User talk:Tiamut

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 60 days are automatically archived to User Talk:Tiamut/Archive/Archive 01. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Bethlehem

Hi Tiamut,

Would you mind looking and commenting on the additions here? There seems to be a drive to mislead WP readers about the situation in Bethlehem using malicious sources. Thanks, Ramallite ^(talk) 19:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on getting specific sources to correct this section that has maliciously-based undue weight to a certain POV. If you have any sources, it would be great if you can let me know. Thank! Ramallite ^(talk) 19:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

October 2000 riots

Hi,

I've noticed that you've done a lot of work on issues relatiing Palestinian/Arab Citizens of Israel. I just started a separate article for the October 2000 Riots. Right now its just a little stub. And your help would be appreciated in improving the article on these very important events.Oneworld25 07:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Indigenous?

Please look at my argument with Isarig on User talk:RolandR RolandR 18:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ibnaa/Abnaa el-Balad

Hi, thanks for the recognition. I've just seen that the template you created for Arab citizens of Israel contained a red link to Ibnaa al Balad. There actually is a stub article called Abnaa el-Balad. I have put in a redirect, so your link goes to the existing stub, to which you may want to add more material. I'm not qualified to debate the nuances and correctness of transliteration of Arabic into English, but there may be an agreed Wiki form. On their own website, they use the form Abnaa elBalad. RolandR 13:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And there is also a page on United Arab List, so I have redirected The United Arab List there. RolandR 18:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

edit wars on Arab citizens of Israel

Marhaba Tiamut, careful they don't trip you up over the WP:3RR. Take it easy... ابو علي 17:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course they are stalking you. Because you are making a positive contribution to WP, and adding a bit of balance to some of the blatant propoganda here. There are lots of Zionists on WP and many of them seem to have nothing better to do than revert the work of good people like you. They are desparate, and how can you blame them? Put yourself in their position, with Olmert as prime-minister, Katzav as president, having just lost a war to a few thousand Hezbollah gurrillers, and a tiny minority surrounded by 260million Arabs. But on wikipedia they are disproportionately strong. My advice is to avoid edit wars, poin out their unreasonable behaviour on the article talk pages. Better still take a break, and do some more important stuff elsewhere. Use your considerable writing talents to write somewhere where it will not be reverted within seconds. If you want to keep working on WP, write stuff which is not on war zone pages. The Page on Ibn Balad needs to be fleshed out. The great poet Toufiq Ziad has not even got a page on WP. Most important, Take it easy.

Warmest regards ابو علي 17:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No, and nor have Samih al-Qassim, Rashid Hussein, Muin Besiso, Jabra Ibrahim Jabra and too many more to mention. There is only a stub for Fadwa Tuqan and even Adonis; there's lots to do. But the Zionists are really being provocative on that page; even the name of the page has been in dispute, and the suggestion that Palestinians are not indigenous, while Jews are, would be outrageous if it wasn't so funny. I'm going to look for an appropriate quote from Ahad Ha'am to add to the page.

Meanwhile Tiamut, permit me to treat you to a nice cup of tea (English style, with milk), in the hope that it will cheer your day as much as it does mine. RolandR 18:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

One of our friends has opened a 3RR complaint against you in an attempt to get you blocked. See the bottom of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Tiamut_reported_by_User:Tewfik_.28Result:.29. I don't think the report is valid because I am not sure that all the edits cited are reverts. ابو علي 19:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, sorry I could not be of help. But consider yourself on holiday from Wikipedia for 24 hours. I hope you will spend the time enjoying yourself, taking it easy. And maybe doing some work organising the people around you to work for change of the injustices you write so elequently about.

Be strong! ابو علي 23:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help Abu Ali. I really appreciate that you went to bat for me on the 3RR page. Real life organizing is something I have taken a break from or a while now. I used to be so involved, but I found we just kept reaching the same people and the circle never really expanded. Part of why I enjoy Wikipedia so much is that I get to be exposed to so many different people, with so many different viewpoints and we get to share them, discuss them, and yes, sometimes fight over them, but in the end, it's just such a great experience. Except when we get stuck in edit wars. Something I hope to try to avoid better in the future. Anyway, happy editing and see you back on the floor soon. Tiamut 11:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

My efforts were nothing. And they did not help. Never mind. Life does not begin and end on WP.

I respect your decision to take a break from "Real life organizing". It gives you the opportunity to evaluate work, results prospects etc. But it is work in real life organising, especially in your community and the people around you which really matters, not all the WP articles which everyone fights over and no-one reads. Of course real life organising depends on the ebs and flows of history. There are periods when everyone feels they need to do something and the streets are full of people. And there are periods when people are demoralized, and feel nothing can be done and try to get on with their own lives, and the collaborators raise their heads. One of the key problems is leadership. The Palestinians have suffered too many corrupt leaders who became tools of the occupation. One of the key questions when organising is how to have a dialogue with the masses, and how they can be empowered and mobilized in defence of their interrests. It is a hard struggle. But it is the one that matters. And from the little I have seen of you here, you have a great deal to contribute. ابو علي 11:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR block

Tiamut, you've been reported for a 3RR violation on Arab citizens of Israel and have been blocked for 24 hours. Please use the time to review the 3RR policy. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope that you will reconsider your decision, as per my email to you. This is a content dispute, not a 3RR violation. There are seemingly minor, but very essential differences between both the text I was removing, and the text I was adding. And a compromise formulation had been crafted in one of my edits that took account of the talk, in which I participated extensively. Also, it's a little unfair, don't you think. Tewfik listed me for 3RR at 18:02pm. I didn't find out about the listing from him, only rom Abu Ali at the time listed above. I posted at 20:21pm, asking for two hours to put together the diffs for me defense because of my lack of experience with this, and you blocked me by 21:05, (45 minutes later) with five unresolved cases, at least, listed before mine at the time. What gives? Tiamut 21:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

On the 3RR page, you wrote, "This is a violation. 13:31 Feb 25 was the first version reverted to; and the reverts were 22:20 Feb 25, 11:01 Feb 26, and 12:50 Feb 26, "reverting to "they define themselves"; the next version reverted to was 15:18 Feb 26, and the revert was 16:57 Feb 26, reverting to the addition of "indigenous." That's four reverts in under 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)" With respect, this overlooks the other differences in my edits that aim to incorporate the opposing viewpoints more than once. For example, one of the "they define themselves" examples you cite, excluded the POV of my "adversaries", and my replacement actually incorporated that previously articulated but removed viewpoint in an attempt to achieve consensus. Additionally, I deleted "majority ruling authorities" in deference to Humus Sapiens objections, again trying to incorporate the POV of my adversaries in these examples that are cited as reverts but are really fragments of a content dispute. I also changed "a minority of pro-Israel advocates" to "some pro-Israel advocates" in one of those edits to making the pro-Israel POV seem less marginal than it actually was (being based after all solely on the source From Time Immemorial, in an attempt to reach a compromise. Abu Ali pointed out I am among the few to have developed content at that article outside of mere reverts. Why the quick rush to block what is quite obviously a content dispute? I know that you have a strong POV on these issues from having encountered your editing on related pages, but I had hoped that you would not let it interfere in these kinds of decisions. Please reconsider. Tiamut 22:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tiamut, all 3RR violations take place as part of a content dispute. We're not allowed to revert more than three times in 24 hours no matter how essential the differences are, and even if you add other content in the meantime. Any undoing of another editor's work can count as a revert, whether the revert is in whole or in part, or whether different material was reverted each time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm prepared to unblock you if you undertake to stay away from that and any related articles for 24 hours, and to review the 3RR policy carefully to make sure you don't violate it again in future. Also, I really don't appreciate the implication that the block was motivated by any POV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear SlimVirgin, I continue to believe that the block is unjust. With respect, I am going to ask for another admin to look at this case. It's not that I'm raring to get back to the articles in question - (question: do you mean everything I edit usually? could you explain?) - but as a matter of principle, I don't think I can accept your offer. The block should not have been imposed in the first place, and I believe it should be appealed and struck down. Tiamut 10:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an unfair and discriminatory ban, in the context of a multi-participant edit war. By my count, there have been 40 reversions of this same phrase in the past three days, involving a dozen editors. You should either ban all of us -- on both sides -- or none of us. To ban Tiamut, who has clearly strived to reach a mutually acceptable compromise, and who, under extreme pressure, failed to count properly, is invidious. The situation should never have been allowed to develop this far, and banning Tiamut is not going to put a stop to it. It's clear that for one block of editors, any suggestion that Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine is an intolerable affront, while to others, the constant removal of the phrase is uncomfortably reminiscent of the physical removal of Palestinians from their land. Protagonists on both sides have made it clear that they cannot accept the formulation put forward by the others. And the brilliant response seems to be to ban the editor who has tried hardest to find an agreed way forward. Please reconsider. RolandR 23:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks RolandR. I really appreciate your support in this. If I thought I had breached 3RR, I would have self-reverted when Abu Ali warned me I might be heading in that direction. I was not even given a chance to mount a defense, since Tewfik did not inform me of the listing. Anyway, whatever happenes, I hope to be back soon. Keep up the good work and happy editing. Tiamut 10:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it can be discriminatory, Roland. One person violated the rule, one person was reported, and one person was blocked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering the 3RR policy doesn't always have to result in a block, particularly in a mutli-editor edit war, and considering how quickly your decision was rendered and how it glossed over the minor, yet essential differences in meaning between what was replaced and what replaced it, I agree with RolandR. With respect, I feel that the ban seems to motivated by considerations other than Wikipedia policy or what is best for the community. Tiamut 10:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

For future reference should the issue arise again, I see that you do, in fact, understand the 3RR rule very well, and have tried yourself to have others blocked for violations in the past. [1] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to impugn my credibility or threaten me or something? I ask only because you comments come so quickly on the heels of mine at Mackan79's talk page. [2] I totally forgot about that 3RR filing. And it failed, so it is obvious that I did not understand the rule. Nor do I today. How could I? When it's applied so randomly [3] [4]? Tiamut 18:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You do understand the rule very well, and if you violate it again, you're likely to be blocked again, no matter what conspiracy theories you try to weave. As for you supposedly being threatened or having your credibility impugned, you're far too quick to assume that people are threatening you, [5] [6] [7] and you're the only person who is currently undermining your credibility. Please start assuming good faith of editors in good standing, even when you disagree with them; check user is not there to be used because you decide that two long-standing, respected editors need to be investigated. In future, if you want me to see a message from you, please post it on my talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(Reposting this reponse to SlimVirgin's comments, originally posted on her user talk): No doubt this [8] will be cited as a diff, the next time a reason is found for me to be cited for a violation of some kind. Thanks for the warning and for considering me to be so special as to warrant extra disciplinary action, attention, and follow-up - with personalized notes left for me on the talk pages of other people [9] right after I’ve posted there. And just after your controversial block of me too[10]! I also appreciated how you went digging about for a diff that proves I did something wrong and produce this, [11] as evidence of my having lied in the 3RR. I think I explained myself well there in response to you. And honestly, too. What’s up SlimVirgin? Wikistalking and harassment is not the way to respond to decisions you do not agree with. Can’t you just accept that I blocked you? Oh I'm sorry, it was the other way around. My mistake. (sarcasm, please forgive.) So can I ask what the h-ll you are doing following me around? Thanks, Tiamut 19:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Further, I would like to point out that the request for a check-user was made by another editor, I seconded the motion, it was thirded [12] and while it came out negative, the clerks at check-user say fit to carry it out. So SlimVirgin's characterization of the situation just above is not only unfair, it's also just plain inaccurate. Tiamut 13:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, when I finally had a chance to look at what I actually wrote in the 3RR review that prompted SlimVirgin to imply that I was lying about my experience with 3RR above, it turned out that I hadn't lied at all. I wrote: "I have never had to respond to a complaint like this before and have only made such a complaint once before - rather unsuccessfully - never figured out the diffs. Thanks.) Tiamut 20:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)" I asked for apology [13], but I have yet to get one. Tiamut 21:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples

I agree that Palestinians are indigenous to the region, but they are not Indigenous peoples as defined by the article. In the same way, a user tried to add Jews to the list, suggesting they were indigenous the the area - fair enough, but they are not an indigenous people either, because neither group identifies as an indigenous group. Persians are not considered an indigenous people either, for the same reason. - TheMightyQuill 04:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I made my argument for why Palestinians are indigenous at this page [14] at the bottom. Note that the criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia is quite clear and the sources I provided meet the stated criteria. Leifern's objections misrepresent the sources cited and ignore the UN working group of indigneous peoples cite that shows participants from Palestine as among the 22 peoples represented at the conference. Conversely, Jews are not recognized by the UN as a people indigneous to Palestine. Nor have I been able to find any scholarly sources that meet WP:RS that make that claim. It is really besides the point anyway. That Palestinians are indigenous is a fact that stands alone and in no way confirms or denies Jewish indigeneity to the region. Thanks for your comments though. Tiamut 10:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if they've participated in the UN Working Group and are recognized as an indigenous people, then I'll support their inclusion. My mistake. Thanks for backing up your claims and discussing this in a reasonable and friendly way. - TheMightyQuill 01:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no wikiproject for Indigenous peoples generally, but there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America and more broadly, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups. I don't know about userboxes... but I bet there's something. - TheMightyQuill 02:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're probably right, they should be considered indigenous people, I just don't think the evidence you've provided is sufficient to prove it. I'm trying to be unbiased. I hope you can understand. - TheMightyQuill 19:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Palestinians fight for land, wikipedia template

Hiya Tiamut, thanks for your kind comments. I went to have a look at that Nazareth article and think it looks purty darn good at this point. But WOW what a debate over a simple little template! Amazing how intractable that idea of Palestenians as a post-Isreali construct, n'est-pas? I can fully see your point, and I really feel like 90% of the opposition to you has been emotionally-laden and nearly irrational denial of your people, but hey, kudos for fighting the good fight and (almost) never stooping to personal attacks on your often-patronizing detractors, who don't seem to realize that even using words like 'propaganda' is inherently inflammatory itself. Keep up the great work!

On the other hand, I'd like to point out that your defense of your recent edit behavior, of which I'm only aware through this page, does seem a bit .. well, defensive, if you will. I really doesn't matter that you made an honest mistake, that your intentions and efforts were in line with wikipedia policy, or even that the singling out of you (of all people!) was arbitrarily unfair... 3RR is Really, Really simple, and you did, in fact, violate it. May I recommend you just accept that, and the resulting inarguable 24-hours as the simple inconvenient accident it really is? It happens to lots of editors in the heat of the moment, and I (for one) consider you a marvelously unbiased and cool-headed editor, so I hope you'll have no difficulty taking it in stride, and continuing your excellent work.

And, at the risk of being just fatuous (wow, the spell-checker even knows fatuous!), and I think I've said this before, but -- damn, your English is good, my friend! I mean, I'm not just being impressed you're not a simple stereotype here -- of course many, many Arabs have excellent language skills -- but I'm speaking as a native speaker, and yours has the flow and euphony of someone I'd swear must have been raised in the UK or US. It's dang impressive (said the Texan). <smile> Eaglizard 07:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey there Eaglizard. Long time, no see. It is true that many Arabs have excellent language skills, partially becase Arabic is so damn hard - it makes other languages seem like a piece of cake. But I have to admit that English is right up there, almost a mother tongue, since it was spoken at home alongside Arabic (both my parents are Palestinian, but they thought English was important to learn). I did all my university studies in English (got my MA in New York, a BA in Montreal, started my PhD but never finished it:) I now work as an editor (paid editor and consultant that is) for Israeli academics. Thanks by the way, for you general words of support, though I have to say I don't think I did violate 3RR. I will definitely be more careful in the future and refrain from making edits that are close to previous ones I have made if I am approaching 3 edits that could be interpreted as reverts in 24hrs. I think that's prudent, not only because of the policy, but because I find edit warring so counterproductive. I'll try to spend more time building consensus for changes on the talk. I already do that a lot, but I guess I just have to try harder and not get frustrated when my my thorough, well-researched and logical presentations of fact and just thrown down the trash bin but those whose POV is offended. Anyway, nice to hear from you after all this time and see that you're still around and kicking. Cheers. Tiamut 10:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Request to be unblocked

I'm more inclined than not to deny the unblock request, but I'll leave the decision to a third reviewing admin. While the block was warranted in that you did replace the text "They consider themselves to be an indigenous minority..." with another text at least three times, no matter what other modifications you also made in the course of these reverts, it appears that you also at the same time engaged with other editors on the talk page to find a more consensus-like formulation. This might be counted as a mitigating circumstance. Sandstein 20:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review the situation and for your insightful comments. Can I ask an honest question? Is it 3 or 4 reverts in 24 hours for it to be considered a violation of 3RR? I know reverting is frowned upon, and this is not a ceiling, and I definitely will be doing my best to avoid it in the future, but I would like to better understand the rule. Thanks. Tiamut 21:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello; this is also in reply to your message on my talk page.

• There is no way to review an expired block as such. You could file a WP:RfC with respect of the conduct of the blocking admin, but I wouldn't recommend that, as they, IMHO, acted within policy, and your RfC might be considered disruptive. I'd recommend to discuss it on their talk page first, per WP:DR, but please also remember to assume good faith about their actions.
• WP:3RR stipulates that more than 3 reverts are in explicit violation of the policy. I think it's really explained quite well on WP:3RR itself. My impression is that it is generally understood to be a helpful concretisation of the more general rule of "do not edit war". As such, depending on context, a user may occasionally be blocked for less than four reverts, or they may not be blocked for four, depending on the level of their general disruptiveness and (lack of) communication with others.

Best, Sandstein 22:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to have a look at WP:AN#Block on political grounds?. User:Durova gave some useful advice, based on her long experiance on WP. I agree with Sandstein that it would not be wise to file a RfC about SlimVirgin at this stage, as she did act withing the letter of WP rules, although I seriously suspect that her haste to block you was influenced by her POV. If she blatently abuses editor privilages in order to further a pro-Israel agenda in future, then a RfC should be filed. (Although I will probably be banned from Wikipedia before that happens [15]). You may find the information on User:Huldra interresting. (It is interresting that most of the editors who actually try to do something positive on Wikipedia are women).

I like the Tawfiq Ziad article. I may try to add some material about the political earthquacke his election represented, i.e. the begining of the overthrow of the Zionist sattelite parties and rule of the "notables" in the Arab municpalities which was part of the 1970s political awakening. Unfortunately I have very little access to reference material. I would also hope to try to add something about the significance of his poetry if I get some time.

Welcome back, and best wishes, ابو علي 10:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser

Hi Tiamut, the original discussion is here [16] (talk page of the project page itself). Best, Mackan79 14:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

okay, sorry again.

I agree he's being obnoxious, and you're being far more reasonable, but it was getting a little hot, so I thought I'd encourage some calm. The easiest way to to tell both sides to calm down, rather than just one person, which might only intensify the situation. It's clear that you are doing your best to debate calmly without personal attacks, which I'm sure everyone appreciate. - TheMightyQuill 22:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

For you =)

Hi..I am a friend of Mackan79 and I saw how you have been having to deal with alot of abuse lately so I wanted to give you this. Hope you don't mind! MetsFan76 22:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The Resilient Barnstar

File:Resilient-silver.png		The Resilient Barnstar
		For standing up for yourself against people who make Wikipedia unbearable at times. MetsFan76 22:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome and thank you for the barnstar! =) I pretty much see what goes on in here and it's very sad. I admire your bravery in standing up for yourself against SlimVirgin. For some reason, people back down when confronted by her and I'm not sure why. It was refreshing to see someone take a stand though. =) MetsFan76 22:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tiamut, just want to say thanks as well. Slim's accusations notwithstanding, your comments were actually immensely helpful to resolving the situation, so I didn't have to keep trying to explain myself. Nice to know a few people are looking out :) Best, Mackan79 14:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Levant template / Umayyad

Hullo, In principle I like this "History of the Levant" template that you've added to Umayyad, and it seems particularly relevant as so much of the Caliphs' building activity was directed towards Jerusalem, the Jordanian desert, etc. But I wonder if it doesn't set a difficult precedent -- a while back someone (rightly, I think) removed a much more obtrusive "History of Iran" template from the same article, which had been taking up half the page. It would be difficult to fomulate the exact reasons why one should stay and the other should go -- after all, the Umayyads ruled over both regions.

Have you, by chance, seen Template:History of Anatolia? It has the advantage of sitting horizontally at the bottom of the articles in which it's placed, and therefore doesn't obtrude into the text at all. Food for thought ... --Javits2000 15:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response! For the time being I think it's a useful contribution, but if it attracts others of its type, all may have to go. Regards, --Javits2000 15:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP courtesy deletion and stuff

Marhaba Tiamut! I had a quick look at BLP courtesy deletion page and must admit that in the short time I had, I could not really make sense of what it was about. I see that you have asked SlimVirgin for an apology. Don't hold your breath! However much time you spend trying to reason with her, she is unlikely to reply (arguably a violation of civility policy). Many American Jews seem to suffer from a pathalogical hatred of anything Arab. I find Israeli editors easier to work with. They may be abrasive, but they say what they mean. And they don't suffer from the delusion that everything is perfect in Israel.

The Land Day article is good!

Take it easy.... ابو علي (Abu Ali) 00:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

have a look at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR ابو علي (Abu Ali) 23:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wp:fr

Hi , i'm fr:Omar86 from wp:fr . I've been looking for french speaking Palestiniens to participate in fr:Portail:Palestine . Would you like to participate ? Thank you . 82.216.41.83 21:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy International Womens' Day

ابو علي (Abu Ali) 17:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletions in List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war

I wonder whether trying to reason with Jayjg on the subject is pointless. I tried to have a similar conversation with him yesterday, and he just doesn't get it. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 18:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Image talk:Is-map.PNG

You might need some comic relief. If so, check out this discussion page: Image talk:Is-map.PNG. The section titled "Map categories." Remember my discussion on another page about Tewfik's habit of mass reversions? :) --Timeshifter 08:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Help with fact-checking (1948-49 massacres)

Hi. I've found Amazon.com a great tool, because they often let you "search inside the book."

I was able to look inside Morris, and since you mentioned page 215 I searched for "215."

I posted the page here. It does describe a massacre of 10 Arabs by the Givati Brigade, but it isn't specific as to the location. (At least not to me; maybe the three points mentioned are in such close proximity that they identify a single location to somebody more familiar with the area.) — Malik Shabazz | Talk 17:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

List of indigenous peoples

(in response to your comments on my talk pg) Hi there Tiamut- apologies for the delay in reply, I have been offline this past week or so and am only now just catching up on how that discussion / RfC has been progressing.

I do appreciate your views and the temperate way you have been expressing them in the dialogue. I'd be willing to look into the situation vis-a-vis Palestinian 'indigeneity' some more, however on the basis of the discussion and the references to date I find myself more in agreement with Johannes' observations (see my response to Johannes below). Perhaps it is as you say (at Johannes' talk pg) that the "relative newness of efforts to be formally identified as such" accounts for the indistinctiveness of mentions and representations in recognised indigenous forums. I can't admit to being all that up-to-date on Palestinian or Israeli political practice and theory, so maybe I'm missing something; but I think it would be best to explore Palestinian / Jewish claims on better suited (or even purpose-built) articles- not as a way of minimising or silencing the issue but to place what is clearly a complicated and involved set of circumstances somewhere where the context can be covered better than a mere listing. And certainly not because the "colonizers find the listing contentious", since many of those who are more readily identified as indigenous peoples have that explicit recognition denied them by the state(s) they inhabit, or if not receive only lip-service to their aspirations. Kind Regards, --cjllw | TALK 09:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Law of Return

Marhaba Tiamut, I think that your section is good and have restored it. But the supporters of the "Law of Return" insist on the right of dictating what can be in the criticism section. Lets see how many minutes go by till my edit is reverted. And let them revert it again. Your criticism remains in the article history. Their determination to obliterate even the mildest criticism is a far more damning indictment of the Zionist enterprise than I could ever write.

Some pages are Zionist/Anti-Zionist battlegrounds. It is possible to expend vast amounts of time on these pages in order to make the Zionist propoganda slighly less blatant. But we would be better of using our energies to improve the very sparse material on all aspects Palestinian life here. Most of these subjects are of no interrest to our friends, and we could therefore edit constructively, without revert wars and without having to justify every comma we write.

Anyway, look after youself! ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As I predicted, it took only 19 minutes before my friend User:Humus sapiens reverted the article [17]. If I was a Zionist, I would dispair of the situation and dispair even more for the future. So I suggest that we allow them to enjoy their little victory here. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples

Hi - I noticed you reverted some vandalism on Indigenous peoples. However, I think you did not go far enough back into the history. I myself tried to go back to an earlier, apparently clean, version, but for some odd reason, could not save it, and my change does not show up in the page history. Cbdorsett 08:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there was some freakiness going on with the servers. I can't even find the sequence of edits that prompted me to write to you in the first place. ilā l-liqā'. Cbdorsett 03:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Hi, I forgot to thank you for your message on my talk page. :) By the way, are there userboxes for religion, I can't find them?--MiddleEastern 19:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How can they justify this, they don't know, they haven't seen what we see! Sitting at their computers copying what they see on foxnews. how is it possible not to be angry! I will continue working at this project though :) --MiddleEastern 19:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Taimut

Thanks for your note. My thoughts on the title of the Israeli apartheid article are here.[18]

Internally Displaced Palestinians

I have been watching you very fine work Tiamut, and I really appreciate it. I have been thinking of starting a "Present Absentees" article for ever, and then you beat me to it, by creating Internally Displaced Palestinians! Congrats! Please let me give you

		The Original Barnstar
		for all your much-needed contributions, Regards, Huldra 15:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Whaw, thank you! But I´m not sure I deal with sensible matters in a very sensible way....I´m afraid I laugh too much, and that makes "some" people upset. Do email me, if you feel like it: huldra999 "at" hotmail.com. Btw, I am also female, and then I´m Scandivanian, and old enough to be the mother of most of the editors here (I think). Regards, Huldra 16:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Done! I just created a redir from Present Absentees to Internally Displaced Palestinians: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Present_Absentees&redirect=no ..I don´t have any strong feelings about where the main article should be, but I definitely agree with you that it should be the same article.. There is a bit about "Present absentees" in Nakba#Results_of_the_Exodus; I´m reading the Benvenisti book now, and I can strongly recommend it. (I´ll try to look closer at the IDP article as soon as I´m finished some other stuff)...Just a small note; if I recall correctly, it is not quite the truth that no Druze village was "depopulated": one was, up by Golan heights, but they finally, after years got some/accepted some new land. Morris writes about it at some length, I believe it was in the "1948 and after" book. Anyway, sorry I don´t have much time replying to you now (I`m trying to reply to something at Israel Shahak..)......but I second small note: it is so very, very much easier to "to take it cool" or "step back" from the situation in Israel/Palestine where I am, than where you are. I don´t have any family or religious ties to the region. For me, it is just logging off certain web-sites, basically;-) I´m not at all so sure that I would see the absurdety of things if I, or my loved ones, were living in the middle of it. Take care, Tiamut, it is really, really nice seeing you around her ;-) Huldra 00:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:RFA

Update: MiddleEastern (talk · contribs) is now blocked. Technically, comments are just that: comments or observations, while a neutral vote may be factored in by a bureaucrat as a weak pro or anti support if the result is tight. Since your post was more of a comment rather than a vote, I have made the necessary adjustment. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Singh

Hi Tiamut, thanks for the heads up. Interesting stuff, a little outside my general focus, but I may still check it out. Were you hoping for contributions on any section? Simply one suggestion, I thought the lead could be rearranged as one paragraph:

Jaggi Singh (born 1971 in Toronto) is one of Canada's most high-profile anti-globalization and social justice activists. A self-described anarchist, Singh lives in Montreal where he works with groups such as Solidarity Across Borders (a local migrant-rights organization) and the No One Is Illegal collective, among others. Singh graduated from St. Michael's College School and attended the University of Toronto.

This might look a little more conventional. Otherwise, the sentence about schooling might also go in a section below. If there was anything you wanted me to look at (there or elsewhere), feel free to let me know. Best, Mackan79 21:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, my comment was simply on the order. Thanks, Mackan79 21:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey..

Hi there Tiamut. I ran into your page the other day and started browsing through your articles and contributions. It always pleases me to find another Arab editor in this place. :-) Please let me know if I can ever be of any assistance to you. All the best. - Anas ^Talk? 23:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you. :-) Don't be mislead by my user page, I barely know my way around coding. However, I'd be happy to help you redesign your user page if you like. Also, I'd be pleased to collaborate with you on some article someday. Enjoy the rest of your day, if you're on the other side of the world that is. - Anas ^Talk? 23:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Join the club. Why waste the precious time, eh? There's plenty of time to sleep later. I'm probably going to have a busy week, but a 10-day vacation should follow and I'll be free to do some work. See you around. :-) - Anas ^Talk? 00:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that jayjg removed my warning on his talk page

[19] If that is a breach of policy, would you be interested in participating in a RfC regarding Jayjg's actions? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 15:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

hi

Hi there...I have just sent you an email. MetsFan76 16:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words. Unfortunately, some of these editors think I just like to chime in and get involved with things that aren't my problem. But when I see something wrong, it's just natural for me to say something. I find it funny that they do exactly what they are accusing me of, yet it is not ok for me to speak my mind. Very strange. MetsFan76 17:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

RM

I appreciate your concern, but Jayjg is not to blame this time. I removed the comments myself, having realized that the RM page is the wrong place for the discussion to unfold. Also, I believe that Jayjg was within his rights to move the proposal to the "contested" section. I strongly disagree with his "argument" against the move, but his actions were not a procedural violation. CJCurrie 21:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

MiddleEastern

Hi Tiamut, do you think you could have a few words with User:MiddleEastern in Arabic to help demonstrate that he's not the banned user. Thanks.--Domitius 22:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, selfish me. Thanks anyway, this should clear up whether we're dealing with a sock or not. Also, I notice I've been inconsistently referring to you as "he" or "she" on his talkpage. Sorry about that - out of the window go any of my claims to being a progressive liberal for assuming that everyone is a "he" :) --Domitius 23:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

important issue

Hello, thanks for your note, I´ll take the important issue first: congratulation with your kittens! (I *love* cats!)

-then, about more unimportant issues (like Wikipedia ;-) ) Yes, I agree with you, Separation policy (Israel) and Hafrada should definitely be merged. It happens all the time; just a day or two ago I found that we had two completely different articles; Beit Nabala and Bayt Nabala...about the same "depopulated" village. You just have to copy everything (not in both articles) into one article, and then make a redir., (You just cannot have too many redirs, especially when you are dealing with Arab names. I find this list [20] useful... ideally, one should go through that article and make a redir for each of the alternative spellings.)

-in this case it looks easier to copy from Hafrada (as it is the smallest article), but frankly, I do like the title Hafrada better....

-as for the content: I have edited very little in the "Israeli apartheid" area, I know far too little about the wall, Hafrada etc., so I cannot really give you any good advice there. Some of my interests have been the 1948-villages, the settler-movement on the West Bank, and Israeli Arabs (or whatever name we use..;-) ), especially the land-issue (still awfully under-represented), Now, I´m dead tired, I think I´ll sign out, take care, dear Tiamut, and just ignore those who go around adding nasty personal attacs about anybody they do not agree with..... Just today I was accused of wikistalking a guy...and I have *never* (AFAIK) edited any page he has edited previously! ;-D, Seriously, what can one do, but laugh? Huldra 01:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It started here: [21], then this: [22] (!) and this: [23]

...and since I in between did this: [24] and this [25]

the response is: [26], [27]!! (did anybody mention "wikistalking"?)

which, naturally, ended like this: [28] (hope I have got the diffs right) Goodnight, & give my love to the kittens! Huldra 02:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Very good work!

After I saw your message on my talk page, you had already moved the content to Hafrada. I believe you did a brilliant work in expanding and explaining the concept, its history and its reasoning in a balanced way. Hope that I can stay. Bertilvidet 07:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you. Your comment means a lot to me. Punkmorten 08:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Israel Shahak

Thanks for the excellent references. I only have a few minutes online, but I will take the liberty of posting the material to the article's talk page so that others can work it into the text. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm back. Wow you have been working hard. It must be late. Get some sleep... You have earned it! ابو علي (Abu Ali) 22:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For your kind words, and all your good work.

I'll have a good look at the Hafrada article tonight.--G-Dett 23:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Dear Tiamut. Thank you for your gracious words of support. Its all to rare to receive praise during the administrative process, so when one does its greatly appreciated.

I share your concern over Western bias in our project, not only in terms of informational content, but also in terms of Wikipedian "culture". I'm afraid I avoid editing articles relating to the Middle East simply because I don't feel informed enough contribute constructively, but I do occasionaly get asked to intervene in issues that relate. I don't mean to generalise (which, of course, means I am generalising) but I have noticed that a number of Arabic speaking editors tend to struggle to maintain our civility policies in situations of personal conflict. I certainly don't believe these individuals are any more inherently uncivil as a group, but am beginning to this is a manifestation of a common cultural, or perhaps a societal, reaction to a perceived oppressive authority.

Sadly many "Western" admins see this as a perfect justification to take action against these individuals, rather than understand their reaction for what it is, and attempt to guide them through the Wikipedian process. The irony being is that, in the long term, the thing we need above all are editors like yourself or MiddleEastern, to stop this place becoming a shrine to pop culture and Western hegemony. And often all we would need to do is be a little more flexible until editors can adjust to the the very Western Wikipedian culture. But of course, its always been the Western way to deal with issues in the shorterm without looking at the longterm consequences.

Perhaps i'm unusual in that - although a Westerner myself - I spent a number of years living under an oppressive regime and have seen first hand what affect constant victimisation can have on individuals, even when they are no longer being victimised. That same experience also taught me never to judge those of other cultures by the standards of your own, and I feel that is where en.wikipedia really falls down. Anyway, i'm not sure what the answer is, I guess we all carry on and do our best to act as "buffers" between the extremes. With respect to MiddleEastern, i'm not sure s/he will be successful with getting this account unblocked and perhaps the best thing would be to start afresh. We'll see.

Thanks again for your kind comments and, of course, should you ever need assistance in the future, do drop me a message. Rockpocket 03:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I should clarify, when I say "the thing we need above all are editors like yourself or MiddleEastern," I meant your shared non-western background. It was not a comment on your respective contributions to Wikipedia. I felt compelled to highlight that having discovered more comments like this. Rockpocket 05:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello again Tiamut. Apologies for the delay in my response, I have been very busy in real life and hence my Wiki-activities have been curtailed. Thank you for the barnstar. It is only the second I have received in all my time here. The gesture is greatly appreciated. It appears MiddleEastern has either given up on Wikipedia, or re-invented his or herself and is editing again quietly and legitimately. I hope its the latter, but I'd rather not know, I think. I was interested to read the debate over whether one should get a "thicker skin and deal with Jayjg's remarks". Something I've noted (and have probably be guilty of it myself) is that when an established, long-term editor (or admin) comments on the behaviour of another editor and that person takes offense, they are told to stop being so sensitive. If something is said about the long-term editor (or admin) it quickly becomes a personal attack and a blocking offense. There is an element of double standards here. Nevertheless, that is the way it works, and the way around it is to work within the system until you become an established editor and/or admin yourself. After all, This is a project of equals, its just that some of us are more equal than others. I'm not sure there is anyway to change that. Anyway, good luck on the work you are doing and do drop me a note if you ever need assistance. Rockpocket 05:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Palestinian ethnicity + 3RR warning

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you to adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy for editors, which you appear to have violated at Template:Palestinian ethnicity. Thank you.

in your latest revert you've stated that "the picture of the children is the last thing that enjoyed some consensus"^[29], a thing which is far from true considering the heated debate between "Humus sapiens" (pro), "Nemilar" (pro), "Ramallite" (against), "Tewfik" (pro), "MPerel" (against). "Beit Or" (pro), "Arniep" (against), "RandomMonitor" (pro), "Amoruso" (pro), "Tiamut" (against), "Almaqdisi" (neutral), "Zero" (unclear), "Ian Pitchford" (unclear), "Jaakobou" (pro) ^-[30]

this debate, having a "score" of 7 pro, to 4 against on the topic of replacing the image with one of prominent palestinians is hardy a "concensus to keep the children's image".

may i ask, what is it that bothers you with the new image so much? Jaakobou 07:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

i just noticed you've allready made 3 reverts on the template, i'm reminding you of the 3RR rule, a rule you should be aware of by now. Jaakobou 07:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I made my comments about this "friendly warning" on Jaakobou's talk page. Tiamut 13:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

personal attack and accusation

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User talk:Jaakobou. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Regardless of my opinion (that there's better suited images to represent the palestiain people), i believe i've made the statement that i'm not using another anon. IP to revert the page, so your response^{Tiamut response} (with regards to the notice to keep a NPOV while representing the conversation on the talk page) is simply a not well thought of personal attack based on nothing but speculation and is a basic non adherance to the wikipedia assuming good faith policy. Jaakobou 15:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

(My response to Jaakobou as posted on his talk page) There is absolutely nothing in my comments that could be construed as a personal attack. I would note further that you misrepresented the outcome of the debate on the Talk:Palestinian people page as regards the photo of the children. By my count, it was 5 for change, 6 against change, and 3 undecided. Additionally, those advocating for the change ceased and desisted after realizing they had no policy-based argument. Please review the discussion more thoroughly and consider your actions carefully before ignoring consensus again. Thank you. Tiamut 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to explain your method of counting. in any event, i'd appreciate to hear your reasoning against the new image of notable figures. Jaakobou 16:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

sidenote/personal questions

You are an arab citizen of Israel? Which city do you live in and what is your experience? Is there any segment of the arab muslim population there who think Israel should remain a jewish state, or are you all generally in agreement against such an arrangment? Do you identify as an Israeli, or what? And what are your thoughts on Israel as far as its treatment of Arab citizens. You don't need to answer this if you don't want to, I'm just very interested.--Urthogie 19:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Those are very short questions

That could prompt me to write a long response. (and I did once on Okedem's talk if you want to look it up if you want the extenda-version).

I will just say that I don't believe in religiously or ethnically defined states of any kind and I'm not a nationalist (though I love many aspects of Palestinian cultural life and am a bit of politics buff). I'm pretty much against all "isms" as well. I hold a live and let live kind of philosophy that doesn't jive too well with the meta-environment I live in.

But I'm also a bit of a senitmentalist and I love knowing that my grandfather and his grandfather and his grandmother and her aunt and so and on walked these same paths, and touched some of the same doors (stuff is old here!). I don't think I have more of a right to be here than anyone else because of that, but it makes me happy to think about it.

I think that probably answers your questions is a connect-the-dots kind of way. :) Tiamut 23:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I would support a non-ethnic pure liberal democracy too if I felt it would be a safe Jewish homeland, but this seems extremely unlikely, considering the history of the Palestinians before 1948, and also recent developments with Islamism. Perhaps one day these negative changes will be reversed (although I doubt it), but I'm forced to support a two state solution until the Palestinians practice consistent non-violence.--Urthogie 23:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

An exercise in reflection . . .

You wrote:

I would support a non-ethnic pure liberal democracy too if I felt it would be a safe Jewish homeland, but this seems extremely unlikely, considering the history of the Palestinians before 1948, and also recent developments with Islamism. Perhaps one day these negative changes will be reversed (although I doubt it), but I'm forced to support a two state solution until the Palestinians practice consistent non-violence

Now if I write:

I would support a non-ethnic pure liberal democracy too if I felt it would be a safe Palestinian homeland, but this seems extremely unlikely, considering the history of the Israelis before 1948, and also recent developments in Jewish fundamentalism. Perhaps one day these negative changes will be reversed (although I doubt it), but I'm forced to support a two state solution until the Israelis practice consistent non-violence

How do you feel? Tiamut 23:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, Islamism is a political ideology, while Islam is the religion. So Judaism wouldn't be comparible (although perhaps Zionism would be...although Zionism wants one small state, while Islamism aims to control all of the Middle-East and beyond). However, I would generally feel great to hear an Arab-Israeli advocate a two-state solution until things got better. The fact is, though, that most Arabs don't support a two-state solution. A poll of Palestinians finds the majority think they should control all of the land. Israeli's, however, when polled, support the two-state solution more than anything else.--Urthogie 23:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question though. How does it make you feel? (and I've changed Judaism to "Jewish fundamentalism". Zionism isn't an equivalent. It's more of a secularly-based political program with some religious adherents). Tiamut 23:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I guess that's where we fundmentally differ. As someone for whom Palestinian is a key part of a complex identity, I don't want to be separated from them. And as a human being who believes all others are innately good at base, it never makes me happy to hear that people do want to separated from one another. It's a huge failure of communication manifested at a system level. And it can be resolved. But not by pretending there is a good people and a bad people. We are all just people and we have to share the earth together. The stronger system can't just build walls around an entire people with a weaker system and lock them up and throw away the key. That's called collective punishment. And it doesn't help to build mutual trust and understanding. In any case, thanks for clarifying. I now understand where you're coming from. Tiamut 00:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I used to agree with you. But then the Palestinians elected Hamas. Collective punishment is a lot harder to push off at this point. What would you suggest the Israeli's do? They have offered peace agreements since 1948, almost always rejected or ignored by the Palestinians. When they disengage or move away from the land rockets are fired. How should Israel act in such a situation where there is clearly not just a misunderstanding, but an actual war between two peoples?--Urthogie 00:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Palestinians were not always suicide bombers. It took four decades after their dispossession and displacement in 1948 before the first sad and twisted soul perpetuated that kind of act. I would argue that we are where we are precisely because of a refusal to acknowledge one another's grievances or understand each other's historical and present-day sensitivities. Making blanket arugments about an entire people doesn't bode well for the future.

Is Israel going to start testing "Palestinian-ness" among its Arab citizens and start deporting those considered just Palestinian enough to walled in territories? Where does this path lead exactly? Is Israel's solution to the problem of "terrorism" and "anti-Semitism" to build ghettos? How do walls prevent home-made missiles? I think it's better to drop the assumptions about one another and accept that people and their behaviours are dynamic, not static and respond to circumstance and history and many other factors. But it's safe to say, that is you build a wall around a group of people, they're going to devote thier entire existence to trying to tear it down, and it only delays the inevitable day of settling accounts (or mutual annhilation). Tiamut 00:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The wall is not "around" the Palestinians though. [This is a key point... they are not completely walled in like Europe's Jewish ghettos, they are walled out from a given country they attack, and free to move on the other side.] It is only on the side facing Israel. It is a border created by wars. Why did the idea of a "wall" gain support in Israel? Palestinian terrorism. In a democratic society there is a reason people vote for things. Not because they want to oppress all Palestinians, but because they are interested in security from suicide bombings. The issue to me is pretty simple: Israeli's want a two-state solution, Palestinians want a one state solution. The one state solution is powerful in its morality, but not practically possible at this juncture (and to be realistic, not likely for a long time to produce good results). The two-state solution, is the current answer. And Israelis are already behind this solution. Palestinians are not. What to do then, when there are different goals for each side, different visions of justice?--Urthogie 01:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It is only possible to have such vast, unbridgeablly different versions of justice when there is a denial of the humanity of one's supposed "adversary". Tiamut 04:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

To say there should be a Jewish state is not based on denying anyone's humanity. The recognition of this Jewish state is the source of the disagreement, not some failure to recognize the other's humanity.--Urthogie 06:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"A land without a people for a people without a land," right? Right. My grandparents were not considered "people" by the Zionists. I'd say that's a pretty strong denial of their humanity. Respect. Tiamut 12:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the Palestinians deserve a state as well. This is the essence of the two-state solution. It addresses that both people have Israel as an ancestral home (one of them expelled, one there because of imperialist conquest). If you can't get beyond grandparents-- how my grandparents treated yours and vice versa-- the conflict will never be solved.--Urthogie 14:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. We need mutual acknowledgement. In my view however, if Israelis can't acknowledge what my grandparents went through, and that the granting of "state" to me and other Palestinians is not a gift, but rather a long overdue and miniscule attempt to rectify the massive injury inflicted by Zionism on millions of people (including Jews from Arab countries), then the conflict will never be solved. Tiamut 14:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge what the Palestinians went through. But it's key to look at the causes of what they went through. If you look at the root cause of the palestinian exodus, it was the 1948 war, which was not initated by Zionists, but by Arabs. History often plays cruel jokes, and this is one of them-- Arabs caused the war, which caused/made possible both the Palestinian exodus and the Jewish exodus. So once again I must come back to my conclusion that the whole disagreement comes from the Palestinians having a one-state view that has failed pre-1948, and an Israel with a two-state view among its citizens, a plan which has had international support since 48 and earlier.--Urthogie 17:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

See List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war‎. You haven't acknowledged anything. Acknowledgement requires recognition of what is being acknowledged. To claim the "Arabs started the war" is discredited Zionist propaganda, per the New Historians, like Benny Morris, and per the information revealed in recently declassified Israeli goverment archives and explored in Ilan Pappe's 2006 book. While Israelis looks down at nose at Palestinian "terror" today, pre-state Jewish militias like the Haganah, Irgun, Lehi and the Givati Brigade of the present-day IDF in the 1930s and 1940s did a bang up of job of using terror to achieve political goals, delivering today's Israelis a state out of their efforts. And now hafrada. It's not acknowledgement, it's just continued denial. Tiamut 03:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, its awful, those massacres that occured during the 1948 war. So rational people ask: what caused that war? Yes-- what caused that war?

History shows that both Palestinians (see: Benvenisti, 2002, p. 101, Gilbert, 1998, p. 155., "7 Jews Murdered", The Palestine Post,1 December 1947, p. 1., "Palestine's Arabs Kill Seven Jews, Call 3-Day Strike", New York Times, 1 December 1947, p. 1.) and Israelis (see: Benny Morris) acted in violation of the 1947 resolution soon after it was passed. Both sides acted both in violation of the dictates in regards to who owned what land, and both sides committed violence against the other side. It's also correct, by the way, to say terrorists existed on both sides. The arabs, were the first to actually initiate force, though.

I don't respect the clearly prejudiced work of Pappe and his far-left peers as historically neutral or even accurate, by the way, so bringing him up will fall on deaf ears. The tactic of such fringe left wing historians is to search for "ghosts" of policies in Israeli history by searching for every document in site. If this approach to history were applied to all United States documents, and the US released all of its documents today (as Israel releases many of its documents), you would likely find a document on possible vectors of attack against Norway, Iceland, and Turkey. Of course, we in the US would never actually perform such military operations in any likely scenario, but the fact remains that Governments are always on guard for any situation that may arise. They have a plan A B C and D. Unfortunately, we can't get access to the plans and policies of countries like syria, because they are Arab dictatorships that deny their citizens the rights to such documents, and prevent the investigation of history. I wonder if the PLO does the same thing?

That the Arabs committed similar violations of the 1947 partition as the Israelis, and that they were also the first to introduce the initation of force after the partion plan, is an incredibly embarassing fact for those Palestinians who wish that the international community would view the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as primarily moral, monster versus oppressed story, rather than a result of real politics and history-- of two peoples, both of whom have a moral right to statehood. Perhaps what's really needed is "recognition" and "acknowledgement" from the Palestinians. Where is the Palestinian Benny Morris? The answer? There isn't one. They are too busy distorting their "Nakba" to sound like a "master plan", based on flimsy evidence. The Palestinians even have their own seperate narrative, which most mainstream historians explicitly reject. (For example, Mr. Morris, whom you yourself referenced because of his impressive knowledge and authority on this subject, shows that the "master plan" theory is actually pro-Palestinian propaganda).

So, no, the claim that Israel initiated force is a blatant falsehood, and the claim that the causes for 1948 war were almost solely Israeli is untrue as well. And guess who initiated the use of force in that evil, evil 1948 war? Arabs. The reason Palestinians oppose Israelis is not because of the "Nakba", but rather because they believe the Jews have no right to a Jewish state in their ancestral homeland. And from this one-state logic, all the ridiculous arguments emerge. The New Left may gobble it up, but the world as a whole never will (unless anti-Semitism is somehow able to motivate this development).--Urthogie 03:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in, but this is an interresting discussion. But Urthogie, I must ask you well before 1948 at the beginning of Zionist colonialisation: did not the Zionist plan to create a Jewish state in Palestine make a conflict with the indiginous inhabitants inevitable? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 22:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey ali, this is a very good question. I think definitely yes, any introduction of a foreign people would cause some level of conflict. This is why I truly feel for the Palestinians. The holocaust was not their fault in the least bit, and too many Jews have this victim complex which makes them think the entire world did the holocaust, when it was only parts of the Western world. But I think that the conflict can be dealt with, or perhaps even solved if the Palestinians will acknowldge that both sides deserve states. They are yet to do this.--Urthogie 01:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian territories

Tiamut. You may be interested in this discussion:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Use of admin tools in content dispute. --Timeshifter 07:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Palestine

Hi, How about putting together a WP Palestine? I found that there was already a project page, but with nothing much on it. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palestine Are you interested in bringing it to life? --Fjmustak 20:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Israel Shahak poll

Please vote in the poll for replacing the Praise, Criticism and Accusations sections with a short summary. Your opinion is much valued. Thanks. Itayb 22:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

AFD

Hi. Thought you might find this somewhat interesting. Regards, Punkmorten 21:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

unilateral?

we went through every single one of your sources, and you didn't reply for weeks. eventually, it made sense to ignore a non-contributor. Please don't bring the page back until the debate is resolved.--Urthogie 16:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Replacing with a disambig is not deletion. Secondly, you'll have to defend your sources before you revert so much back.--Urthogie 16:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No I don't have to do anything of the sort. You went ahead and deleted all my work despite no consensus on the matter. If you feel so strongly that it violates Wiki policy, you should have no problem with putting it up for deletion review. I feel that my work can withstand that kind of scrutiny. In fact, I welcome it. I suggest that you cease deleting validly sourced, relevant information by redirecting the page to the disambig page you created without any input whatsoever. With respect, Tiamut 16:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course you welcome it, because you want a deletion review on something which hasn't been deleted. DRV is for articles, not content. If someone decides to be bold and eliminate Original Research based on discussions and having waited weeks, they don't need a vote on it. I'm sorry you had some personal stuff, but you have to continue talk page discussion before restoring this material.--Urthogie 16:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for using the term, I meant AfD not deletion review. However, that doesn't change the point. It stands. Go ahead and put it up for AfD and see what happens. Tiamut 16:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Further, I don't want to continue the talk page discussion, which was nitpicking on your part, and particularly after that page was archived after your unilateral decision to delete the article content and replace it with the disambig Hafrada. Who did you consult before making that decision? Anyone at all? Tiamut 16:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If you don't use the talk page then I'll have every right to revert ya.--Urthogie 16:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No you don't. Particularly when you made your decision to delete the information on the page unilaterally. And I am using the talk page at the new page, so you're misrepresenting my comments above which merely express frustration with the inanity of your deletions and reversions of my earlier work there in the original article. Please, nominate the article for deletion if you feel it is not worthy of an encylcopedic entry. I welcome the review by other editors. What I will not abide by is your unilateral decision to effectively delete the article by removing its text and replacing it with a disambig page or by redirecting any new pages I create to that page. No other editor was consulated or agreed to your decision. It enjoys no consensus. Open it to review by other editors via an AfD if you feel strongly about it but stop using sneaky tactics to get what you want without any input from the community. Tiamut 17:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

AFD is for deleted articles, not deleted content.--Urthogie 17:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You deleted all the information in the article with the exception possible of the first sentence and replaced it with a disambig Hafrada. That IS deleting the article. Tiamut 17:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC) And then you deleted all the content on the new page Hafrada (Separation) and replaced it with a redirect to the disabig page you unilaterally created. Again, deleting the article. If you feel so strongly that it does not belong here, put it up for AfD and see what happens. Tiamut 17:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Enough. Use the article's talk page to continue this.--Urthogie 17:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am. Please don't be bossy. Tiamut 08:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

K. I think we can compromise, but we should remove the disambiguated stuff from the lead since its now disambiguated.--Urthogie 16:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Thanks for your kind words. I hope your time away has been enjoyable and productive. Il alika ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hafrada (Separation)

Hi Tiamut. I think that if sourced material from reliable sources continues to be deleted in whole or in part, then I suggest you make a report to WP:ANI. I have seen that making a report there (on any guidelines issue) to be very helpful. Even if they do not resolve the problem there, you will get other very experienced editors and admins to take a look at the article. The added eyes tend to solve many problems, and to moderate the situation. I do not have the time to delve into the particulars of the article, but can help with sorting out the article history, talk pages, etc.. I will also comment at WP:ANI if a report is made. Deleting sourced info from reliable sources is a breach of wikipedia guidelines. People have been blocked for it after an incident report was made at WP:ANI. --Timeshifter 08:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Arab sources for apartheid accusation

Thanks for your help. If it's ok by you, I'll just xfer your comment there, or you can do it. Past time for me to get to bed. Andyvphil 13:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

One last look before I signed off, and I see you mentioned it on the discussion page. So I'll go ahead and xfer it. Andyvphil 13:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Nice to see you here again Tiamut!--G-Dett 21:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Palestinian page

You're right that my comments were not the most helpful to the article but I was mostly responding to the points of the editor that posted above me. I'll keep my comments about Palestinians more relevant in the future. Jtpaladin 21:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

More deletion attempts

It seems to be a pattern. Similar to multiple partial and total deletion methods used with Hafrada articles. Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Multi-editor improper deletion (without another AFD) of main part of United States military aid to Israel --Timeshifter 09:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Now there are deletion attempts concerning notices of deletion attempts! Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine‎ and the revision history. Tewfik has deleted the notice 3 times now. Can you point out the relevance of the notice to the project? I will just leave a link to the incident report this time. --Timeshifter 14:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Hi Tiamut, I'm kind of caught up but I'll try to check it out. Thanks, Mackan79 13:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ciao

Thanks for your nice note. Yeah, tweedledee and dweedledumb got me pretty good, gotta hand it to 'em. I dipped my toes in Hafrada last night, but I'll give it some more thought in the coming days. Nice work there.--G-Dett 16:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Palestine

Hi Tiamut. Thanks for the invite, but I don't really have an in-depth knowledge of Palestinian issues and mostly concentrate on Israeli ones (hence the work on the Bishara article). Nevertheless, if I see some bias in any Palesine-related articles that I click on (in either direction) I shall correct it. Number 57 13:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you on strike?

Marhaba ya Tiamut! Hope you are well. Are you on strike? I have started an article on 2007 Israeli student strike. I have tried to interest our pro-Israel friends but most of them do not seem to have much interrest in what is actually happening in Israel. Unfortunately I am not there so do not really understand what is going on, and why the struggle on a seemingly minor question is so intense. Do you have any insights? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 12:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Nesting

OK. I just like neat headers, but I understand that as WPPalestine is a new group, you need a period of maximum exposure. Good Luck -- Avi 17:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

sorry for being rude

--Urthogie 18:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

{{1948 Palestine-geo stubs}}

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 02:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian people

Thanks for your note Tiamut. I don't believe Levy-Coffman has appropriate expertise or the right academic background. To be able to present an overview and synthesis of current research in genetics one needs professional training. In my view the studies she cites contradict the stance she takes in the abstract of her paper. --Ian Pitchford 18:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you will be able to find plenty of reliable sources in this area. Good luck! --Ian Pitchford 20:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Seam Zone

Hi Grutness. I want to thank you for your explanation of your deletion of the Palestine geo stub and your help in creating a Palestine history stub for that category instead. I wanted to ask you, given your comments, how you would classify the area discussed in this article Seam Zone? How would I classify it? I wouldn't - I'd leave it to someone better versed in Middle East politics :) More seriously, there's nothing to stop an article having more than one stub template, and areas along borders between two countries usually get the geo-stubs for both countries - so giving it both Palestine-geo-stub and israel-geo-stub would make sense. If a Middle East politics stub existed it might also be useful (there doesn't seem to be one at the moment, but it might be worthwhile - I might propose that one, too. As for the help, no problem. One of the reason the stub-sorting project is there is to work out what stub types would be useful, and a Palestine-hist-stub seems to be one that would be - although the definition of exactlywhat would be covered by it may be tricky. Grutness...wha? 11:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Did you know

Something from your new article Seam_Zone may be appropriate to be submitted to Wikipedia:Did you know. --Abnn 11:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Did you read my justification on the talk page? The Arab-Israeli dynamic on wikipedia is extremely fragile. Why go out of our way to exacerbate it? We can start a request for comment if you wish. I am not interested in making points, but ensuring that wikipedia be developed fully and smoothly in accordance with policy and guideline. -- Avi 14:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! A little cultural sensitivity is expected, for all cultures. Please read my response on the template talk page. Thank you. -- Avi 14:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, I am not arguing that those are the proper pictures for articles on Palestinian refugees! But not for the general Palestinian ethnicity template. Use them in their proper place, but templates are not meant to be used to make political statements, Tiamut. -- Avi 14:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, my point has always been to pick a picture that has neither overt nor subtle political overtones, in either direction. At this point I think our respctive opinions and their supporting arguments are well defined on the talk page, and since wikipedia is built on consensus and compromise, I am going to sit back and listen to others' opinions. I reserve the right to defer to consensus if consensus goes against my opinion as much as I reserve the right to ask that consensus be respected should it go with my opinion. . -- Avi 16:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries

Tiamut, I am very familiar with all goings on in this topic area and I apologize that I am not a fighter. I find a lot of things seem to be deliberately provocative and in those situations I just sit back and let the people involved get it out of their system. I think you are one of the best editors in this topic area, if not the best, and my hope is that you don't get drawn in to too many of these artificial controversies and burn out, because your real contributions of historical articles are invaluable. I think it is best to keep coming out every day than to burn out. Wikipedia is 6 years old and many of the main articles in this topic area are constantly being fought over, it isn't worth my time to get into those fights too deeply as any contribution I make will likely only be ephemeral. I like my contributions to stick around for a long time, as it is simply the best use of my time. --Abnn 18:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

why is refugees POV?

I think that the refugees picture would be more appropriate in a template specifically about Palestinian refugees than the Palestinian ethnicity template. --Abnn 18:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that a great long term strategy in this topic area is to portray Palestinians as real people with real lifes. I don't care so much about the competing one-dimensional portrays of either Palestinians are all terrorists or Palestinians are pure victims/refugees. I think we can't ignore those aspects of the conflict as they are important but the subtle argument that "Palestinians are people with rich lives and hopes and ambition just like Israelis" I think is incredibly powerful and often lost in the midst of these attention-demanding POV wars on just a few key articles. --Abnn 18:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. What I said above about Palestinians is applicable to all segments of Palestinian society, not just the refugees, but inclusive of them. I think we are misunderstanding each other. --Abnn 19:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian refugees in 1948.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Palestinian refugees in 1948.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Avi 03:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It is already a file on commons. I have changed the links to reference the proper version, and this is just housekeeping. -- Avi 03:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tiamut. Image is on the commons. English wikipedia has a transcluded image description page:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Palestinian_refugees.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Palestinian_refugees.jpg

Please see Wikipedia:Transclusion. --Timeshifter 16:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

When ever someone removes a passage from an article either directly or via revert, the first thing you should do is post the contents of that removed passage to the talk page if you want to retain it. It makes it easier for others to see what the fuss is about, both immediately and down the line (as some undetermined time in the future someone reading the talk page may decide to reinsert the material) otherwise it just gets lost in the articles history. --Abnn 16:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to AGF that you were frustrated or what not when you charged me with wikistalking etc., and so I'm reverting that edit to my Talk. Tewfik^Talk 16:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If you truly believe that I am "wikistalking" or otherwise behaving inappropriately, then please request some outside opinion. However I won't be subject to such charges just because you don't want me challenging your sourcing - this is Wikipedia. Tewfik^Talk 16:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend dropping the conversation today, I think that some of the undue emotion from a very heated debate is leaking into the wider community that are editing in this topic area and just making everyone cranky, I noticed it happening to myself last night. --Abnn 16:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

People remove comments and/or warnings from their talk pages all the time, there isn't anything you can do about that. --Abnn 16:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I just want to note that I didn't even remove it entirely, but left a link to the diff. Now if you really think there is a problem and want to engage in discussion, I am quite open, but your comments came off to me as an accusation without basis in my actions. I understand why you might be frustrated by me challenging your source in several places, however keep in mind that those are all places in our mutual field of interest - a world away from stalking. Anyway, I didn't get very involved in the PR CSN, but I hope that we can all move on to work together. Tewfik^Talk 17:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian Exodus

Good edits on the intro! Keep up the good work :) Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 16:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered ArbCom

"I only just now realized that PalestineRemembered had requested on his/her talk that we post issues we wanted to raise there, here, first."

I'm not sure Mark will see this comment very quickly, you might choose to switch it here anyway. PalestineRemembered 15:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Bogus warnings

Please cease your boogus warnings and edit warring, and contribute usefully to the encyclopedia. Not evry article needs to be made into an episode of the Israeli-Palestinina conflict. Isarig 18:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have explained my edits extensively on the Talk page of the article. You are welcome to participate in the discussion there. Isarig

Flying checkpoint/Hasty checkpoint

I've put in a suggested compromise over at Flying checkpoint, for what it's worth.--G-Dett 19:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Tiamut. You might be interested in adding your name to this:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-05-20_Al-Aqsa_Intifada

In the section titled "Who are the involved parties?" Armon added his name to it later. So I assume people can add their names to it. Comments can be added to the discussion section on the same page. --Timeshifter 16:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Help Desk

I have replyed to your comment on the help desk about your signature.

Click here to view it

Regards Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 18:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the award but you didn't have to. Remember if you need anymore help, just ask me or on the help desk! :-) Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 18:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous User:68.36.253.214

Greetings Tiamat, I am relatively new to the whole anti-vandalism project, but as I continue to revert vandalism, I have noticed that the automated bots seem to be able to follow-up if a user continues to vandalize and threaten edit banning. This seems to be the case with Anonymous User:68.36.253.214. I will keep you posted as I learn more. Eleos^Prime 19:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

With hope, we'll both get less foggy as time goes on. :) Eleos^Prime 19:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Morris Quotes

Hi Tiamut! I have the Morris book and will check the quotes this evening. Thanks for pointing that out! Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 14:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I checked it out and on page 65 of Morris:2003 I've got the following:

Strategically speaking, the period December 1947 -- March 1948 was marked by Arab initiatives and attacks and Jewish defensiveness, increasingly punctuated by Jewish reprisals. Arab gunmen attacked Jewish cars and trucks, from late December increasingly organised in British- and Haganah-protected conveys, urban neighbourhoods and rural settlements and cultivators. The attackers never pretended to single out combatants; every Jew was a legitimate target. The hostilities swiftly spread from a handful of urban centres to various parts of the countryside. The Haganah initially retaliated by specifically and accurately targeting the offending terrorist or militia group or village. But this often proved impossible and, in any case, failed to suppress Arab belligerence, and by February-March 1948 the organisation began to dispense with such niceties and to indiscriminately hit Palestinian traffic and villages, but still with relative restraint and in retaliation. At the same time, the IZL and LHI, acting independently, beginning already in early December 1947, reverted to their 1937-1939 strategy of placing bombs in crowded markets and bus stops. The Arabs retaliated by exploding bombs of their own in Jewish population centres in February and March (...). The Haganah also on occasion inadvertently employed terror, as in the attack on Jerusalem's Semiramis Hotel in January 1948, but normally cleaved to a policy of hitting the guilty and, when not, at least limiting the violence in scope and geographically to areas already marked by Arab-initiated violence.

This is all said in an introduction to the first phase of the exodus. Note that Morris lists the Haganah's actions as reprisals and defensiveness, yet sets the attacks of the Irgun and Lehi at the beginning of December 1947, which is when the whole mess started and are not put in the context of retaliation. So the quote is correct (if not severely parsed) when it comes down to the actions of the Haganah, but not if you include the Irgun and Lehi.

I still haven't read the book in full, but if you need more info, I can get it for you. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 10:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

al-Qasim picture

Hey Tiamut, I really hate to bother you but can you upload a picture of poet Samih al-Qasim. I made an article on him a few weeks ago and I want to build an info box. Thanks, - Al Ameer son

Re: Thanks

Re: your comments:

Tiamut, as I said elsewhere, my primary problem is not with Shahin per se, but with it being used as a direct reference for expert claims. My major request has consistently been that the sources she cites be presented alongside any challenged claims, since it is a travel book, and not a treatise on archaeology, history, etc. I would hope that you could limit future AGF-violating speculation and keep your discussion limited to content instead of contributors. Maybe you could reciprocate the lack of such speculation on my part towards you? Tewfik^Talk 23:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see how my comments violate AGF. I described your position that Shahin is not a reliable source. Perhaps the word "attacking" was strong, but that is how I felt about your refusal to recognize her as a reliable source. As for my speculations as to your intentions in doing so, I think the comment was quite mild and inoffensive. I call it like I see it; however, should you have felt offended, I am sorry for that. Tiamut 07:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Its not just the "attacking", but mostly the speculation about my intention, which is exactly what AGF is designed to prevent (I think the hope was if they could get it disqualified for use at one of those articles that they could stop its use everywhere). Moreover, the speculation is not an accurate representation of my position, which I restated above. I do appreciate that you saw fit to apologise for what you saw as an offence, and my hope is that we can have more productive communication in this spirit. Tewfik^Talk 03:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as you have not replaced the tag with the source I provided you with from Shahin, I have no reason to assume good faith. You are quite obviously aware of the discussion regarding her being a legitimate source on other pages. Your constant reversion on my addition of her as a source for the Canaanite name of Bet Shean was quite inexplicable, and invited speculation as to your intentions. I apologized for any offense you might have taken from my comments so as to be amicable, but that was not an admission of wrongdoing. I might add that actions speak louder than words. When you do the right thing and reinsert the material you deleted without regard for WP:NPOV, then maybe we can begin a productive editing relationship. Until then ... Tiamut 16:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled as to why you don't acknowledge my repeatedly telling you what the problem with using only a travel-book for expert claims is, and I can't understand why you would not present whatever citation Shahin uses for those claims. All of that aside, you aren't permitted to choose to violate core principles like AGF just because you are in a content dispute, and I'm sure you wouldn't like others doing such to you. Tewfik^Talk 17:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You know that Shahin's book is not a travel book, based on the review from The Independent. If you prefer to believe the misinformation spread by Daniel Pipes, an obviously partisan and reputedly bigoted anti-Muslim analyst, you are free to do so. But don't try and pretend it's me that is having trouble understanding. WP:AGF states "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." My knowledge of your editing track record and your persistent obfuscation and even lying (as is the case here: Shahin's book is not a travel book and you don't even have a copy so don't pretend you know what's in it) does not require me to be a quiet fool. Tiamut 12:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't "know that Shahin's book is not a travel book", and I have no idea what review you are talking about, but I doubt that it says that Shahin is peer-reviewed or that She is either an archaeologist, linguist, or other expert. Its really a shame that you discard AGF, the one principle that might allow you to engage in constructive editing, instead fabricating another dubious allegation - now I'm apparently a liar. Why don't consider that you are on conflict nearly everywhere that you are trying to add these theories, including with editors who even you seem to acknowledge generally agree with your point of view. Despite all the hostility and accusations, I've yet to violate these policies regarding you, and most others seem to have also respected them. Perhaps the policies apply to you as well? Tewfik^Talk 15:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Is Jib (village) not on your watchlist? The discussion on Shahin not being a travel book occurred there and given your involvement in editing that article, I assumed you saw it. If you did not and I am mistaken, I will repeat for your benefit now that Shahin's book is not a travel guide. Since you don't have a copy of it and you have no sources that claim that it is a travel guide, on what basis are you challenging Shahin's expertise (or lack thereof)? Your claim remains simply a claim and your refusal to include the information is therefore not based on policy, but simply your stubborn refusal to give voice to an alternate POV, which violates WP:NPOV. Given that this is pattern with you, as I said, I have no reason to WP:AGF.Tiamut 15:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no apology for calling me a liar. Doesn't it seem odd to you that you keep accusing me of things, and yet ultimately have no proof for them? No, but you're right - the pattern is me stubbornly refusing to hear another point-of-view. Keep assuming bad faith and see where that gets you. As for the discussion about Shahin, even ignoring Daniel Pipes, all you have from the Independent is "Hugely impressive... deeply researched, written with flair and passion, and enriched... with Azar's beautiful photography"; I see no evidence that it represents peer-reviewed expertise. You've further refrained thus far from reproducing any citations to expert sources that she might give. Tewfik^Talk 16:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, according to books.google.com Palestine: A Traveller's Guide is an insider's look at where, and how, Palestinians live today. It's listed under Travel/Foreign. The purpose for writing this work, as with most you have used, is expressly political. Shahin is not an academic, she's a journalist, and the book itself does not contain one single footnote. It is a personal, impressionistic, political view of Palestinians, not a scholarly work. The problem with your research is you are bound and determined to connect Palestinians to Canaanites, and so are desperately searching for works which make that claim. Unsurprisingly, they turn out to be political in nature, and generally unreliable. You should be starting from reliable sources, are reporting what they say, rather than desperately searching for confirmation for your thesis. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In an attempt to move the debate beyond the simplistic "Traveler's Guide" characterization, here is an academic review of Palestine: A Guide, in the Journal of Palestine Studies. I think that focusing on this book is sort of unnecessary though as all of the information that has been cited to it isn't unique academic results but rather just straight foward, although obscure, historical fact. I would bet if one were to go to a university library and look on the shelves beside this book one will find others that have the same information. --Abnn 02:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Demographics of Jerusalem

Hello. There were unexpected consequences of the merge from Jerusalemite. Apparently, there is the beginnings of an edit war there concerning the new content. I am not sure what the right thing to do is here. nadav (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)