User talk:Jmabel/Archive 19

Please see

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/American West, it'd be funny if it wasn't sad. Poor guy, I kinda feel sorry for him. Oh, well. -JCarriker 15:36, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Fun

I actually have something non-stressful to notify you of. Please see the map on the Texas sub-region East Texas, its a neat step towards implementing maps on subregions (which is far, far, far, into the future), but the langauge o fthe key is what I have in mind for the national regions. Let me know what you think. (Note while thinking about it: to self check to see if Joe's point on Kansas was updated per the Northern map.) I'm thinking about solicting opinions before implementing the maps on our map page I can see both postives and negatives, again what do you think. On second thought, perhaps this might not be fun for you, my sense of fun is somewhat atipical. -JCarriker 18:39, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

File:US regions-North1.jpg

North with Kansas corrected.

Thanks. Do you think the language is acceptable?-JCarriker 18:52, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

(This may seem redundant) There is a proposal at WikiProject U.S. regions/Maps to replace the current grab bag of U.S. maps with a standardized style. The maps also remove the always, sometimes, and rare categories, in favor of a core area always in a region highlighted in red, while states that may or may not be included in a region are shown in pink. Please comment on the talk page. If approved or revised by participants, I'd like to make the transition within the next two weeks. Thanks. -JCarriker 19:11, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Politeness

Your last comment on Talk:Harghita was answered by Criztu in a not very polite manner in my oppinion; he jammed his lines among yours, thus making the discussion difficult to follow. I tried to ask him to rephrase, but he reverted my edit. So I left him a comment on his talk page. You might have a word on it, too, as it concerns your comment.. Maybe there is a wikipedia policy for or against such practice, that I don't know about? Akiss 08:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Batch Automated Translations

I've run some Batch Automated Translations on your "Biographies of Saint Lucian politicians". Good Luck with it, hopefully it helps. --Tandarts 03:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC) [[1]][reply]

Countering systemic bias

It think creating more user categories like UK Wikipedians would make researching our systemic bias easier. As such, after getting to other user to agree to list themselves, I have created one cat for culture, US Southern Wikipedians, and another cat for generation, Millenial Wikipedians. Think you'd be interested in creating similar user cats that apply to yourself. It seems to me the more user that list themselves in this way the easier it would be to track the bias, (albeit with its own biases, such as self-association.) Please let me know what you think. Thanks. -JCarriker 18:28, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

True the pattern will be incomplete, but I'm more optimistic about people using them just take a look at the UK Wikipedians category and if only half of the people listed under U.S. Southern Wikipedians' notice board, that category will be successful. As fo the millenials self-association is one of our strong points, but as you know I have reservations about broad stereotypes- still I hope (optimism is supposed to be a stong point as well) that it will be as successful as the others. Thanks for your opinon though. -JCarriker 19:00, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Peruvian terrorists: Since when does that word deserves a category ???

Hello there ! It seems that once again the use of this word is causing several problems in some articles. Now even Peruvian Presidents are labeled like that for some users, wich ( I believe ) only causes much more debate. As in some other pages, the use of this word is extremely controvertial.

I have used at the beginning of my edits on Wiki, but I no longer apply it for the sake of the NPOV. Even Tupac Amaru II is in danger to be place in that category !

While some are considerated terrorist by some people, others may see them as fighters in a just cause. Please, help me to prevent the use of these word, and answer me as soon as possible. Messhermit 18:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguation pages

dear jmabel,

I just reverted an edit of you. Of course such a thing is not very polite therefore I will explain you here why. Disambiguation pages are not pages to learn about a topic. Somebody who arrives at a disambiguation page is not just strolling around, but looking for a particular page. Therefore, the only links on a disambig page should be the links to the disambiguated pages, with the exception of difficult cases where a user might actually need a link in order to decide which of the pages is the one he was looking for.

Of course this is a matter of taste and personal opinion. But it is also wikipedia house style, in a sense. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) for more information. I hope you are convinced.

kind regards, lt. --Lenthe 07:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure

Hi. I'd like to request your assistance with this: I've come across this image, which has just recently been uploaded to the website. The uploader listed it as "fair use", but this is clearly not the case (this is from one of them "for men" magazines, maybe Maxim). I changed the tag to "unverified", since I don't know exactly where the image came from, and removed it from the article where it had been posted. This seems like a clear case for deletion though. But I wasn't sure where to list the image: Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion didn't seem quite right, and I couldn't quite settle for Wikipedia:Copyright problems. I've never listed an image for deletion, so I'm bit lost in this one. Can I get some help, if you have the time? Thanks, Redux 03:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I've already listed the image at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Btw, it wasn't from Maxim, it was actually from the Australian FHM. Thanks, Redux 04:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vfd

you recently voted at a VfD.

Your vote appears to be "keep or merge". However, these are fairly mutually exclusive in this particular VFD, so it appears quite ambiguous as to which way you have voted.

Could you clarify your opinion, on, for example, whether Matthew 1:9 should be kept on its own, or merged into Genealogy of Jesus ? ~~~~ 20:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From your comment on my talk page, I'm not sure you are aware of the nature of this (particular) VfD. The VfD was against non-notable verses, e.g. Matthew 1:9 (which just lists 3 otherwise insignificant people and says they are grandfather-father-son). It was explicitely not about verses that were notable, such as Jesus wept and John 3:16, for example.

From what you have said on my talk page, it appears that you are desiring to vote to merge some of the articles, but not any that are noteworthy. And further indicating that you do not consider it the case that 100% of the verses in the bible are noteworthy in their own right. In the VfD (this particular VfD) this is actually more equivalent to a vote to merge, than a vote to keep.

The VFD was specifically created to avoid articles discussing a verse such as "X is Y's father, whose son is Z", and other insignificant elements. It is not about forbidding any article to be created which just discusses one verse, but instead is about preventing non-noteworthy verses being discussed (i.e. about preventing there being an individual article for every single verse in the bible).

Consequently, it would be very much appreciated if you would reconsider your vote. This is not to say that you can't add something like "merge, but keep noteworthy verses" if you have the need to indicate this explicitely. ~~~~ 20:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ragusian Republic

I think that that book Fernand Braudel's History of the Mediterranean in the Age of Philip II might be rather helpful in out dispute. Can you give a hand (I don't know, an internet edition of the book, your short summary of it, please?) Sargeras 16:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We are arguing over the influence of Ragusa; Which influence was more overwhelming, Croatian or Serbian; and whether the Republic of Ragusa should be mentioned in Croatia's history (as a Croatian state) Sargeras 22:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it is very likely possible that the local population has been assimilated into Croats. A lot of Hungarians (and even Germans) now don't even speak their own language and are Orthodox Christians in Voivodina. Eastern Serbia was once populated by Bulgarians, and I don't think that they all WENT from their homes. The coastal Serbian population was CATHOLIC, after all. The founder of the only non-Romeiian (non-Byzantine) dynasties was Stephan Nemanja, from Docleia, and he was a Catholic, though, when his realm expanded rapidly continentally, he changed to Rthodox, due to the ovewhelming Orthodox continentual population of his Realm. Could you please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Croatia and read my last post (to the bottom, from Sargeras), please? Sargeras 10:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, are you there? Sargeras 12:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, we are having a tough aruement, both of us having both weak and concrete evidence of the different. There must be something you could do. Sargeras 12:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, not much help, but, yet, we're having a very tough arguement, both of us having both weak and concrete evidence of the different; you must be able to give something! Sargeras 12:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hm.. you're not there. Sargeras 15:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paine

Hi Jmabel - I am new to this but I just read the newly published book "The life and adventures of William Cobbett". It gives a lot of background on Thomas Paine which you might like to use, especially his dissappointment about being left to rot in a french jail with no help from the USA. As you know it was Cobbett who felt the need to give Paine a more fitting resting place. User:Prluckett 18 July 2005

Ariticle of interest

I thought you might be interested in an ethno stub I created a few minutes ago- Southeastern tribes modeled after Great Basin tribes. Just thought I'd let you know. -JCarriker 20:35, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous user keeps reverting Category:Spanish and Portuguese Jews

Hi Joe, Could you take a look at Category:Spanish and Portuguese Jews if/when you have time. Thanks! :) Olve 06:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrating

Redux left this here. You're welcome to it. I don't smoke. -- Jmabel

Hi! I've just crossed a symbolic milestone. Three thousand edits! I feel like celebrating. Have a cigar! Don't worry, I don't smoke them either, but it's all good :)! Cheers, Redux 14:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you're quite welcome

I just happened to be watching recent changes when he showed up. I'm starting to spend more time here swatting vandals than writing articles ... argh. Nice work on gift economy, btw. Antandrus (talk) 05:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian People

I cited a source, since you had asked for one. I wrote it on the talk page of the Armenian People article, please take a look at it.--Moosh88 17:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

list of White supremacists deletion vote

Hey Jmabel. I've noticed you contributing to some articles on race-related matters, and wondered if you might want to weigh in on Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion/List of White supremacists. Take care. NoahB 18:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh. The link should be Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of White supremacists. Sorry bout that.NoahB 18:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Typographical remarks

Hi Joe,

I noticed that you modified Căile_Ferate_Române to correct some "s=>ş and t=>ţ". It's worth noting, though, that the correct symbol in Romanian for the sound /ʃ/ (/sh/ in English -- see IPA, if you're not already familiar with the notation) is not ş but is rather ș. The same is true for ţ, which should be ț. Unfortunately, as far I can tell, these are not available in the Wikipedia "insert special characters" list that appears when you edit pages, so it can be rather a pain to input them.

More information is available at Romanian_alphabet. As that page states, using the cedille instead of a comma is "considered incorrect by the langauge academy," but that "[a]ctual Romanian writings, included books created to teach children to write, treat the comma and cedilla as a variation in font."

Just letting you know...

--Zamfi 16:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The bible

Firstly let me say that I am sorry to have to bother you.

Secondly, I wish to let you know that a recent VFD that you took part in has closed. The result was that 32 people voted to keep all individual bible verses as seperate articles, and 34 voted that they shouldn't (2 abstensions, and 3 votes for both). This is considered by standard policy not to be a consensus decision (although the closing admin stated that it was a consensus to keep them).

Thirdly, the subject has now been put to a survey, so that it may remain open until there is a clear consensus for what appears to be a difficult issue to resolve. You may wish to take part in this survey, and record a similar vote to the one you made at the VFD there. The survey is available at Wikipedia:Bible verses.

~~~~ 18:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Watching the Shining Path article

coupla questions. first, what's CfD (consensus/category for deletion?) and two, where was this brilliant decision not to categorize the Shining Path as terrorists made. J. Parker Stone 04:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Damour massacre

Hello Jmabel. I've noticed your contributions to Sabra and Shatila massacre and thought maybe you want to look at Damour massacre. Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 09:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSB

I am a 'newbie' (though a little resistant to some of WP's in-group jargon) and am delighted to have come across the CSB Project. I came to ask how to put its Open Tasks box on my user page (I'm not entirely happy with it, either, but at least it draws attention to, and demonstrates that I am supportive of, the project.) However I notice you do not have it now on your page! Any comments appreciated!

P.S. I see from my own 'talk' page, that we were once previously in contact about the comparative difficulties of Lacan, Foucault, Derrida - I did know that I had seen some interesting edits and comments by you.

Now, therefore, please, a completely different question. How do I 'archive' my 'talk' page, which is getting a bit long? Incidentally, yours is, too - it makes editing and previewing a bit complicated! User:Jeffrey Newman

History of Islam

Yes—the bulk of the added material was taken from www.omninerd.com/articles/articles.php?aid=18. I apologize if I messed anything up in reverting the article. tregoweth 17:28, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Address above de-URL'd because it is on the Wikipedia blacklist.

Rfc and vote

Thersa suggested that I would get some sort of guidence from rfc, yet I was expecting something more like what Deeceevoice filed against Wareware, only over an article not a person. Since that is not what the page directed me to do I have placed a survey what to do with American West on Talk:American West, please vote in it. Thanks. -JCarriker 21:20, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Glass Bead Game and Borges

See my comment on User Talk:Eequor. I agree this doesn't belong. No point in having opaque, impressionistic links like this. But shouldn't the discussion be on one of the article Talk pages? --Macrakis 23:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Friction over Glacier

A few Wikipedians from outside of the Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week do not like our translation methods, as seen here. I have proposed a solution to the issue here. I would greatly appreciate your input, so we can reach a solution. — J3ff 01:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just when you thought it was safe...

...CPret slips and admits he's DHarjo and threatens to POV Western United States. I've asked several users to protect Western US and American West, and Nixie has. Not asking you to get involved with this problem user but what do you think I should do? I'm tired of dealing with this POV troll and his childish antics, should I file an RFC against him? -JCarriker 12:09, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Frankly I'd like to whack him upside the head with one of those foam rubber bats, but as ~~ornery and surly~~ disagreeable as he is, he hasn't done anything worth being blocked for a sizable amount of time— yet. However, could you please elaborate on what you would like to see an RFC entail. Can we at least endorse something like: "Bad CPret/DHarjo. Bad, bad boy.", or a more seriously worded condemnation of his actions? -JCarriker 22:25, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I did give Katefan0 the "thumbnail" of the conflict she asked for. The bulleted section is is kind of a proto RFC, the intro and closing paragrapghs are not. You can get an idea of what I would post in an RFC at User talk:Katefan0#Thumbnail. Give it a look and tell me what you think, remember only the bullets are the proto-RFC. -JCarriker 23:21, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I have an emerging RFC in my sandbox, please review feel free to edit it directly- don't worry about spelling and gramar errors on my part I'll get them- jsut concentrate on making it reflect your opinion. Thanks. -JCarriker 23:56, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Global protests against invasion of Iraq

In a country like this one it is a significant number. Copperchair 05:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, thaks. I don't feel like it any more. Copperchair 01:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon I of France

When I checked http://www.napoleonseries.org, a note was displayed explaining that it merged with http://www.napoleon-series.org, and then I was redirected there. That's not what is commonly called a dead link – so I guess you saw something different when you checked!? Rl 07:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I am still not happy with the term "dead link", but I have nothing better to offer, and it is no big deal anyway. Thank you for the explanation. Rl 16:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

categorization

Good call regarding the development of categories. Thank you for not deleting my contributions.--Bamjd3d

Proto-RFC

I have a full rough-draft ready in my sandbox. Please edit it to your likeing so that it can be foramally filed. I don't like this either- so let's get this over with so we can move on to other things. Thanks. -JCarriker 15:57, July 30, 2005 (UTC) See:User:JCarriker/sandbox. Thanks. -JCarriker 21:28, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the errors, I was merging and amending pervios ost into this- kind of a forest for the trees type of thing. I have corrected the phrase and a minor formating error I'm assuming since you raised no objecttions with the content your willing to certify it when I file it. Since making assumptions is an error of mine— Are you willing to certify the RFC as it stands now? -JCarriker 22:04, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I think a reasonable arguement could be made that you tried to resolve the dispute; e.g. correcting DHarjo for attacking me, successfully arguing the demographics were not POV. However, I won't ask you to do anything you are not comfortable with: we'll have to wait for Katefan0 to get back from Galveston in a week or so. In the meant time may I ask you to read Talk:Western United States I'll e-mail you with more details as our sockpuppet friend is reading our talk pages. Thanks. -JCarriker 22:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Liberalism

Glad that you like some of my work on liberalism. About Ann Richards, saying "definitely not a liberal" was probably wrong. In fact, my personal opinion is that she IS a liberal. When I was editing the list, I was editing quickly and using the standard of self-reference as I noted in an earlier edit. Ann Richards would never call herself a liberal. She identified with Bill Clinton and would simply call herself a "Democrat." Clinton is someone who many, including me, consider a liberal but who wouldn't use the label self-referentially. While clearly not an NPOV source, this website contains a good outline of Richard's centrist policies. Her outlook was definitely liberal, but some have twisted the meaning of the word "liberal" in the politics of some states, including Texas, and, as a result, almost the only people who use the title anymore are progressives. Progressives are actually not "liberal" in the philosophical sense, as they don't trust the forces of education and democracy, and prefer to operate through the courts and special interests. This phenomenon, where those influenced most by liberalism eschew the title "liberal," makes it hard to write a good article on "liberalism." Perhaps we need to acknowledge that the meaning of "liberalism" has changed, but, since this redefinition is being made by the detractors of liberalism, and supporters, other than some liberal politicians, haven't conceded defeat, at this time it's probably wise to use the word in its philosophical sense. In fact, it's hard to think of another option unless we introduce another name for "liberals," such as "centrists" or "progressives," but the first has no real meaning and the latter is a competing philosophy. The unfortunate result of all this is that we probably shouldn't be calling people "liberal" who wouldn't call themselves "liberal." This gives a slightly skewed perspective to the article, but the alternatives are too POV.

As for including 20th century writers in the classical liberalism entry, that was a hasty decision, and possibly wrong. Those authors didn't belong in the entry on modern liberalism and I wanted to stick them someplace rather than just remove them. "Classical liberalism" is a difficult term to talk about as its meaning is highly controversial. People never called themselves "classical liberals." The term "classical liberalism" was introduced by libertarians during the world wars, when they didn't like the direction of mainstream liberalism. They relied on interpretations of primarily 18th century liberals, whom they labelled "classical liberals," to support their views that they were the "true liberals." Additionally, they made a weaker claim that most 19th century liberals were also "classical liberals" and thus, really, "libertarians." The 20th century authors which I added to the classical liberalism entry, that is, from Hayek, the founder of libertarianism, onward, should be in the libertarian entry and that's where I'll move them. Interesting POV sidenote: even though conservatives disagree vehemently with many libertarian views, many conservatives have been using the claim by libertarians to be "liberals" as a tool to sideline modern liberals. While a significant movement, libertarianism has always been a very small minority in both political and philosophical life as most people, both conservatives and liberals, consider libertarian views to be anarchical and dangerous. luketh 19:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

I've been copy-editing a large number of Britain- and Commonwealth-related articles that didn't have consistent spelling.
Romania is of course an exception, it is not a Britain-related topic. I've standardized the spelling in the article because it was a mix of BrE and AmE. I'm using a program that gives a very detailed overview of the spelling used in an article. For example, the output for London looks like this:

Analysing en_check.txt
Results: (text length 9144 words) 

UK total: 45 words:
organisations (2x) / centres (3x) / centre (22x) / neighbouring (1x) / characterised (1x) /    
organised (1x) / neighbourhood (1x) / labour (3x) / modernised (1x) / favourable (1x) / specialises  
(2x) / organisation (1x) / computerised (1x) / centred (2x) / specialise (1x) / flavour (1x) /  
subsidised (1x) /  

US total 0 words: 

UK spelling ratio: 4.92126 / 1000 words.
US spelling ratio: 0 / 1000 words.

Maybe standardizing spelling in "neutral" articles like Romania is a bit overambitious. If the edit really bothers you, please feel free to revert it. There is unfortunately no clear answer to the question which spelling to use in "neutral" articles (not related to any English-speaking country). Maybe we should accept mixed spelling in such articles. SpNeo 16:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR request

I was able to figure out what I had done wrong, which was a punctuation error in a template having a strange effect. I posted a valid 3RR request against an anonymous user, and deleted the bad request from the noticeboard. I would appreciate it if you could look at the noticeboard again. Robert McClenon 21:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for confusing you. Robert McClenon 12:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

nadir thanks

Hey; just wanted to thank you for your copyedits and formatting help on nadir of American race relations. I appreciate it. NoahB 01:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Astor Piazzolla.jpg

Hi! Concerning this image, I found it on Amazon here, and so took it as an album cover, but in fact I can't seem to identify it as a cover now that I try. I have found the same image, however, on other pages ([2] and [3]). I see that I acted hastily - so what should I do now? Karol 06:15, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

--

Is the present description OK temporarily, until I come into terms with where it's from or provide more fair use arguments? Karol 07:11, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

African American Literature

I posted the African American literature article a while back on the Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article page so it had a chance to be seen on the front page. After two weeks, it seems that this is not going to happen. Could you go there and voice your support for the article? I think it would be great for a lit article to be seen on the front page. Thanks. --Alabamaboy 12:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Search Engine Optimization edits by 85.166.8.211

I'd be interested in your input on the edits by 85.166.8.211 on Search engine optimization. As you can see by the history, we've gone back and forth a few times with 85.166.8.211 accusing me of spamming and me justifying my changes. You've made logical and justified judgements in the past and I think your input as an arbitrator could end the war. Will you review the changes I've made and comment on their legitimacy? Uriah923 19:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Menard

I left a message on Talk:Pierre Menard (governor). Please take a look. Thanks. DS1953 23:19, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

HELP

Please See: this and this. They are both very important. -JCarriker 04:53, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Cuisine of Argentina

This article is the current Spanish translation of the week. User:SEWilco has brought up concerns again about the method for translation, as he did last with the Glacier article. I suppose we could use HTML comment tags again, but as you said earlier it makes the translation process more difficult. — J3ff 19:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

West Bank article

Joe, on the West_bank talk page I told Jayjg:

The newer polls you cite (there would have been only one poll but two more were conducted, your source suggests, because the first was too high) do average to about 32%, but they were answers to an "either/or" question: Should Israel pull out of Gaza or expel the Palestinians? with some 30% choosing one approach and some 30% choosing the other and 40% giving no answer. The poll I cited from 2002 merely asked: would you approve of Palestinian transfer? with no other multiple choice options. Consequently, it's the more reliable figure. Also, it's the only one applicable to the West Bank, since the poll you cite concerned Gaza, not the Occupied Territories as a whole. But: I pick my battles. --joveis 21:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

But I really didn't get a response. Do you agree with me that the 2002 Jaffe center poll on Palestinian transfer, for reasons cited above, is more relevant than the two-polls-cherrypicked-from-three, dealing entirely with Gaza and NOT the West Bank, which Jayjg finds acceptable for the West Bank page? Would you support introduction of more inclusive, less POV language like "(differently-conducted polls from 2002 [4] and 2005[5] (both still cited) returned totals of either 45% or 30% of Israelis favoring Palestinian transfer)." If so, would you as a more seasoned editor introduce such language? I'll back you up. Feel free to respond to me on my talk page. --joveis 22:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I personally didn't cite a poll: I just changed the text to more accurately reflect the content of a citation it already linked to. What you say sounds reasonable, but I bet there is a lot of good polling data on Israeli attitudes on this question. I think this may merit several citations, a statement of the range of numbers that have shown up in polls depending on wording, and perhaps a "note" near the bottom of the article (using Template:ref and Template:note) listing what each cited source says. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

- I think it's sufficient to just link to the sites where we got the poll data. Brevity is important. I'm going to introduce my change to the West Bank page. We can edit from there as more or better data becomes available. I doubt there'll be much controversy, as it's an incredible stretch to include the very questionable Gaza Strip data from 2005 at in a West Bank article at all. This is a compromise position and I don't forsee Jayjg starting an edit war. I'm going to quote this conversation on the West Bank talk page, and then make the change. --joveis 23:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]