User talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Jmabel | Talk 20:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Archive of Previous Username

see: User_talk:Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg/Archive

Six-Day War

Thank you for your note. I'd be glad to work through the article issue by issue with reference to the sources. Just let me know how you would like to proceed. --Ian Pitchford ^{Talk | Contribs} 11:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Pictures

Hi,

Regarding the recent tank pictures you took from globalsecurity.org: We're not allowed to uploaded copyrighted photos to Wikipedia. Everything on the Web should be assumed to be copyrighted unless there's reason to believe otherwise. Exceptions are photos in the public domain or copyrighted photos that have been released under the GFDL. The CopyrightFreeUse tag you added is not correct; nowhere on globalsecurity.org does it say that the photos are free for anyone to use. See Wikipedia:Copyright tags for more information. Thanks - Tempshill 22:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Shalom, Buna ziua, Salam, Guten Tag!

I want to add that you must read Wikipedia:Copyrights about the rules of the usage of images. Copyrights is an issue taken very seriously in wikipedia. Images other than free, public domain or GFDS licensed are to be deleted. mikka (t) 07:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Please also be careful with websites that offer "free" images. Many of them are not very scrupulous with copyrings. Also, when indicating the source of an image, it is insufficient to list a link to the image file itself (e.g. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/images/gazelle-52p02.jpg); a link to the page that indicates the origin/authorship and copyright info for the image is necessary. mikka (t) 08:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Mufti Quote

The more I research the guy, the more certain I am that he said it or something like it. However, your proposal seems like the minimum that any thorough article must contain. If we can verify that he said what he is purported to have said over German radio and/or in his memoirs (see my more recent comments then they should be included and/or the quotation should just be allowed to stand as is. Damn! I wrote more and explained this further and it got lost in a Wikipedia server error and I've got to go now. Later. Kriegman 13:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

So I never got around to trying to rewrite what I lost. But I followed your suggestion, despite my misgivings. I would have liked to be able to research this further to see if there are any other confirming sources for the specific quotation and/or similar statements by the Mufti. Unfortunately, now that the caveat is in the article, if partially confirming information surfaces it may not be sufficient to remove the caveat. Oh well. If what Zero said about Myths and Facts is true (and I do not know that it is or isn't), then the caveat does make the article more accurate. Kriegman 17:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Jordan

I don't think it would be such a bad idea, but it would have to be thoroughly sourced and it should probably go in History of Jordan or 1948 Arab-Israeli War, rather than in Jordan. Tomer ^TALK 00:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Come up with any ideas or sources yet on that, or have any comments regarding my suggestion? Tomer ^TALK 07:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

no...and unfortunately I don't really have much time these days to work on it... Zero might know of something tho... If you're up for the task, you might consider a bit of collaboration on it with hir... Tomer ^TALK 08:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Pollock's Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991

Even though it runs to 706 pages I'd choose "condensed" to describe the book over "simplified". It was compiled at the behest of the Council on Foreign Relations and is pretty thorough, especially for facts and figures. On the web you can find tables giving figures for Arab forces almost ten times the actual figures. --Ian Pitchford ^{(t) | (c) | (bias)} 11:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Mufti in 1948

Concerning the sentence "The situation was not made easier by the fact that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husayni, closely cooperated with the Nazi Germany during the Second World War." It is true that he cooperated with Nazi Germany, but this article is about the 1948 war so the relevance has to be established. That is an opinion which is not generally accepted by historians. The majority opinion is that his actual influence in the Palestine issue in 1948 was negligible, which is what the Arab states intended. In fact his relevance had been pretty minor since he fled Palestine to avoid British arrest in 1937. So I see this insertion as rather gratuitous. It would be quite easy to add lots of anti-Zionist "don't forget"s as well; we should avoid that sort of posturing. It isn't a competition. --Zero 09:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion

Hello MoCHAS, I'll be happy to do it, but in accordance with WP policy, could you please tag your page as outlined below:

How do I delete my user and user talk pages?

Where there is no significant abuse, and no administrative need to retain the personal information, you can request that your own user page or talk page be deleted. Most frequently, this occurs when a longterm contributor decides to leave.

Just add to the page: {{deletebecause|the reason you need the page deleted}}. A sysop will then delete it after checking that the page does not contain evidence of policy violations that may need to be kept. If there has been no disruptive behavior meriting the retention of that personal information, then the sysop can delete the page straight away in order to eliminate general public distribution of the history containing the information. If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Non-main namespace pages for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user and user talk page. If a user page and user talk page were deleted because a contributor left, it may be restored by a sysop if the contributor returns, particularly if the history contains evidence of policy violations.

User pages that have been deleted can be recreated with a blank page, or a link to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians to avoid red links pointing to them.

I want to make sure WP policy is followed by tagging the page. Secondly, could you please copy the contents of your talk page to this page or, for example, to User_talk:Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg/Archive (use whatever name instead of "Archive" you prefer. Once these two things are done, I can delete ASAP. Thanks Ramallite ^(talk) 14:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello again. Your former user page has been deleted. Your former talk page is now automatically redirected to the Archive page. The reason is that there are a number of edits in which you signed with your former name and, at least for the time being, other editors may want to contact you. Let me know if this is okay with you, or if you want your former talk page also deleted outright. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions. Glad to be of help! Ramallite ^(talk) 03:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi - every time there is an edit to your user talk page, you will get a "new messages" flag. Your new message flag probably stems from the fact that I added a redirect command to it. In order to see it, first log in under your old user name and go to User_talk:Julian_Diamond and, as you said, it will be automatically redirected. But if you look under the main title, you will see in small letters the phrase "(Redirected from User talk:Julian Diamond)". Click on that, and it will take you to the actual page with the redirect command on it. There should be nothing else on that page, and now that you have seen the page, the "You have new messages" flag should disappear. You can even click on "history" to check if anybody else has added anything after my last edit, but I don't think so. I hope this helps. Ramallite ^(talk) 05:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Zero

He seems to have a keen respect for the sources, which is a boon to Wikipedia. Judging from his lack of patience with less-experienced editors I would guess he's a serious scholar. --Ian Pitchford 14:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Zero is extremely knowledgeable about Israel, Palestinians, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Did you know he had his admin suspended for this same behavior in 2004 and was threatened with permanent desysop if he violated his probation. See the arbcom decision here. Kriegman 07:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Yuber's new article

Have you seen Yuber's new article? There's a discussion about it on its talk page here: Talk:Israeli occupation of Lebanon. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Mufti quotation

Hi! I saw you followed the discussion about quotation of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husayni. I thought you would be interested to know that Kriegman found quite good documentation for this quote, as well as for Mufti's role after WWII. He gave references to books and Nuremberg trials. If you are interested, you will find it here: Talk:1948_Arab-Israeli_War#The_Mufti.27s_role_in_creating_the_belief_that_the_Arab_goal_was_eliminating_the_Jews

With best regards, Heptor.

• Thank you for your contribution to the 1948 war. Please see what I am against in Talk:Palestinian_exodus Zeq 14:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Email

And the rule is once again proven true, Nature abhors a vacuum. Good luck and good hunting.

Guy Montag 05:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Your talk page

Hi Moshe, I don't completely follow your query, but I took a look and there's no new message on your talk page. You're maybe getting the "new messages" notice because Ramallite moved the page. You can see your old talk page history here and all messages from now on should arrive automatically at your new talk page. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

JEW

[Removed vandalism]

The user that vandalized your page has been blocked for one month. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

MCHAS, you may want to avoid "fighting fire with fire." Wikipedia doesn't have a provision that covered "He started it," and there are plenty of vandals out there who can provoke you, and plenty of people who can take offense at insults, even if they weren't directed at them. I removed your comments from the vandal's page, since they would violate policy. I understand your anger and annoyance at this sort of hateful, violent speech; but the best bet is to get the user blocked (done) and rise above it. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

1948 Arab-Israeli War

Just for the record all of this section is sourced to the works cited. It shouldn't be necessary to say who the authors are but I've included details in the article. Additionally, I did actually tone down Shapira's conclusions. What she actually says in addition to what I quoted about "mass indiscriminate killings" is that there was basically no difference between the tactics employed by the Irgun and the night squads and that the Irgun used extortion, and robbery "in the Jewish community in order to finance their actions", executed Jews "suspected of informing, even though some of these persons were totally innocent", attacked the "British without any consideration of of possible injuries to innocent bystanders" and murdered the "British in cold blood". I don't see how it's POV (in the words of your edit summary) to cite these authorities, but presumably NPOV to include this bizarre conclusion without references: "During the uprising, Arab general strikes and riots targeted both the British and Jews alike. Moderate Palestinian Arabs who were seen as collaborators were also lynched and assassinated by Arab extremists. In fact, it is possible that the number of Arabs murdered by Arabs constituted the greatest number of the victims of violence of this period." --Ian Pitchford 11:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Moshe, we have a major problem: The two most involved editors (Ian and Zero) are both the most knowledgable and share the same bias. This has introduced a large amount of bias in this article. Every point that leads to a positive or even reasonable view of Israel is subjected to the highest standards of evidence/research before it is allowed to stand. Not knowing the field as well as they do, I do not know when to insist that they justify each point (or delete it) that demonizes Israel and focuses on the suffering of the Palestinians.

When I focus on a specific issue, like the perception of genocidal motives on the part of the Palestinians (or rather, on the part of certain leaders and presumably their closest followers) and do some research, the effect of their bias becomes clear. It is simply obvious that after the Holocaust, with clearly identified leaders like the Mufti (considered the father of the Palestinian movement by none other than Mattar), the Jews and much of the rest of the world thought the Israelis were fighting a genocidal foe. This is essential for understanding the war and some of the horrific actions of some Israelis.

Yet, as you saw, this is systematically censored out, while the horrific actions of Israelis are carefully researched so they cannot be kept out. We cannot present the context in which those actions occurred, which does not excuse them or make them any less horrific, just more understandable as a part of HUMAN nature. Instead, a picture is painted of special, monstrous (i.e., with pure greedy motives to take the land from the Palestinians) Jewish victimization of the peaceful Palestinian people who had a Nazi collaborator who just pretended to be a leader, but who they ignored. How do they justify this bias? Because Davis and Decter are tainted by their connection to Israel, someone put a bloody cover on some book of Pearlman's (NOT the one I referenced), and Schechtman associated with Jabotinsky. Meanwhile, such associations are deemed irrelevant when considering Mattar (who left out of his biography of the Mufti the part of his Nazi collaboration that led to his indictment by Yugoslavia for war crimes) and Kalidi.

Yes, the use of the word "catastrophe" by Pitchford exemplifies his bias. And I am one of the editors who helped rework the initial sentences; I moved the "catastrophe" appellation back next to the Israeli title for the war, to give them equal air space, in introducing this article. But using the word where he did makes his agenda clear. Kriegman 13:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for your contribution to the 1948 war. Please see what I am against in Talk:Palestinian_exodus Zeq 14:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you do have a major problem, which is that you view your role as WP editor as defending certain entities and views, rather than being a neutral reporter, as is called for by WP policy: You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. As a general rule, it's a bad idea to edit articles on subjects about which you have strong feelings -- Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. There are plenty of informed, competent, detached editors who are in a far better position to guard against bias in those articles. But to those with a strong point of view, an NPOV article is likely to strike them as biased -- One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not-accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas. -- Jibal 05:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

I read Atom Spies and it is a very good contribution. One suggestion you may want to consider, Cat:Venona Appendix A is defined as "Americans", whereas Cat:Venona Appendix C is defined as "foreigners", which is the Category Klaus Fuchs has been placed in. Perhaps placing the article in the overalll Category:Venona, where it well fits, might be the solution. Thank you. nobs 23:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ethel Rosenberg

I don't know all the details about the later Greenglass confessions, but from what I understand (as is recounted on our page about the Rosenbergs), Greenglass later told CBS that he perjured himself in his testimony about Ethel in order to exaggerate her role as part of a deal to get his wife off the hook. --Fastfission 15:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt's RfA

Thanks. WikiThanks.

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:Cities with significant Arab Israeli populations

Hi Moshe: Please see the Vote for Deletion (vfd) for Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 4#Category:Cities with significant Arab Israeli populations. Thank you. IZAK 13:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Ramsey Clark

In going through the history of the Ramsey Clark article, I noticed that you added (or edited back from the dead) the following claim: "There is a near consensus among legal professionals that Clark uses these high profile trials to draw attention to his causes while neglecting his actual responsibility as a defense attorney."

Do you have a reference for this claim? I generally don't like claims like this as they tend to "pick sides" in controversies are are extremely difficult to prove. If no good reference can be cited, I think the statement needs to be softened. "Legal professionals have claimed Clark uses these high profile trials to draw attention to his causes while neglecting his actual responsibility as a defense attorney." Any objection to this? Taft 18:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed a similar sentence before I read this... see the talk page. You didn't use Taft's suggestion, instead writing something a bit more arguable. Try my suggestion. --Chowbok 19:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Jewish Settlement Police

Dear Moshe, I am concerned about the comments you have made to Heptor about this article on his talk page. I think they are unwarranted and would appreciate your discussing such claims with me first in future. I have copied my message to Heptor below. --Ian Pitchford 14:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Heptor, Have you simply changed this article because Moshe asked you to do so on your talk page [1] or have you consulted the sources supplied in the article and found them to be inaccurate? You have deleted one source (Katz); no reader can check it, and you've changed the other so that if anyone does check it they'll find it to be wrong. Black says that Wingate was a Christian Zionist, and so do three other sources that I have checked. This is a specific quotation placed in quotation marks. You can check three of the references for yourself here [2]. Katz says "the Arabs feared them greatly". This is a direct quotation and should be in quotation marks. You can check it yourself here [3].

I appreciate your being so gracious Moshe. Thank you. --Ian Pitchford 19:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Gazelle-52p02.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Gazelle-52p02.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.

--WonYong 04:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Ariel Sharon

Hello. I modified your modification in the article in precising than Arik has been a highly controversial figure until 2004 but is not any more today in Israel. Christophe Greffe 15:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Jack Abramoff

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. [4] [5] --Howrealisreal 02:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed by an automated bot. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. If you feel you have received this notice in error, please contact the bot owner // Tawkerbot2 04:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Brackets you removed

I didn't understand why the brackets were there in the first place. If the words in the brackets were not actually in the original quote, then the brackets should be put back. Not a big issue. Kriegman 00:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Dissident Voice

I've semi-protected the page for now in an attempt to bring the IP to Talk. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

AIPAC

The answer is Wikiquote; that's were all quotations like that belong anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll just answer in this section since it's relevant to what you said on my user page - I will look into the article and its discussion page, but can't promise I'll give any input, because I know next to nothing about AIPAC and therefore won't feel comfortable giving my thoughts on something I have no idea about. Maybe I'll do some research though, if I have time (going to army again tomorrow). -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 16:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks

[6]. Regards, Huldra 13:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Figures

Hello Moshe, If I remember correctly the figures are from Pollack, which is the most detailed book I have, but there are some other sources I can consult. Figures for the Arab Legion range from about 4,500 at the beginning of the war - to about 12,000 at the end. I'll check again. If there are some signficant differences in credible sources perhaps we can just give a summary of the range of figures. Large differences often arise when the total number of those in uniform, including those allocated to internal security forces, border patrols etc, are counted as either forces deployed or forces deployable. Another thing I think some writers do is to count the total number deployed over the course of the fighting, which can cause huge discrepancies. If you take US deployments in World War II, for example, over 16,000,000 served, but only 12,500,000 were in the field at peak deployment. --Ian Pitchford 14:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Paul Findley

Moshe, I don't really know anything about the subject of the article, nor the basis for the disagreement, but the IP revert-warrior in question is the banned User:Alberuni; you can learn more at User:Jayjg/Alberuni. I've taken appropriate action regarding his continued editing. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Lehi

Hi, I don't mind calling it a "group", but it would be good to indicate what sort of group. The previous text: "Lehi was a group in Pre-State Israel that had as its goal the eviction of the British from Palestine to allow unrestricted immigration of Jews and the formation of a Jewish state." allowed it to be political party, a society of mothers who wrote letters to newspapers, etc, but it was in fact an armed underground organization that killed people. The standard formula is to flicker between "terrorist group" and "militant group" on a cycle of a day or so. I thought I'd try to avoid that problem by writing it differently. I don't claim that I've got it exactly right yet. --Zero 02:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That's lovely and I did it, but a separate issue is "pre-state Israel". It isn't correct because they operated in all of Mandatory Palestine, not just the parts that became Israel. What about "Palestine prior to the establishment of Israel" (or founding, emergence, etc.)? --Zero 03:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, not that myth. During the Lehi period 1940-1948, "Palestine" was a precisely defined region that had its own citizenship, passports, stamps, etc, etc, and it did not include (Trans-)Jordan. Even the mainstream Zionists used the word that way. The only exception was some Revisonist Zionists who would have been blocked for WP:POINT if the rules had been the same back then. --Zero 03:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest "Mandatory Palestine" linked to British Mandate of Palestine, but "the British Mandate of Palestine" would be ok. --Zero 03:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Palestine

In general I feel that we have far too much overlap between articles in the Middle East section and this causes trouble all the time, including having to fight essentially the same edit wars in one article after another. However, in this case we need caution because a lot of the material in Palestine does not appear elsewhere. I'm especially refering to the history and boundaries of the name "Palestine", I'd call it historical geography, which is different from the usual political and demographic history. The article sticks to historical geography for the earlier times but for the recent stuff it goes too much into politics, imo. --Zero 03:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

IMHO since "History of Palestine" has its own entry it is sort of redundant in the Palestine article. However I think a **short** historical overview would be OK, since "Palestine" as a political entity did exist before the ottomans. For this very same reason, the country of Jordan should also be included up to 1922 when the British removed it from their Palestine Mandate and formed a new political entity- TransJordan.
-Sangil 07:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

For example, very little of the "Caliphate and later Arab rulers" section appears in History of Palestine. Detail like that is difficult to compile and deleting it would be a shame. --Zero 11:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV on Arab-Israeli_conflict

Hi Moshe, It wasn't me that added the NPOV tag on Arab-Israeli_conflict. I mearly reverted its removal.

Larougite

I appreciate that you admit making an error. It shows good character. A "mensch", as they say in Yiddish. Cheers, -Will Beback 10:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Butcher of Beirut

It shouldn't be in the introduction, no. I wrote that opinion on the talk page but I don't want to start editting this article. I have enough troubles already. --Zero 11:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

A few minutes, please?

If a person says he will change A and add B to support it, and you see he has changed A, please give that person more than 3 or 4 minutes to finish the edit before reverting the whole thing (again). Especially when you requested B. In this case I did it in two parts because the first was a revert, which I wanted to save as such. Huangdi 12:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Grouping

I will try to group together in single edits... but since I tend to edit lots at a time, you might be able to see the net result of changes by comparing the start of my editing mania and then the end point of my editing mania which should show you the net change that I made... I think you will generally note (oh, wait, we disputed on the word generally today ;) ;)... anyway, I think you will note that most of my changes are relatively small and have to due with language and particular words. So, it shows many different edits, but it often simply deals with particular word changes or commas or whatever. Lokiloki 12:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Epithets for Sharon

I've commented on the page; thanks for alerting me. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Lehi

I could not find the Lehi quote in Wikiquote; did you put it there? In any case, I have the whole article translated as well as a scan of the original Hebrew, so I'll put that in Wikiquote and we can keep this short extract in the article. --Zero 03:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they thought you were an anti-Zionist agitator ;-). --Zero 03:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

... about all those quotes in the beginning of the article... how about putting them in that wikiquotey or at least reducing them... I don't think so many are necessary, at least there, before people get the idea... Lokiloki 04:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what this is about, but in general I think Wikiquote should be used for long quotes and quote collections. Some short quotations illustrate an article very well and moving them out makes just the article less interesting. --Zero^talk 07:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Intellectual

I never had a talk link in my signature before, but now I do (hopefully). "Intellectual" is a hard one. There are lots of people in Wikipedia called that (do a search for the word). Not all intellectuals are scholars so we can't substitute that automatically. Maybe the idea would be to call someone an intellectual if they are widely regarded as such. But then we have the difficulty of checking that in the case of someone who is not so well known. --Zero^talk 07:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

LaRouche

There are a lot of dirty tricks going on at the LaRouche pages. I thought that you might be a sockpuppet of Will Beback, SlimVirgin or Cberlet (which I hope you are not.) --BirdsOfFire 16:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Systemic left wing bias

I saw your comment on Lokiloki's page. This is news to me. Care to fill me in with the details? No hurry on this; whenever you have the time. —Viriditas | Talk 03:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation. Personally, I feel the tit for tat strategy doesn't get us anywhere. Let's take the higher ground [7] and lead by example. My two cents... —Viriditas | Talk 03:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. BTW, Lokiloki has created History of the Arab-Israeli conflict which hopefully, will be linked from the main page once the split is complete. Please help contribute to this article. —Viriditas | Talk 04:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Michael Chesin

You can't delete it but I can. And did. The algorithm is "ask an admin". --Zero^talk 08:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Chumash

• On September 9, 2001, members of the Chumash tribe paddled from the mainland to Santa Cruz Island in a tomol, the first such crossing of the Santa Barbara Channel in 125 years. Their craft Elyewun ("swordfish"), is reported to have been circled by a pod of at least 30 dolphins during part of their voyage.

Why did you delete this text from Chumash? You wrote,

• I'm sorry but I don't see how this is particulary notable, I just went on vacation in Mexico should I put that in an article somewhere?

Don't the facts that the Chumash were famous for their boats and seamanship, were closely-tied to the islands, and that this was the first time they'd done it in over a century all seem to be notable? Please be more careful about deleting information. -Will Beback 10:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

axis mundi

i was going to (and in fact belatedly did) suggest that we just eliminate the "indigenous" part and leave the rest, but i see you've already done that. Looks good. cheers --He:ah? 05:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Empire of the Sun

Thanks for gettin' my back on the Japanese invasion of Manchuria vs China proper. My mistake, got the yrs a bit goofed up there. TommyT

3RR

Hi. I noticed you have been active on a few articles lately, but one has caught my eye. It is a touchy subject, but I wont get into the content of the article. I just want to make sure you know about the 3RR rule because I noticed you reverted one article twice today. The 3RR rule means 3 Revert Rule. It is a stop gap to prevent revert wars on articles. It basicly says after three non-vandalism reverts within 24 hours (or close enough to), you need to walk away from an article. This isn't a warning, but I know the article in question can heat up easily and I just want to make sure you know the rules regarding reverts. Thanks for listening. --OrbitOne 13:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

American Israel Public Affairs Committee. --OrbitOne 13:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Some of it appeared to be referenced though. --OrbitOne 13:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Good faith should be assumed though, so the best responce would be to delete the parts which you feel (as an objective editor) should be removed for stated reasons while leaving intact the parts which should stay. --OrbitOne 13:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

viewing videos

"I tried viewing the vid with the women but it says I need to download a pugin but when I tried it wouldn't do it automatically, would someone please tell me which plugin I need to download since I can't view a lot of internet videos?" - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, go to this link and try to view the video there. If that doesn't work, tell me what operating system and browser you are using. Kriegman 09:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, you need the Windows Media Plugin. Let me know if that doesn't work. Also check out this piece that includes a terrorist who was inspired by the Grand Mufti. Kriegman 21:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yo, Moshe. Any luck? Kriegman 12:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This should enable you to see all such WMV videos:

In Firefox, click on "Tools." Then "Options" Then "Downloads" Then "View and Edit Actions" Scroll down to WMV's Click on "Change Action" Choose "Save them on my computer."

You may have to close and restart Firefox, but then you should be able to at least see the videos in question and any others like them in the future. Kriegman 13:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Drat. That may not work either as putfile.com may prevent videos from being downloaded. OK, if a video is an important part of a discussion about an article, tell me and I'll post it to another website from which you will be able to download it. Kriegman 08:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I think I have a solution. You should be able to view the checkpoint video here. Kriegman 00:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Persian Jews

Could you keep an eye on this article? Some people have been making some very interesting remarks in the talk page. Aucaman^Talk 06:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

sorry

check my talk... sorry about that edit summary Lokiloki 08:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR at Persian Jews

I have followed up on your report at this page and found that the anonymous user has indeed violated the three-revert rule after being warned against it. As I'm sure you're aware, you should probably back off of the article yourself for about 24 hours as you have accumulated three reverts cleaning up after these edits, which do appear to be more than just vandalism (the only time you are permitted to "break" the 3rr). Thanks for your report. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As to whether it matters that you were reinserting different material each time: it depends on the situation. In this case I probably wouldn't have blocked you, but another admin might. From WP:3RR: Reverting, in this context, applies to undoing the actions of another editor in whole or part which I think does not require that all of your versions of the page be the same. If in doubt, keep it on the talk page and wait on your edits. As I often find myself saying in edit wars, the world won't end if the article isn't perfect in 20 minutes :) (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy tag on Category:Greek poker players

I was wondering why you tagged this category as a speed delete. As it doesn't meet any of the WP:CSD criteria for categories, I've changed the tag to a {{cfd}}. — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand your feelings on underpopulated categories. It'll have to go through CfD first to get deleted though. Feel free to go vote on it. — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Troll User:66.228.120.35 also User:69.57.177.154 ?

Woops! This is actually addressed to User:Piotrus. I edited the wrong page. Sorry about that! Chris Chittleborough 13:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. At Talk:Mark_Lawson, you wrote "66.228.120.35 (talk · contribs) is a troll, no doubt about it. Revert on sight". I've noticed that 69.57.177.154 (talk · contribs) makes the same sort of edits, labelling people (mostly or all British) as Jews, without providing any evidence — eg., the latest edit to Trevor Dann. S/he is also a bit "wheely"; see here and here.

I've only been editing Wikipedia for a few months, and I'm not completely sure what to do about this. I'd appreciate any suggestions you might have. — Chris Chittleborough 12:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Latasha Harlins

The Wikipedia entry is already sourced. That she was about to pay is what is said in the L.A. Times article that's listed at the bottom of the entry as a source. Mwelch 20:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you didn't feel the source that was already given wasn't good enough, but if it allays your concerns at all, I've now added as another source a second article that says the same thing. Mwelch 20:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian Jews

Please go and participate in the discussion page here[8], and see if you can provide some references.Zmmz 01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I propose the following: "For Persian Jews, the change from Parthian to Sassanid control was negative. Heavily influenced by Hellenistic attitudes towards religious freedom (relatively secular in governance and tolerant in general), the Parthian environment protected Jewish communities and rights. The change to Sassanid control was, for all religious minorities, manifestly negative. The Sassanid program favored the Pahlavi language and wholly restored the old monolithic religion of the Zoroastrianism (founded upon worship of the universal God Ahura Mazda) which, under the favoring influence of the new government, attained the zeal of conservatism and all its intolerant byproducts.[3]"

Please amend as necessary. A few footnotes from our discussion could stand insertion. Well? black thorn of brethil 11:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You'll see if you check that the complaint was disallowed. Of course, I made the complaint in good faith, though I appear to have misunderstood the intricacies of 3RR Law. Of course I stand by my intentions - it is wrong to engage in a revert-war. In your defense, it was also not wise to respond to your revert with another revert - your initial revert was the point at which it ought to have become a wholly Talk-page issue. Cheers - black thorn of brethil 20:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Parthia

The selecid empire never survived for hundreds of years afterwards!! --193.190.145.91 18:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

300 years is long enough.black thorn of brethil 03:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

no this is wrong blacky. --Bully007

Moshe: Tell me what you think: the reason I think the quote is important (or at least part of the quote is important) is to hammer down the fact that Sassanid Persia was all too often a place of religious supression for Persian Jews (others too, but that's not topical). One reason I think it needs hammering down is that I have noticed in the page history revisions that downplay (or eliminate altogether) this naked intolerance. This priest's quote is, actually, amazing in how far it goes to demonstrate the point - something very very hard to refute. I worry that you confuse the remarks concerning 'idols' as somehow reflecting on orthodox Zoroastrian opinons concerning Judaism. Not the point at all. I profer a compromise quote - "In the time of Bahram II (276-293 CE), a Zoroastrian priest went so far as to declare that under Sassanid rule the 'Jews (Yahud), Buddhists (Shaman), Hindus (Brahman), Nazarenes (Nasara), Christians (Kristiyan), Baptists (Makdag) and Manichaeans (Zandik) were smashed in the empire ... '"

Well?black thorn of brethil 03:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

under Sassanid rule the Kristiyan and Yahud live in peace. --Bully007

Deal. How 'bout this: "In an inscriptiong from time of Bahram II (276-293 CE), a Zorastrian priest went so far as to declare that under Sassanid rule all other religions (including Judaism, Christianity etc.) were 'smashed in the empire'." black thorn of brethil 04:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Now you have to give ME a break! I could, I suppose, not have a direct quote and just say 'were quashed in the empire', but a picky person would certainly call me on it ("Black" they'd say, "that's not exactly what the inscription says - that's POV"). I think I've gone to great lengths to maintain the integrity of the information needing presentation while accomodating your concerns. At some point, you'll have to go the translator of the inscription and complain. If you think the typical article reader is going to be confused by that metaphor, well - a. it's not a metaphor, because 'smashed' is a word that stands for 'defeated' or 'suppressed' all the time, as opposed to being a word more or less exclusively limited to smashing things like potatoes; and b. no one will be confused - no one. So...can we put this issue to bed and let stand the quote I proposed immediately above? black thorn of brethil 04:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, sorry. Not angry at all - just trying to get past obstacles that exist solely for obstacles' sake, and get the deed done. You must imagine my tone as animated and energetic, as opposed to angry. Final form: "In an inscription from time of King Bahram II (276-293 CE), a Zoroastrian priest went so far as to declare that under Sassanid rule all other religions in the empire (listing Judaism, Christianity etc.) had been 'smashed'." This will be attended by the appropriate reference directing those with interest/more questions to the source. I'll put this in shortly. black thorn of brethil 07:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

10 seconds actually

Thats what my bot took to notice and fix it :) -- Tawker 04:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Perdew

I know what I'm doing dude ;) Maybe you should update the delete tag to a "by author" tag. (J.reed 08:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC))

Persian Jews quote

If you mean the quote on the prohibition on going out in the rain, then it serves not to illustrate a particular POV, but rather one aspect of Jews being considered unclean in Shi'a Islam. The aspect is sufficiently notable for pretty much every scholar writing on the treatment of non-Muslims in Shi'a Islam to mention it and for probably all European travellers to Persia to describe it. In the source materials translated by David Littman and others, it was just amazing to notice how no one could pass by this issue, and perhaps not surprisingly, because that particular aspect of life in Persia struck people as particularly strange and maybe even barbaric. Pecher ^Talk 09:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Because without the specifics, the statement of uncleanness will sound inane to the reader. People will ask: "OK, they are unclean, so what?" It is more than justified to describe the practical consequences of the Jews being considered unclean. Pecher ^Talk 09:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Moshe. Both you and Aucaman left me mewssages asking to look at that article. Thank you for believing in me. My knowledge of the subject is not deep and I don't get the subject of the dispute. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Moshe - I'm sorry I haven't been around lately and will still be at a conference for the next few days, but if you bear with me a few days longer I"ll gladly take a closer look at it. I want to make sure I understand the dispute clearly. I apologize for the delay. Thanks Ramallite ^(talk) 04:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Khomeini

I've added some stuff about Khomeini's views on non-Muslims, but people might try to take them out. Could you keep an eye on that article as well? Aucaman^Talk 14:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"inuse"

Please read the "inuse" tag on top of Persian Jews. Wait untill I'm done please.

"This article is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while. As a courtesy, please do not edit this article while this message is displayed. The person who added this notice will be listed in its edit history should you wish to contact him or her."

--ManiF 23:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Battles

I saw that u have added a disputed tag in Battle of Mu'tah. i have some comments to make on that article, concerning its content and POV-adding and made a comment on the talk page. but is there any other dispute for that article? (also,u have added tags in many battles as i just saw) --Hectorian 13:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Good. so, i am not the only one who thinks that! cause these articles seem more like religious articles on Islam, rather than articles concerning battles... --Hectorian 13:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hehe,yes, at that period it was Byzantium, not Rome!i guess that the same thing should happen in the Battle of Mu'tah...Erase the whole text, cause it does not have anything to do with the battle actually.it's talking about what the muslims commanders said to the byzantines, mentioning the words Prophet,Allah and Quran in almost every sentence!what can be more POV than that? i had removed the word 'martyred' before (which was a blatant sign of muslim POV), but the article did not get better...Only a rewritting would really help... --Hectorian 13:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Honestly,i do not know much about battles in general...But since these articles are in such a bad condition, i really do not believe that i will make something worst than what it is now:). i will have to read them deeply first, and then we can work together in rewriting them.ok? --Hectorian 14:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I have made some changes in the Battle of Mu'tah and i removed the tag. i am not sure if it is NPOV enough, though. what do u think? --Hectorian 17:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

message

thanks in regards to the message you left on my bot's talk page. however, the word 'existance' is intentionally misspelled to show users the incorrect spelling i am fixing. but thanks for look'n out (i have made edit summary mistakes before, yikes). JoeSmack ^Talk 16:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

ooooh, i see what you're saying: i put in an extra 't' in the edit summary 'correct' spelling. thanks for the catch, i will definitely change that. JoeSmack ^Talk 22:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Moshe

Do you have a MSN or AOL id? --ManiF 02:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Or a yahoo ID, I just wanted to discuss something with you over an online messenger. Cheers. --ManiF 04:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Casus-Shmasus

See Template_talk:Infobox_Military_Conflict#Remove_casus_belli.3F. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

E-mail

Moshe, would you mind e-mailing me, please? There's an issue I'd like to discuss, but I see you haven't specified an e-mail address in your preferences. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Casus of the six-day war

Hi,

The reason why your edit didn't work, is that Template:Warbox does not have a "casus" field. wbr, Heptor _talk 10:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Khaybar

They just really love telling that story, don't they?Timothy Usher 21:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The battle of Khaybar!

If u want to can write the article and then i will make some changes. Ok Bro, and about beheading that man, it is stated in the Quran that don't attack anyone unless that person attacks you first. Now i am not saying that Prophet Mohammed SAW killed that man but according to the story u told me, then maybe that man attcked my Prophet first.

I didn't say anything about beheading the man, what are you talking about? and I don't know enough to write the article, but I do know that none of your versions belong in any encyclopedia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Another Salman gem

Abu Zar Timothy Usher 03:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

And another...Battle of Hunayn, though in this case with co-conspirators. I stubbed it like the others.Timothy Usher 06:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

National Alliance

...is a group of antisemitic, white supremacist, neonazi ideologues. Their recruitment tactic is to claim they are merely "white nationalist." This is not a disputed issue in scholarly books and journal articles on the National Alliance.--Cberlet 13:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Al-Aqsa Intifada

By shortening, i've fixed format of the table of content area. if you do work with high screen resolution you should also think about those who don't. just take a look how is you're 'proper heading' breaks toc. --tasc 07:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Echidna

I noticed what you said on UtherSRG's talk page, and I have to disagree with you. I am from Australia, and have never heard it referred to as a Spiney Ant Eater, I thought that was an American animal or something. Also all my Australian mammal reference books call it an echidna. --liquidGhoul 08:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding to that, every time it is called an echidna as the primary term, it is one less time that it is referred to as the spiny anteater. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Deuterium

The thing to understand here is that Deuterium is another abusive sock puppet of Hrana98/24.7.141.159/216.118.97.211 - no doubt there are others - as was made all too clear on the Talk:Islamism page (see the most recent archive for details). Not sure if any of these other aliases are familiar to you, but be advised of the way this user operates. I've noted this on WP:ANI.Timothy Usher 08:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Any ideas on what I've posted on WP:ANI?Timothy Usher 07:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

PI

could you look at my page and see if it seems "safe" now? elizmr 15:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

IRmep: How should I deal with this?

Hi Moshe. I just made an edit [9] to the IRmep page with the summary "added claim they are a charitable organization registered in Washington DC with link to registration certificate". This actually summaried quite well the change I made. You reverted it [10] with the comment that "rv, please don'ty label your edits minor when thy really aren't". I am confused. Are you reverting the change just because I didn't mark it as minor? Or are you reverting the change because you feel it isn't factual? I understand that last time I intrepreted your behavior in a negative fashion and I apologize, that won't happen this time. I am just confused as to how we should proceed in resolving this argument as to how IRmep should be characterized. Did you notice that IRmep recently released their official Washington DC charity registration certificate? I used it as a source. Best. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 03:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed Claim - can we find a better source?

From article The Council for the National Interest:

"It is the organization's position that the Israel holds a virtual dictatorship over the American congress, and that the Iraq war was launched primarily on behalf of Israel. [11]"

I do not deny the above but the current source, an article on National Vanguard (a racist website) about Paul Findley, whose position they like, doesn't mention CNI by name nor does it mention anything specific about a dictatorship. I would suggest that the precision of the claim be improved if you want to use this source. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 04:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Moshe added it back into the article with the claim that "If it was dubious it should be removed, but you admitted that it was probably true".

Moshe, you need to follow WP:RS in editing articles. Wikipedia would break down completely if we just added what we felt was true rather than what is supported by reliable sources. I also didn't admit "that it was probably true", but that I have no information either way at the moment given that the provided reference doesn't mention either of the actor or the claim made. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 16:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

You seem to not require sources on one page (The Council for the National Interest), but require more than decent sources on another page (IRmep) depending on how you feel personally with regards to the topic. You also do not even pretend to participate in the RfC on the IRmep page. What's up dude? I am not going to get in an edit war with you or be rude, since I've learned the outcome of that. I guess I need to figure out the next step here -- this is a good learning excuse since these skills may be useful going forward. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 23:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

the RFC you deleted

I've reinstated it. The RFC does not appear to be directed at you, rather the RfC is on the article. Article RFC's belong on the articles talk page, unlike user RFC's which get their own page. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of Compromise

Moshe, can you please go here[12], and see if you feel like leaving a short comment there?; it is very important to me. Thanks Zmmz 09:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, I really appreciate that you left a comment on that page on my behalf, but please be kind enough to move your comments here, by today if possible, because they want it to be submitted in this page[13]. Thank you so muchZmmz 18:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you Moshe for your kind comments; it worked. I`m grateful.Zmmz 19:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Israel Lobby

The Mearsheimer-Walt working paper has received mixed reviews by some well-known book authors, such as Hitchens, Chomsky, Zunes, Massad, and Alterman. These writers agree with some aspects of the paper but not with others. Here is an example:

Joseph Massad, professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University, writes, "Is the pro- Israel lobby extremely powerful in the United States? As someone who has been facing the full brunt of their power for the last three years through their formidable influence on my own university and their attempts to get me fired, I answer with a resounding yes. Are they primarily responsible for US policies towards the Palestinians and the Arab world? Absolutely not."

Here we see that Massad, like Hitchens, agrees with some of the primary contentions in the working paper, but not with others. Hence it seems like the above passage would be appropriate for the Mixed Reviews section. Quoting from the mixed review of Chomsky should be similarly appropriate. Why should it be left out, while that of his rival Hitchens is included?

Is the *choice* of the Massad quote the main source of the problem here? If so, would the following revision be perhaps more appropriate/relevant?

Joseph Massad, professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University, claims the pro-Israel lobby is "extremely powerful in the United States", but also writes,

"Are they primarily responsible for US policies towards the Palestinians and the Arab world? Absolutely not."