User:Sarastro777

Sarastro is a notable character in the opera, The Magic Flute, by W.A. Mozart.

Articles on the Middle East

To those having trouble with people deleting objective information from articles on the Middle East, and adding unsourced Pro-Israel commentary.. I would advise looking at:

"...[The Israeli] Foreign Ministry has ordered trainee diplomats to track websites and chatrooms so that networks of US and European groups with hundreds of thousands of Jewish activists can place supportive messages. " [[1]]

Amir Gissin, Director Public Affairs (Hasbara) Department at the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is urging people everywhere to contribute to the war effort in this way. "We need 100,000 Megaphone users to make a difference" he said. "So, please spread the word to all Israel's supporters." [[2]]

A lot of these "activists" are "Administrators" on Wikipedia and if following the orders of the Israeli Gov't will collude to ban and intimidate you, despite how it affects Wikipedia. The typical response is that this is all a big anti-semitic conspiracy theory and the propaganda operation does not really exist. And yet over and over, from article to article this provides a perfect explanation for the ridiculous behavior that takes place. "Ye shall know them by their fruits, etc." The issue of verifiable sources documenting the project is never directly addressed, because of course that is irrefutable unless major newspapers now invent anti-Israel propaganda.

Namecalling and Accusations

Sarastro777, I don't think you need to worry: nobody can discredit you any more than yourself. So far you picked any dirt in order to present the subject in the worst possible light and use WP for political soapboxing. ←User:Humus sapiens ну? 02:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sarastro777, so far you've demonstrated extreme POV, incompetence and inabillity to collaborate with other editors. You are making it very hard to assume good faith. Can you explain your wholesale removal of US SD report? ←User:Humus sapiens ну? 11:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

...By now I have assumed good faith and ignored your ad homs, please refrain from that in the future. ←User:Humus sapiens ну? 23:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The namecalling and repeated removal of relevant information that doesn't serve certain political agenda should stop. ←User:Humus sapiens ну? 11:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA. ←User:Humus sapiens ну? 01:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What was the personal attack? User:Sarastro777 15:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

...Your constant personal accusations and attacks on this page do not help your argument, you have shown nothing but contempt for good faith, civility, and indeed reason and common sense, I implore you to begin reading wikipedia policy before you make even one more contribution as you have become a literal nightmare to deal with.- User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

^--Anything they disagree with becomes an "attack" and the basis for a broad listing of guidelines followed by a personal attack or insult, ironically usually (but not always) followed by a request that one stop the "personal attacks." Sarastro777 17:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have anything of value to add or just vicious Jew-hatred? You need to read a history book or two.... User:Schrodingers Mongoose 02:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

...While I am here, I must say that I find your behavior childish. ←User:Humus sapiens ну? 22:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA and WP:TALK. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually you were using it to prove the implied thesis that Israel does not care about civil rights of its citizens. Do you what a point of view is? How about a conspiracy theory? Do you know what that is? ...User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

^-- Now it's not even anything i have written or said, it's my "implied thesis." Sarastro777 18:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention, your constant personal attacks by claiming every non-anti-Israel editor is a harbinger of some vast internet conspiracy is both insulting and reminicent of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or do you believe in that as well? -- Avi 04:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

^-- The "conspiracy theory" is the factual documentation of the Megaphone desktop tool (above). Because I am taking the two cited newspaper stories at face value, I must believe in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Sarastro777 18:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

From Human Rights In Israel

Red Herrings

I do not even know where to begin. The entire contents of the article are POV at the moment...the intro seems to hedge its bets on whether Israel is actually a country or not...Anyone who thinks Wikipedia has a "slight pro-Israeli bias," please take note! User:6SJ7 20:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The intro in question: Israel is a small country in Western Asia, established in 1948 [[3]]

Adding "Justification"

I recognize that the justifications I added are small and in no way serve to balance out the one-sided nature of the section on human rights in the occupied territories. Still, I hope they can serve as a starting point for building some context in this section. Israel's actions don't seem quite so heinous when viewed outside of a vaccuum, and we have a responsibility to provide some degree of context so readers can come to informed conclusions. Schrodingers Mongoose 03:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize a purpose of a Wikipedia article was to make Israel's actions seem "not so heinous outside of a vaccuum." Sounds like agenda pushing. 68.6.254.16 03:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Not pushing an agenda...trying to achieve balance. ANYTHING can be made to look terrible without context. Example: "The United Kingdom and the United States firebombed the city of Dresden in 1944, destroying 85% of the homes and killing at least 35,000 civilians." Now, even with context, it might be safe to say this could be interpreted as a heinous act. However, WITHOUT mentioning that this occured in WWII as the Nazis were bombing and killing thousands in Britain and elsewhere, this would sound like unmitigated genocide. I am not pushing an agenda. I am saying that context matters. To recite only criticism of Israeli actions without also listing the stated reason for these actions creates a default bias. Schrodingers Mongoose 03:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So despite what the facts bear out, you have a need to write the article in a way to make things "not look terrible" or as you also call it, "balanced" ? Do you think that is a reasonable approach for academic articles on subjects like Josef Stalin or HIV? As you originally put it "...the justifications I added" -- "Justifications" attempt to justify behavior, not provide NPOV facts documenting events or conditions. I find that troubling. 68.6.254.16 03:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to provide more than ONLY criticism of Israel in this section. I'm not trying to delete the criticisms or even edit them...just provide something to say why the Israelis have done some of the things they've done. I'm not saying they're right or wrong. Friankly, what I've added doesn't come close to balancing this section. Do you believe only anti-Israel statements are appropriate? Schrodingers Mongoose 03:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

From Mahmoud Ahmmadenijad

Badge Story

The badge story is neither about Ahmadinejad, nor about anti-Semitism; it has nothing to do in this article. Holocaust denial does constitute anti-Semitism; if you doubt, feel free to discuss the matter with the experts in this field. User:Pecher Talk 20:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Good diplomacy skills, Pecher. ←User:Humus sapiens ну? 21:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Perjorative Labeling in Biographies

He may be right in saying that the accepted view of holocaust denial=anti-Semitism is not accepted by the majority of people who have contributed to what he inaccurately (but tellingly) describes as "this discussion board." Ditto for the incessant attempts to chip away at criticism of Ahmadinejad. This is a textbook example of the situation described in WP:Consensus: But Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith. With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that one is editing according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of one's activities. Additionally, At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is POV, inaccurate, or libelous. This is not a consensus. Again, I think this is something that needs to be kept in mind. --User:Mantanmoreland 15:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"..the incessant attempts to chip away at criticism of Ahmadinejad" -- One could make the observation that you have a very strong opinion that M.A. is an anti-semite. Anything that even nearly shows him in a different light is described as “chipping away, POV, whitewash”, which is more a reflection of your own bias than that of other editors adding verifiable information. User:Sarastro777 22:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm delighted that all of a sudden there is concern about POV-pushing in this article! So I trust I will see reversion of the anonymous edit that changed "Ahmadinejad and anti-Semitism" into "Accusations of anti-Semitism." I'm up against 3RR so I can't do it myself. Go to it, guys.--User:Mantanmoreland 15:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sports Article as Verification

The following was used to justify labeling the President of Iran as an Anti-Semite:

A June 11, 2006 article in The Guardian on Ahmadinejad's controversy relating to the soccer World Cup stated: "Iran's Football team will be met with a series of protests across Germany during their World Cup campaign as anger mounts against the country's viciously anti-semitic President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."[46]

The Guardian is a highly respected news source, which qualifies as a verifiable reliable source, as per Wikipedia policy. Neturei Karta is a tiny extremist group which counts as an "extreme minority view", as per Wikipedia NPOV policy. This has already been explained to you. User:Jayjg (talk) 11:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This particular Guardian article is not a good source because it is just the author calling him names in an unrelated article about sports. It's no different than someone writing an article on weather saying "It will be hot in the godless nation of Iran." and then acting like that is a verifiable source to show Iran is godless. Learn what a good source is...especially if you are going to repeatedly weigh in on this stuff! User:Sarastro777 04:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there any part of what you are saying that is actually reflected in Wikipedia policy or guideline? User:Jayjg (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrator Confused

If A.M. is such a rabid anti-semite there should be tons of primary source material that we can use. This to me seems like a much more academic way of approaching the problem. I realize people were complaining about no quotes, but I think they wanted to see why people like Krauthammer or the Christian were calling him an Anti-Semite, not to merely hear their specific name-calling. If we can't find anything along those lines then perhaps our notions are due to spin or we need to simply await better material. JMHO User:Sarastro777 22:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

What you are arguing we should do is original research, discerning for ourselves whether or not Ahmadinejad is an anti-Semite, based on our analysis of his statements. What Wikipedia policy insists on is quite different; specifically that we quote what reliable sources say regarding whether or not he is an anti-Semite. User:Jayjg (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

^-- He thinks citing a "primary source" is engaging in "Wikipedia:Original Research." Sarastro777 18:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Misc WTF

If the source is biased, it doesn't mean that it cannot be trusted. For example, Iranian, Saudi or N. Korean press cannot be trusted when it criticizes USA, but imagine that it criticizes their own leaders. That would be trustworthy. ←User:Humus sapiens ну? 02:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

..It does seem as though Israel is being singled out, even though its human rights condition is far superior to that of its neighbors. User:okedem 10:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

^-- Referring to the article: Human rights in Israel ??? Sarastro777 18:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I added the section, then Avraham brought up a question of context. The matter was discussed, Avi added a statistic, and then you came along and deleted the entire section. Am I missing something? I think I already said that above. What we are missing is WHY you deleted the section. (?) User:Sarastro777 22:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. You took the quote out of context. ←User:Humus sapiens ну? 23:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the problem; other countries could get normal articles, but when it's about Israel people want to create one-sided fiascos like this: [4] Jayjg 22:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

^-- Because human rights violations are documented, it becomes a one sided fiasco. Sarastro777 18:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel is the only country in the region with a justice system that prosecutes or imprisons convicted criminals with reasonable and fair punishment...User:Labaneh 23:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

^-- No bias there. Sarastro777 18:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

To "keep this professional", it helps to check the facts first. See Anti-Semitism#Etymology and usage and note that Lesbians are not necessarily those who inhabit Lesbos island. Finally, we are here to report what the reputable sources said, not to engage in WP:OR. ←User:Humus sapiens ну? 04:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

^-- Yes, he just introduced lesbianism as a reasonable parallel in a discussion about what is required to label someone as an Anti-Semite. Sarastro777 18:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a side point, 1211 BCE was over 3000 years ago. So the "However" may not be the best word choice. If by tradition we are going from when G-d Promised Abraham that the land of Israel will be his, that's around 3800–4000 years ago 8-) . -- User:Avi 05:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

^-- Probably well-intentioned, but yes he just suggested using unverifiable religious mythology to change wording relating to historical evidence. Sarastro777 18:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Request not to edit this page

EDITING THE USERPAGE OF OTHERS WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION IS IN EXTREMELY BAD FORM. User:Metamagician3000, User:Tom harrison,User:Avraham are asked to desist.

Actually, User:Sarastro777 is asked to familiarize him/her self with WP:User page and especially the sections on ownership and removal -- Avi 17:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't read the part where adding information to the userpages of others is in bad form and against convention. You also missed that this is not the place for content discussion. Let me summarize for those that quote the article but don't read it:

1) Another use is to let people know about your activities on Wikipedia, and your opinions about Wikipedia.

2) In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission

3) Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests

Although this should be moved to talk, and you may move my comments to talk if you wish, I'd like to point out the paragraph below what you bring:

If the community lets you know that they would rather you deleted some or other content from your user space, you should probably do so, at least for now - such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. After you've been here for a while, and written lots of great articles, the community may be more inclined to let you get away with it. Alternatively, you could move the content to another site, and link to it.

--Avi 20:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The "community" did not reach a consensus, nor did the "community" make a request... 3 editors, 2 of whom have histories in heated Middle East topics and one who purports to support free speech do not constitute the "Wikipedia community." There's no need to change or remove the material unless The Times or the Jewish Times of Australia retracts the story showing it was a fabrication. If that were to be the case then the bias warning would no longer be relevant based on those reports. Obviously all indications are the story is in fact real, which is why the Israelis are pissed. Governments involved in propaganda operations usually fall into a special class of their own. Sarastro777 04:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)