else to say." I disagree too! 203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Like you last point best. It's almost Dadaist. You don't understand what's going on! Fun and laughs and scads of wasted time for all!
- ME: "The earth is flat."
- YOU: "Oh, why do you say that?"
- ME: "I have lots of good sources which back me up."
- YOU: "Oh, yes, but I have a philosophical nouse, don't you know. Not that easy to come by."
- ME: "I daresy you're right. Did you have any sources to contradict me, though?" [He says while hoping this well-meaning person will actually start to pay attention].
- YOU: "What part of 'philosophical nouse' do you not understand?"
- ME: <Nods, backs away slowly, gets back to actual work.> IronDuke 03:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, oh, I don't understand?!?! Oh, brilliant, oh man, thanks for the contribution! Oh and I see -- all you need is sources! Doesn't matter how the fuck you use them? Well now I get it! Wikipedia is awesome!
- Come on dude, if this is all you're gonna do, leave it alone, eh? If you know you're caught and you have nothing left to say to the arguments presented, then just leave it be and no-one has to mention it again. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I suppose I should have followed my first instinct, which was that having a discussion with you would be a waste of time. My second instinct is that you’ll get bored eventually and wander away, which I may end up precipitating by declining further parley. For the final time (I hope), if you have no real work to contribute, and no understanding of WP policy, I’m not interested in having my work challenged by you. IronDuke 22:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Don't understand. Which bits outside the quotes don't you like; and to what do you want them changed? Fandriampahalamana (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Fan, read above. If it was archived I would re-state it here, but it's in my last reply to you in this very section so I hope it's okay if I just point you towards that. Thanks, 203.45.146.36 (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I went back and read what you wrote. You say that using her own words the way it is currently used is like saying that: 'Thomas retired after having intercourse with an elephant and saying "tell them to get the hell out of Israel"'.
I don’t know how you try to compare simple understandable words that the media used to something totally out in left field about "intercourse with an elephant", that’s why I ask you what exactly don’t you like in it?
You say that you don't think we could use her words and get a fair representation of what actually happened without making the lead unduly lengthy. First, I don’t understand why we can’t get a fair representation as is; it’s not complicated at all. She wasn’t vague but clearly stated her views on Israel as clear as can be. Second if you feel that it must be lengthy to give it a fair representation in your eyes, then that’s fine with me, make it as long as you want, but please no conjecture; conjecture that is in your eyes fair representation will not be fair representation in the eyes of those who hold different views then you.
You say that you’re not sure why we must use her own words when we can have a clearly non-conjectural lead that doesn't have her words. That’s exactly the point that we CANNOT have a non-conjectural lead without her words, because both point of views will fight forever over which non-conjectural words should be used. The only pure NPOV option we have left is to use her own words, clear words which cannot be misinterpreted only by omitting them and using phony non-conjecture in its place.
You say that the lead should say that: "Thomas retired on June 7, 2010, following negative reactions to comments she made about Israel, Jews and Palestine”, although you know full well that she didn’t resign because of making comments about Palestine. If you’re going to tell me that you do believe so, then bring proof to why you believe so, and more importantly as to why you think that we should incorporate that belief in the lead.
Lastly you object to the bits that’s not in the quote-marks. Which bits don’t you like; and to what do you want them changed? Fandriampahalamana (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Coupla other things
I think this page needs quite a bit of clean-up, but to start things off I'm going to mention two things that particularly popped out to me.
First, under the heading 'Obama Administration,' we have some very clear original research going on: the article reports a statement of Thomas', and goes on to say "This was an obvious reference to Israel's speculated nuclear weapons arsenal, which both the Israeli and the U.S. governments have refused to acknowledge." If this is such an obvious reference, let the readers infer it; but this is just editorialising. Perhaps we should do as Obama does, and not ""speculate" on the matter."
The other thing that jumps out as particularly slanted is from the section 'George W Bush Administration.' It quotes a question Thomas posed to Press Secretary Snow, and follows with Snow's response. All good. But then a particularly random (although well-sourced) fact pops up. We are told 'other members of the press weighed in,' and then we are given only one example of this (the example being, "According to Washington Post television critic Tom Shales, questions like the one above have sounded more like "tirades" and "anti-Israeli rhetoric""). This reads like someone simply endorsing Shales' view and trying to fit it into the article. Is the purpose of this quote meant to justify the preceding claim (that 'other members of the press weighed in')? If so, it doesn't -- more quotes would be necessary, as the claim is about members of the press. Further, if there are members of the press who supported Thomas, then a secondary quote should come from one of them (to balance things out a little). It may be that no-one supported her, but then the preceding claim could be a little more accurate: it could read, 'Other members of the press voiced their opinions, all of whom issued condemnation.' And if that's what happened, report that.
But to justify the inclusion of just one opinion on the basis of the preceeding sentence 'Other members of the press weighed in' would appear to be thoroughly insufficient. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Alright, this has been here for a while (to the extent that it was archived), and no-one's responded to it, so I've made the changes. Please, no-one say that I "didn't give an explanation." 203.45.146.36 (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- You should feel free to find another quote, if you like. BTW, are you also using 203.45.113.155? Thanks. IronDuke 21:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Whether I find another quote or not doesn't change the fact that the one quote doesn't justify the preceding sentence.
- I've only been using the one computer, so the IP address should always be the same, shouldn't it? I don't think I've ever been 203.45.113.155. Perhaps you could direct me to something this IP use has said, then I could be sure. My apologies if I have been confusing things by using different IP addresses. I should hope I have not. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- As for the new quote, "Reagan administration spokesman Larry Speakes described Thomas as having "strong anti-Israeli feelings," first, could we perhaps try to have some balance by putting in someone who 'weighed in' but didn't criticise; and, second, this is not a reference to what Thomas said, it is a statement about Thomas (whether drawn from what she said or not). 203.45.146.36 (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- In the immortal words of Chingy, "It wasn't me." 203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- As for me actually doing research myself, now you've discovered my weakness -- I'm a lazy bugger! I fully accept that criticism; however, I don't think that affects whether or not I am right about the imbalance or accuaracy of the section in question. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Doesn't affect it? It douses your point with gasoline and sets it aflame, is what it does. Allow me to paraphrase, in the form of a playlet.
- Me: The earth is round.
- You: Yes, I understand there are sources out there which allege that the earth is round, but what of other sources which may take a contrary view? Can we not have balance?"
- Me: Well, I don't know that such sources exist. Perhaps you could find some?
- You: I don't need to find sources to tell you that a theoretical possibility exists that some other view may be espoused. Someone needs to go out there and get those (possibly nonexistent) sources right now.
- Me: Uh, no.
- Exeunt all. IronDuke 02:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Then you're not reading my initial post.
Here's how it would actually go:
YOU: All planets are round.
ME: Oh yeah, you got any evidence?
YOU: Um, I can prove the earth is round.
ME: Well that doesn't justify saying that other planets are round.
YOU: Have you got evidence that they aren't?
ME: No, too lazy to get it. Do you think they are?
YOU: Well, I reckon it's probably pretty easy to check (I could just Google it), but instead I'll just write a Wikipedia article saying that they are.
The difference here, Ironduke, is that I'm not claiming anyone said this/that. So I don't need evidence for saying that someone said this/that.
The person writing the article, on the other hand, should have good evidence (and not just generalise from an isolated case); and should, if possible, be balanced. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Alas, I think my playlet confused you; your counter-example had nothing to do with what I wrote. I’ll try to simplify: I have sources, you do not, the end. <bows> IronDuke 23:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
No, I didn't get confused by your playlet; I just think it's not a very good fit. What I'm saying is that, if neither you or I can be bothered writing a balanced article (or bit of an article), isn’t it best to not have it? We try to achieve balance; if there is no balance, we don’t say “Oh what the heck, let’s write it anyway.” It’s better that Wikipedia not say something than that it says something unbalanced. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
You say I don't have sources; but which of my points relies on sources? That the single quote doesn't justify the preceding sentence (and the purpose of its inclusion is otherwise hard to glean), or that -- if there is a quote to balance the article -- the writer of the artilce should write the article balanced (and if there is no such quote then the preceding sentence ought to be changed)? 203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's only unbalanced if there are good sources out there which contradict the quotes in question, which is to say, the lack of balance is purely theoretical. When you write "...if neither you or I can be bothered writing a balanced article..." your premise is false. You cannot be bothered to even determine if the article in question is unbalanced, much less fix it in that event. I've enjoyed this, but I don't have tons of time and what I do have I try to spend doing actual work here, not carping from the sidelines. I hope you'll join that process. IronDuke 02:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
No no no -- here's from my original post:
"It may be that no-one supported her, but then the preceding claim could be a little more accurate: it could read, 'Other members of the press voiced their opinions, all of whom issued condemnation.' And if that's what happened, report that."
If there are, then keep it balanced.
As to where the facts lie -- well, shouldn't the onus be on the person who wrote the thing to figure that out? In either case, though, I'm saying something should be changed. Maybe that's wrong, but that's the claim. So it doesn't matter what the facts are; my suggestion doesn't rely on that. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Ironduke: I realise you don't have a lot of time to spend on this, but my original post still hasn't been addressed, in that I am making a 'double-horned' suggestion (that is, whatever the facts, something should change). I just read the thing and I thought, as Precis said, "This page smacks of POV inclusion." It reads like someone has written the first sentence as a way of including the second. But in fact the first sentence doesn't justify the second (no matter the facts -- it's just to do with how 's' is used in the English language), and furthermore a writer aware of the facts could either make a more informative claim ('Other members of the press weighed in, and all were critical' or something), or balance the article. As it stands, it's hard to figure out what actually happened from reading the article. And surely if the writer can't be bothered doing any research beyond reading the article or POV he likes, he shouldn't be writing it. We're tying to be encyclopedic, right? I can't imagine such vagueries, borne of a writer's ignorance, making it into Encyclopedia Britannica. You do the research if you're the writer; the readers get to presume you've done that research, no onus is on them. If you can avoid ambiguity, if you have the knowledge to avoid ambiguity, then avoid it. Vagueries do have a place but when it's borne of a writer's ignorance it doesn't exactly come across as academic or reputable -- and when there's an easy alternative to a vague sentence, which is as succinct as the vague sentence, then I can see no reason to go with the vague sentence.
Anway, that's my problem: it doesn't rely on the facts (if there are quotes to balance it, balance it; if there aren't, say that and don't go for a vague sentence borne of ignorance), so all this talk of facts and my not willing to find out said facts doesn't touch on the issue I raised. So, while I understand you don't have time to keep coming back here and having a back and forth, perhaps you could just give a single response to my actual point and then we could probably end a debate rather quickly. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
If people could object to these points before rather than after changes are made, that would be great; it would avoid that whole 'reversio-reversion-reversion' thing that happens. Thanks 203.45.146.36 (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, since it's been two weeks since my response to the only objector, and as I've since asked for discussion here before changes are made rather than after and there has been no subsequent discussion, I've made the change. Hopefully this will have avoided a 'reversion-reversion-reversion' thing that I'm sure nobody enjoys. Thanks everybody, 203.45.146.36 (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agree w/Iron here. You shouldn't delete properly RS-supported material because of an IDONTLIKEIT rationale. Which is all the above is.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's simply not the rationale. Say what you will about the rationale but please don't ridiculously mischaracterise it. Thanks, 203.45.146.36 (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Emphasis on Ethnicity
Mentioning her ethnicity in the infobox does not follow Wikipedia rules against emphasizing someone's ethnicity. It will be removed.-- And Rew 01:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- There is no such rule, and more importantly, her ethnicity as an arab is notable to recent controversy, it is the ethnic group she self-identifies w/, and it is mentioned several times in this wiki article and in the article's references.You may also wish to see further discussion that was had on earlier, archived versions of this talk page.KeptSouth (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Cultural & Religious Affiliation
'Antiochian Orthodox' is just a subcategory of 'Greek Orthodox' = Greek Orthodox Christians of Syrian, Lebanese and Southern Turkish descent = the group she clearly self-identifies with. That subcategory constitutes an acurate description of Helen Thomas's religious and cultural affiliation BASED ON WHAT SHE WROTE. See formative years (Preface, Chapter 1 & Chapter 2) of her biography "Front Row at the White House" (2000) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.158.109.242 (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)