If you're thinking about my comment on the article talk, I wasn't talking about a single editor in particular but I'd noticed a few that attacked the whole "other side". And I'd seen it go both ways.
But to answer your more general question, I think there are really two issues: civility and intransigence. I think intransigence in these articles is largely the result of an inability to recognize that editors simply have different perspectives. Most editors apply different standards to material they like to material they don't. Just like most editors rush to find and include material they like. Both are wrong but not the result of bad faith, just misguided intent. I think everyone thinks they're in the middle. You know I mostly edit Canadian political articles. And in Canada there are three main political parties, the NDP, the Liberals and the Conservatives. Traditionally they've been seen as left-wing, centrists and right-wing respectively. But all the time left-wing editors will try and make the NDP article say there are "centre-left" and right-wing editors will try to make the Conservative article say "centre-right". If they had their way it would make the articles collectively say that the Canadian political spectrum extends from centre-left all the way to centre-right. So I think we always need to recognize that maybe the centre isn't objectively where we are and also that other editors don't realize the same thing about themselves.
So I think it is always best to engage other editors and respect that they might be very different from you. If they ask questions, I answer them, even if I think they are bad questions. Sometimes editors like that make good Devil's Advocates. And we can always agree to disagree. You can ask for third opinions or RfCs, etc. On an article like ours there are always lots of other opinions so a single editor can only stall so much on their own. But as long as they dont' rise to the level of disruptive editing we have to deal with them.
For civility, I do find it hard. In the real world I'm not always afraid to tell someone if I think something bad about their behaviour or maybe just walk away. But we do have to work together. John will probably be back at the article once his block expires. We're just stuck with each other. I try my best to be civil. I guess it is like talking to a boss or prof. or parent. You have to give treat them with respect even if they haven't fully earned it. I keep negative comments to a minimum. I don't mind saying I disagree with an editor. Maybe I could say I don't see how one proposal is consistent with another. It is less helpful to call someone a hypocrite. And even less to call them a vandal or they are pushing an agenda, etc.
I think you're largely right that the persistent editors "win" in the end. I think that happens in large part because the "good" editors are often too dismissive and don't seek to really build consensus. So whoever is editing the article in a month or two can come along and pretty much ignore whatever is we've left them. It would be a lot more durable if it was backed by a real consensus and not just a thin majority. Nishidani mentioned a while ago that this fighting isn't all that different from Fallujah. I think it would be a shame if our article ended up like that one. But I think we all have a certain responsibility to make that happen.
That's why I was upset when our compromise failed. It isn't just that it failed but that it wasn't really considered. I think most editors just looked at it and said "that's not my preference" and didn't bother thinking about compromise. I told TB that he lost out by sticking to the "pro-Israeli" version which had no chance of success. But I think the editors who stuck with the other version also lost out -- they just won't realize it for another month.
I didn't always know this but I've come to believe it after having been around here for a while. Somebody said "thanks Gandhi" or something about my "Why we can't have nice things" comment on the article talk but I think they were missing the point. I don't think we should work together because it is a nice thing but because Wikipedia has equality principles that force us to. Even if Wikipedia would be better without all those damn Wikipedians. And besides, Gandhi really didn't want to have nice things either.
Just my thoughts. I know others would disagree. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I just tried it, seems to work fine :) thanks for the kind reminder! Btw, I've replied to your message there. Cheers, Waldir talk 20:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I am quite happy to engage in healthy conversation with you and do so with the utmost respect. I do think that the article should stick to the facts. The population density of the Gaza Strip is less than that of Chicago. Making claims that Gaza is one of the most densely populated territories in the world is very misleading. I understand why the population density is relevant to the article on the conflict but implying that Gaza is any more densely populated than the territories into which Hamas is firing rockets is simply wrong. Both peoples are at high risk in this conflict that targets what are actually no more than equally and averagely populated urban areas. The article on the Gaza conflict has actually made me very proud of Wikipedia. I think that it is a remarkably fair and balanced article under the circumstances and given Wikipedia's open editing policy. I believe that we can agree on a formula for this article that expresses the risk to civilians in a factually correct and emotionally detached way. One that avoids quoting the oft-repeated myth that Gaza has an unusually high population density because as urban sprawls go, it doesn't.Dino246 (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
We are getting somewhere and it's been a level-headed intelligent discussion. Let's sleep on it again and wait for some more opinions. Shalom, Salaam. Dino246 (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
We're actually in agreement. Others seem to have their own agenda and battles that have nothing to do with the issue at hand and are preventing us from wrapping this up. Dino246 (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
No objection. Thank you for notifying me. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Well of course you're always right. Every Wikipedian is. I saw Agada said he had another "valid point" last night. I wanted to say that all of my points are valid too. But I understand how you feel. Saying it isn't sourced is just grasping at straws in my opinion. Although I don't know what it feels like to be robbed at gunpoint. I hope you haven't had too many of those experiences. I guess Chicago is tough place.
But yeah, I think you could compromise on this one and still get to say basically the same thing. I think the important thing is that people said aerial bombardment into cities would kill lots of civilians. Back when it still looked like it might all be from the air. Or even a little further saying that it meant that each individual attack would be disproportionate to any given target. Although this is probably not the time to be inserting that too.
And the best thing about it is that you get points for the next argument. You can say you conceded on the last thing. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
It's a funny coincidence. I was scrolling up the article talk page and I noticed that Untwirl mentioned that there is actually a WP:DENSE. It would probably be helpful to read since that's what we're all working with in that section, right? I was going to post that in the article talk but I was already accused of attacks once today. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Please review sources, No Jihad watch. I personally prefer Non-violence explanation of "Jihad" concept See PACS 164A Lectures on UC Berkeley YouTube channel. Frank Herbert Dune is also very nice source. Hope all is well with you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Yers I did read it, but perhaps because I know Carter's position well, didn't think to include it in the list. I'd appreciate anything else you may come across. Best Nishidani (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the nice thoughts on my talk page. And, for what it's worth, I don't think you smell. But maybe I'm just used to it lingering in the air here. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nableezy. Regarding the 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Background section and talk page discussion and proposal to change "The Gaza strip is one of the most densely populated places on earth" to something like "Gaza is densely populated". I wanted to tell you why this "compromise" goes against my understanding of what we are doing here. There are reliable sources, plenty of them, that support the information as it is. I wonder whether some editors want this removed or changed for political reasons, because they think the accurate (and verifiable and reliably sourced) information will reflect negatively on Israel. Accuracy is my primary concern, so I can't support what seems a false compromise. If 5+5=10, that is what it is. A tireless editor arguing over and over that 5+5=8, then proposing we "compromise" and say 5+5=9 will not sway me. Thanks for reading. RomaC (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm tired as shit from people debating over and over about statements that is exactly extracted from the well-known organizations like the UN, AI or the ICRC. You've debated in the talk pages much more than me and I'm sure you're even much more frustrated. I hope our efforts, while they are a bit separated, contribute to a much fairer article after all. Good luck, you're doing a great job over here :-). --Darwish07 (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that an adequate compromise is so bad. It isn't the size of your edit but how you use it, right?
We don't get the commercials for those things in Canada but I've seen them on American channels. But its not like we have anything to compensate for up here. Although I think they do back East in Toronto. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Well that article mostly compares heavy users with those that have never tried it. So I think it is too late to put that geneie back in the bottle. But if you are worried you should just go over to the Cannabis (drug) article and take it out. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought of you when I saw this of course (scroll down near the bottom). [1] Now our recent conversation feels like it had a purpose. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, good to be back. I was away for some time (long planned trip) and I am also struggling with deadlines for papers I have to submit (I'm writing a doctoral dissertation). Yet I have been keeping an eye from afar, and must say the article has considerably improved. So you and the other editors did a good job. Since, as I said, I am still trying to hold my deadlines, I am not sure that - for at least a few weeks - I'll be as active as I was. But I'll try.--Omrim (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of jokes, Don't you feel that the latest debates on the Gaza war article resemble that vide :-D ? --Darwish07 (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Look at this, Don't you notice something ;-) ? --Darwish (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
That is actually the first time I looked at that section of the discussion page so it is too much to take in right before bed. My initial thoughts are that the other editor has obviously crossed the line a few times which I didn't realize until now. I think his concern is that the MoH data obviously shows Israel in a poor light. I think your original proposal could be worked nicely with the MoH figures being mentioned first. Wording on the children has to be handled with care since that is a soft spot for people that instantly jumps out as potentially attempting POV. It is a reported number and it is notable though so that's simply the way it is, though. Unrelegating the data in the following "(with the remainder...)" line from the parenthesis should fix that. A little bit more data on the IDF claim on Gazan dead might balance out the paragraph, too. Which figure is mentioned first isn't that big of a concern (to me at least) as long as the balance is right.Cptnono (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments on brewcrewer's talk page.
You know brewcrewer better than I do, can you tell me why you think brewcrewer followed me to an article where I am having a current content/personal dispute with another editor (Anonmoos), who he then asked about my username when he could have asked me if his motive is of curiosity rather than extending a petty conversation? Do you think brewcrewer is trying to exasperate the dispute? The article is of a Yemeni former president, what is the likelihood of it being a coincidence that brewcrewer started editing an article at the same time I started editing? I am asking you because I am not sure if brewcrewer will give me straight answers and I think you can give me better advice as to what to do. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Peace man, hope you had a good sleep. Please don't be cranky on me. Salam and Shukran AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
You've been really civil in the discussions. We have disagreements, but I appreciate your opinion. Feel free to move this barnstar to your user page.
AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nebleezy. I notice you were using automatic revert tools on things that are not vandalism. You removed my internal link to the Hamas charter, my adding of the historic date of the charter, both of which are directly relevant, and you removed my direct quote from the BBC article (restoring an inaccurate paraphrasing.) I clearly did not engage in vandalism and my linking to the relevant article is clearly on topic. --John Bahrain (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
So Steve Nash never did anything for you then?
You know Hamas might not like the part of the French version that she sang cause it talks about us as Christians who carry the cross and the sword. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know, that looks like a stunt double at the end. But still, they're pretty proud of Steve Nash over in Victoria. Probably just after Nelly Furtado. But ahead of Raffi I'd think. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
My sincere apologies for the rather unsettling response at Israeli/Gaza conflict talk. I've become rather frustrated at this continual war of attrition without a reasonable end in sight. Feel free to report me, but I thought I'd let you know before. ; ) Cheers...I guess. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
