Leave messages for user User:Carolmooredc on this page

---

/Archive I /My Sandbox /draft chart

Hi. Good job on the Jewish Lobby article! It has been a disaster for a long time now, to the extent that I find it hard to assume good faith on the editors behind it, but I think that now it is looking fairly balanced. Good work! (I'm not editing much these days due to real life activities, but I check in some times to see what is going on). pertn (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes you gotta take a stand and hang in there - esp. since the old POV article could be used to ruin innocent people's lives! Carol Moore 16:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Sorry about going astray on the mediation page. I think the improvements on this article are huge. One of the main problems with the whole "is JL a antisemitic slur" debate is that WP's OR policy often makes it hard include facts so obvious that few RS comment on it. A problem now (still in my opinion, I have got to quit this!) is that the discourse on whether it is antisemitic or not is dominated by the pro's. The obvious opposite is not that it is not antisemitic, but that one can not assume there to be antisemitic motives in a phrase (itself) that may really refer to specific entities that do exist, e.g. lobby groups representing Jewish interests. I suppose only few RSes would bother to write this, and thus the article would become imbalanced. Due to OR policy, trying to show that it is used non-antisemiticly by many notables, will not do. I think one should try to urge more neutral editors to look at it. I agree that what is in the article should be based on RSes, but in this case I have a feeling that the OR of recognizing what is the common usage of the term should inform what RSes one includes. pertn (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments. This actually is a good article for learning wiki policy since it's such an excellent example of the frustrating points you made. But if we just keep searching we do find refs that work. You can see how freaked some people get when we come up with a linguist willing to link a couple of the phrases that are used interchangeably. :-) I just am trying to get happy with progress so I can focus more on other things, but hate to see wikipedia used to smear people! Carol Moore 02:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Hi. I was reading around, and stumbled over a quite interesting dispute in NY Times. You have probably seen it already, but in case you haven't, it may be interesting with regards to the issue with Mearsheimer and Walt and the term Jewish Lobby. [1] which is a reply to Leslie Gelb's article [2] where he consequently uses JL instead of IL in the review of M&W's book. Interesting, but I suppose you have already seen it. If not, I hope it may be to some help with balancing the article. Cheers. pertn (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Jayjg had put in the part where they deny using the phrase - conveniently leaving out why they felt compelled tosay something about it. He did same thing with a WashPost quote. Brought that up yesterday. Carol Moore 23:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

"Why they felt comelled to say something about it" wasn't particularly relevant to and article about the term "Jewish lobby" - though, of course, it might be important to those with a political agenda who felt they had to push that agenda on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? pertn (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is, if people are trying to say that only antisemites use it when actually mainstream and Jewish sources use it, as W&M say - but you do not want in article. WP:idontlikeit Carol Moore 02:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol, I saw you are involved with the discussion regarding the resolution of conflict on the Jewish lobby article, so I've left a note in relation to my full protection of the page on the talk page of the mediation page, located here. Thank you for your time. Regards, Rudget. 17:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the mediation could go on for ever. Meanwhile how do we get new quotes in there if they pass mediation? Email you? Carol Moore 17:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol, don't be surprised; I moved your question and my answer to your question re: early usage of the phrase to the Entymology section you added at the end. My answer was that G-Dett is the one who says she has a 1921 usage; the oldest I found was the 1959 usage cited in the OED. Cheers, Jgui (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed the discussion here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_1#Antisemitism and that your suggested changes not made. All such mentions also kicked out of Jewish Lobby by regular suspects. Given all the "See Alsos" under antsemitism it almost seems the subject could get its own article, though obviously there would be a big brouhaha. Carol Moore 11:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I guess so. There is a huge WP:OWNership issue over at the Antisemitism article. I jutst can't be bothered fighting over it. It just isn't worth the effort. No amount of sources can convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced. // Liftarn (talk)

That image is inappropriate for the article on Jeri Ryan. Please see WP:IUP and WP:FUC. Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You posted the same comment twice by mistake I think ... on the RS Noticeboard. Just a heads up. Feel free to delete this.PelleSmith (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carol, regarding your second question I think it would be good if we had more detail about the source and the content in question. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missed your first message and just noticed today. are you talking about Ruff? Carol Moore 18:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

You suggested on the JL mediation page that "this should be given a time limit like one week for discussion and mediation ends". Personally, I think this is a very bad idea. Arbitrary time limits do not allow a full discussion; especially for those editors (like myself) that can only edit occasionally. I hope you will reconsider the benefits of such an approach. Thanks, Jgui (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carol, I know it is frustrating, and I know we seem to stating our case into a vacuum. But I also think we have made a great deal of progress in mediation, although it may not be obvious. And I warn you that it is a very bad idea to walk away from mediation, since it is used to claim that parties were not being sincere in mediation - it will hurt your editing career at WP as well as the case to improve the article. I know you have not walked away from the mediation - you have only expressed your frustration with the process - so I hope you will come back and clarify that, and make it clear that you want to continue as long as there is the possibility of making progress. Feel free to email me if you wish. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carolmooredc!
We thank you for uploading Image:Breakdownnationscover.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As has been mentioned before, mediation is a confidential process. As such, it is not appropriate for you to copy comments from it to an admin noticeboard. I have deleted the comments you copied. Thanks for understanding. Shell ^babelfish 05:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a new mediation page so that we can try this again, hopefully with a better result. If you wish to join, please sign here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're the Carol Moore listed at this page, please consider coming to the May meet-up. And if you are that person, even if you can't make the meeting, would you do us a huge favor by letting the others who indicated an interest, via meetup.com, in such a meeting, also know about the May meet-up? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carol, you just left a comment, but didn't vote on the latest proposed agreement. I voted in favor; could you please add your vote there as well? Thank you very much, Jgui (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carol

I have responded to your comments at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gilad_Atzmon_allegations_WP:RS?. I only discovered this by chance, and I think it would have been courteous to notify me of this. I certainly don't want to get into a dispute with you; I have generally agreed with your edits. But on this article, and a few others, I clearly have a somewhat different approach. However, as I believe you can see from the edit history and talk page, I have attempted (despite severe provocations) to edit the article carefully and cooperatively, and have indeed often acted to delete egregious attacks on Atzmon or restore comments by him and his supporters.[3] [4] [5] My interest is in maintaining an encyclopaedic article, which includes both Atzmon's own views and criticism of these, without any descent into abuse and name-calling.

But there is a difficulty, since much of the material -- both for and against Atzmon -- is self-published, and found on weblogs and other "unreliable" sources. This includes much which I would like to include, but have refrained from so doing in order to use only acceptable sources. There is also material (including personal attacks on me and others) which I would prefer not to link to on Wikipedia. However, if you are interested in discussing this further, you are welcome to email me via my talk page. RolandR (talk) 08:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied there saying: I brought it here for a quick opinion because a) the WP:BLP rule seems to be when it doubt on libel or sources, cut it out; b) having brought more reliable leftie sources to RS noticeboard and seen them trashed by some (not most) editors, not sure how they would fair on RS noticeboard; c) knowing Atzmon does aggressively go after those he feels smear him for corrections or replies; d) knowing Wikipedia currently being sued for defamation, I thought it prudent to bring it here for defintive answer as opposed to talk page where would have to bother with possible partisan bickering. Or maybe I should go straight to Wikipedia:Dispute#Turn_to_others_for_help help. Carol Moore 12:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}