User:Mitsuhirato/Archive

user:Ghirlandajo's nationalism

Ghirla's personal grievances cannot influence how Russian-related articles are dealt with. He has a tendency to avoid and suppress any negative facts concerning his homeland Russia. His knee jerk reactions are extremely detrimental to the project and should cease immediately, as well as the personal attacks and labels he constantly throws at contributors, even those with sources. 83.5.219.182 01:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

26 Nov 2005

Mediation

I am the mediator for the Mediation Cabal case you submitted. I need you to fill out the part marked 'What would you like to change' so I can help you. Geo.plrd 21:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

MEDIATION

I have left a message on Ghirlandjo's talk page. He has not responded as of this time. Geo.plrd 01:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Another shortened version of the paragraph

I have replied in Talk:Russo-Turkish_War,_1877–1878 with my suggestion of a version of the paragraph shortened a bit more to not emphasize the scale of the massacre, and your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 05:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Civility warning

This comment [1] is not, in my view, appropriately civil. I've warned you once, and this is now a more formal warning. If you continue to make incivil remarks, you are in danger of being blocked. Please review our civility guidelines and please contribute constructively. ++Lar: t/c 05:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me?? How can you call me 'incivil' (which isn't even a word) when others in that discussion have directed personal attacks towards me? I have done nothing of the sort. I don't know where you come from, but 'take it on the chin' is certainly not an uncivil expression. If anything you (and others) are being hypersensitive. All i am doing is pointing out an opinion which many others shared regarding that article. Surely as a so-called administrator you can understand that?Suicup 08:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This is about your comments, not those of others. If others need warnings, they will get them as well. I stand by my warning to you, and note that your reply to it is itself not as civil as it could be: "so-called" being rather pejorative. This is your third warning. Please be civil or face the consequences. ++Lar: t/c 11:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I use 'so-called' because i would expect an administrator to be able to engage in debate, and not have to resort to calling remarks 'uncivil'. The fact remains nothing i have said has been inflammatory, nor has it been a personal attack. You seem to have taken personally the comments i wrote after your 'outsiders view' comment on the Ubuntu talk page. I already clarified (and apologised) that my comment had nothing to do with you. I have not intended to denigrade the editors of the Ubuntu article, merely asked a relevant question of the quality of the article. If that sort of discussion is ban worthy, then i'm afraid Wikipedia has become too caught up in its own bureaucracy, and it is a sad day for the project. Suicup 12:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You're not really internalising what you've been told here, I'm afraid. My chosen role in this is not to engage in debate about the article itself but rather to review the actions of the editors involved. Your actions merit scrutiny and warnings, and if you can't be civil and collegial then I'm afraid that Wikipedia may not be the right project for you. I've got this page on watch so you don't have to leave me notices that you've replied (although I do appreciate it) if you don't want to. ++Lar: t/c 12:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes but what defines civil? I believe everything I said has been civil, and I would expect a reasonable person to concur. It is your opinion (and you indeed stated so) that my remarks were 'uncivil'. I see hypersensitivity. As for WP not 'being right for me', thanks for the laugh. Can you please explain to me how 'get off your high horse', and 'take it on the chin' are so uncivil? Both were responses to certain editors who had clearly taken comments too personally, and were designed to bring back some sensibility to the discussion. Furthermore, both are accepted phrases and were not derogatory in the way they were used. It is the Australian way. Suicup 12:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I am a reasonable person and I do not concur with your view of your civility. Ultimately, it is indeed a judgement call on the part of an admin when a civility warning or block is handed out. Further, Australian standards do not apply here, we hold ourselves to a higher standard, which you need to comply with. I'm done with this conversation, you're not internalising what you've been told, you're arguing the point. You've been warned, and further incivility will result in a block, which I will put up for review, in accordance with my practice regarding blocks. ++Lar: t/c 12:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

So we should follow American standards then? Also it has nothing to do with internalising, i'm just curious. Suicup 13:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No. We should, and must, follow Wikipedia standards. Not American, not UK, not Australian, not S'porean, but Wikipedian. Please review WP:CIVIL until this is clear. Your question suggests it is not. Further, you're starting to waste my time, which could be better spent elsewhere, with this back and forth. You've been warned. You've been given the material to review to help you understand what needs changing in your approach. Please change it. ++Lar: t/c 13:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Transmission protection

Thanks for making a comment on User_talk:70.137.141.253. It seems he has ignored your advice. I am now not the only one who is reverting this user's edits. I think some sort of protection is needed to resolve the situation. Cheers. Suicup 09:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I put my comment after his/her last edit. Therefore, we can not know the result yet. :) However, the page is in my watch list too, but I thought the change was not an obvious vandalism, thus decided not to revert it for some time.

BTW, I compiled transmission yesterday but haven't been able to try yet. So I don't know whether it is banned by most or some trackers. Anyway, we should keep an eye on the article and hope for a good discussion to make it factual. Keep up the good work. --Emre D. | Talk 09:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have had constructive discussions with others on Transmission's talk page. Lets hope this user does the same. Suicup 10:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Rogerthat ^Talk 13:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Melbourne logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Melbourne logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Carry trade Spanish version

Hi Suicup,

thanks for correcting me, but I don't understand the mistake I made. I mean, the link has dissapeared!

Thank U! Fjtemprano 11:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Suicup,

thanks for your indications, it was silly of me:-(

Thankx! Fjtemprano

June 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Wikipedia, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mkdw^talk 10:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Wikipedia#1.8_vs_.27a_quarter.27. I retract second reply. Mkdw^talk 11:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

report

Hi, I've filed a 3RR report here, since after you warned others about 3RR, you went ahead and violated it yourself. I suggest that you self-revert to undue your violation, and that you not revert war in the future. Tewfik^Talk 13:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Hi. I suggest you ask for help and other opinions at

• Wikipedia:Notice board for Palestine-related topics

It usually helps to get some additional WP:NPOV eyes looking at a situation. --Timeshifter 19:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Re. Israely-Palestinian conflict

Hi there! Thanks for bringing this matter to my attention; but be aware that I only unprotected it because of a request submitted at WP:RFPP. The proper way to ask for re-protection, if you believe it's necessary, is to present another petiton there. Since I was involved in the article's unprotection, and for transparency reasons, I'll stay out of it and let another uninvolved admin decide. If I can help you in any other way, just let me know. Have a nice day! Regards, Phaedriel - 00:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Game theory subsection placement

Dear Suicup: I appreciate you earlier comments on the above (and elsewhere, as I have stated). We have of course expressed differing views as to how Economics could be improved on placement of the Game theory subsection. We have tried to state our best case, to improve the article in the process, or to obviate the other's objections. Would you have any additional comments to make there in response to my Aug. 3 comment or other suggestions for resolving this? Thanks. P.S. If you would like to place this comment at Talk:Economics#Game theory subsection placement & reply there, that is fine too. It's up to you. --Thomasmeeks 18:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. The recent "Selected" vs. "Further" fields question may have slowed possible discussion of the above. I just put up an added comment there, which I hope indicates how small the substantive issues are. If you'd have any additional thoughts you'd like to share, I hope you'd do so in the next few days. Thx. --21:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomasmeeks (talk • contribs).

Hi, Suicup. If you'd have additional comments on the the above, they'd be welcome. If it is likely that you would revert moving the "Game theory" subsection to "Selected fields," would you be amenable to Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on articles to try to resolve this? Thx. --Thomasmeeks 12:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thx, Suicup. Here is a proposed new subsection (which I've tried to make satisfy WP:NPOV) to immediately follow the earlier one. Is the following OK? If not, please meke any changes that seem appropriate. As provided by the template neither of our signatures goes on the new subsecition (unless we make later comments there).

Thx. --Thomasmeeks 18:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC) (Minor Edit of last starred item below. Thomasmeeks 09:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC))

Hello again, Suicup. I take it that you are on a break or have other things to do. If you get a chance, please review below as to mutual acceptability. If I don't hear from you in a reasonable period, I'll need to act on my own. Thank you for your help in trying to resolve this matter. --Thomasmeeks 14:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Suicup. Since I did not hear from you, I did act on the above (in the least obtrusive but non-stealthy way I could). All remaining options are still available of course. Your earliest appearance on the Econ Talk p. indicated a desire to make the article accesssible. In that I strongly concur. I think that we have at least made our positions on the matter at hand more explicit. If "Request for comment" is necessary, I trust that the following would be satisfactory. Otherwise please indicate any suggested changes. --Thomasmeeks 12:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Game theory subsection placement: request for comment

{{RFCecon}} (Template to be messaged in later with probably an abbreviated version of the first 2 sentences of what is agreed upon below & whose message goes on RFCecon page)

In the subsection above, discussioin is on whether the article goes better with the "Game theory" subsection in the "Economics#Mathematical and quantitative methods" section or the following "Economics#Selected fields" section. Issues discussed include:

• alleged convenience of later vs. earlier placement
• alleged advantage of the 'tool' vs. 'field' classification of game theory
• the "general overview" vs. "classification" function of the "Mathematical and quantitative methods" section
• relevant similarity or dissimilarity of "Game theory" to neighboring subsections

In light of earlier discussion & your own reflections, please comment.

Comments:

talk page

hi suicup, considering your latest edit,^[2] i would request you participate on the talk page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

BitTorrent client (Transmission)

If Transmission (BitTorrent client) does indeed support encryption then you will need to link to somewhere that mentions this in the BitTorrent client article before simply changing its value, because I can find no mention of encryption being added to the newest version of the software. --Gary King 18:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Transmission 0.8.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Transmission 0.8.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

note

please use the talk page rather than blindside other editors without use of the edit summary even [3]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

reply

Hi. thanks for your question. i replied at the talk page. perhaps we can find a compromise. let me know. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-12-19 Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Hi, I want to try and help, therefore I offer to take this case, and have contacted the other involved parties inviting them to summarise their opinions on the matter. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

CfD: Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues

Hi. please help! The category Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues has been nominated for deletion. this is a category which is meant to be simply a conveneient non-partisan gathering-place for all entries which are general overviews of various issues, as opposed to being related to a specific event or location.

The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 21#Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues. This category, is beneficial to all of us who habitually edit these articles, regardless of whether we may be more affiliated with Israeli concerns or Palestinian concerns. The category's deletion is being advocated by editors who rarely edit any articles on this topic, and have little involvement in this topic at Wikipedia.

Your help would be greatly appreciated. please go to this category's discussion entry, and express your opinion. Hopefully, you will be willing to advocate keeping this category. thanks for your help.. Thanks, Sm8900 --207.10.186.39 (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Israeli-Palestinian conflict

hey there. i appreciate the fact that seem to want to contribute to this article. however simply stating on the talk page that something is wrong doesn't really achieve much. i would encourage you to make edits to the article itself, so that real progress can be made. cheers. Suicup (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made one small and basically uncontentious change to this article, un-referencing the worrying Dershowitz reference - I was summararily reverted. I've attempted to add the number of casualties (after all, this article is about a conflict!) and been summararily reverted. Under these conditions it would appear to be impossible to improve this article, so it will remain heavily and clearly POV. I'm using the TalkPage to state the obvious. PR^talk 13:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I know getting your edits reverted is a pain the the arse (happens to me too), however perhaps if you try again but a little differently. eg in the Dershowitz example, rather than just removing the reference, put a new one in its place. That will make it much less likely that your edit will be reverted. And if it is, you will be in a much better position to argue on talk page. cheers Suicup (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never been asked to "write for the enemy" - when it happens, I will do so with alacrity (I've asked several others to do so, and only been rewarded with an accusation of looking for meat-puppets).

However, that's very different from doing someone else's leg-work - particularly when, as in this case, the claim has been distorted, by experts at creating propaganda, for rabidly partisan purposes. Whatever the RSs likely say, Hamas's real objection is to the apartheid regime in Israel, not to the presence of a state there.

And the last time I was engaged on almost this topic, it was a worthless claim about Hezbollah (based on a statement, hardly a manifesto, written 25 years ago). You can see how very, very cynical a bod could become under these circumstances. PR^talk 17:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is that sometimes you just have to play the game. Replacing a reference, rather than just removing it is a much better way of going about it. You said on the talk page that you believe the claim to be true anyway, and you sound knowlegable enough about the topic at hand, so how hard is it to find a source to put there? That way, the article gets the citation and not an annoying <fact> tag, you don't get reverted, and all is well. Suicup (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're wrong - we're supposed to take a zero-tolerance attitude to bad information and I think the same thing applies to bad references. That doesn't mean "pussy-foot" around, it means take it out, force real editors (not POV revert-warriors) to look up sources and only enter real meat into articles.

Furthermore, I'm not sure the claim is true (even if it can be found in an RS). The article (and 10s of 1000s of others) will never be any more than "poor" as long as we accept people playing games, inserting propaganda and generally not acting in a scholarly fashion. PR^talk 18:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if you are knowedgable enough to remove a reference, you are knowledgeable enough to replace it, or short of that, remove the phrase with your reasoning on the talk page. Suicup (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow you - Dershowitz is accused (very credibly) of the same two offences that David Irving is accused of. He shouldn't be used as a reference. And I'm not nit-picking, as I told you, there are far more serious problems in this article. I've just picked up on a blatant fault I thought was easiest to correct. PR^talk 18:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that the article is protected, it is difficult to take action, however, i still hold that if you are knowledgable enough to believe that Dershowitz is 'unreliable' than you should be knowledgable enough to come up with another source. After all, how did you know Dershowitz was unreliable in the first place? Perhaps you should propose removing those two sentences which use Dershowitz as a citation? Note i am not necessarily against your opinion, it just annoys me when people come and make statements on talk without any action. Right now, my perception, rightly or wrongly, is that you are doing just that. Suicup (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If you believe I have valuable edits to make to articles then please go to this TalkPage and tell him that the restrictions placed on my participation are ridiculous, and productive work is being lost thereby. PR^talk 19:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Core Issues

Thanks for the invite. I'm afraid that area is such a conceptual and stylistic mess that it is almost unworkable. I think the only proper way to get round the infinite chat that will inevitably arise if one plugs away at the formulations given, would be to find some official or semi-official texts outlining and listing the core issues now being negotiated. To patch them up from news sources that mention one, then another, and a third, is to leave the synthesis impaired by the aleatory nature of googling with key words. I would be happy to participate, but on condition that someone find a suitable official source or two listing all the issues raised by both sides. RegardsNishidani (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks also - have been away, and judging from my latest foray into this article on the issue of whether or not the Telegraph is a reliable source, I'm not sure I want to go back into it. In any event, the intro at a glance looks much better now. You're never going to get something that satisfies everyone, but at least it is now more focused and organised. --Nickhh (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Have posted discursive reply to your reply on my talk page this time .. --Nickhh (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:IPCOLL invitation

Hi. Saw your efforts at the Isr-Pal conflict article. I think it's good for folks to stand back and try to get the intro to recap the whole piece in a concise and fair way. If you haven't already, perhaps you could check out the wikiproject on Isr-Pales editing cooperation because we could benefit for more members who support (and can contribute) to its mission. Thanks muchly, HG | Talk 14:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear User:Suicup, I for one would like to thank you for that scrupulous review and revision of the page's introduction. I'm afraid I have not been as directly helpful as I should have liked to have been. Seeing an even-handed editor at work for once, I thought it best to stay my own hand, viewed by many as intemperate and thus automatically reversible, and deal with the talk issues as they arose. I shall do my best to honour the stability and objectivity you have tried to introduce on that page, not least because it is a mode of acknowledging the unpaid efforts of the person who stepped it to fix the mess. Best regards (I have no illusions about 'winning arguments' on the net. Working here is a self-imposed tithe on a fortunate life, to secure at least verbal justice and equity of representation to a small piece of land whose people history has chosen to wipe its arse on).Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

article note

Hi. i aprpeciate your efforts and all your recent work at Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I agree with you that there are partsd of the article which currently need work. I feel that once things calm down, we will be better able to go through the History section, and restore it to being an overview, and also address some other sections to try to adddress some POV text. i am waiting right now for things to subside a bit, so there is little I am doing right now. I do agree with your last comment at the talk page. thanks for all your help. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Tag team IDIDNTHEARTHAT note

Suicup, please go over the evidence presented by Jaakobou and Itzse within Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If you believe those (Palestina history) findings to be false, please state this rather than engage in tag-team edit warring -- [4] -- alongside Nishidani who was, at least, partaking in the discussions. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not your information is true or false, the fact of the matter is, there has been no consensus on this point. Given the severe disputes with this article, this is how the process is going to work. There has already been one resolved content dispute using this (User:Michael Safyan's) method. See Talk:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#Consensus. Until there has been a similar agreement at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#Consensus 2, i'm afraid the edit you are trying to make cannot be undertaken.

In fact, as a result of your actions, you have broken 3RR, and I've actually gone ahead and asked to have the page protected again. Furthermore, stop with the wikilawyering nonsense. Repeating capitalized abbreviations ad nauseum does nothing to help your argument, and only irritates other editors. Thanks a lot. Suicup (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Suicup, perhaps it's my personal error, but I can't seem to see you upholding proper dispute resolution process or even do something as wild as discussing the content. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Enquiry (computer communications)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Enquiry (computer communications), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Enquiry. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Suicup. I noticed the edit you made at Enquiry, copying its contents to Enquiry (computer communications) and converting it into a disambiguation. It agree with the change, but it wasn't the correct way to do it. In these cases you should perform a move in the page, to preserve its history, and then change the redirect left by the move into the disambiguation page. This is reccomended in Help:Moving a page#Page_histories. The issue can be fixed with the procedure noted at Help:Moving a page#Wikipedia-specific_help. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 14:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikinvest

The article Wikinvest has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article, which appeared to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Now in your userspace at User:Suicup/Wikinvest. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Re note

Will try to give it a look-over. A year on, no progress, no resolutions to make this area workable. One crosses oneself of a morning, tunes in, grits one's teeth, and while responding to endless trivia, thinks of the works of S-Masoch. Thanks for the note.Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Best sources

The best most even-handed and comprehensive overview of modern Palestine I'm familiar with is

• Henry Laurens's La Question de Palestine, Fayard, Paris, 3 vols.1999,2002,2006 (a final volume is forthcoming). If you can read French, this is the most useful guide to each phase from 1799 to the present day.
• Gudrun Krämer's Geschichte Palästinas: von der osmanischen Eroberung bis zur Gründung des Staates Israel,(C.H. Beck, 2002) is far shorter and synthetic, and has now been edited and translated into English (by Graham Harman) as A history of Palestine: from the Ottoman conquest to the founding of the state of Israel, Princeton University Press, 2008.

Notably these are both written by European authorities on Islam, from a perspective that steps out of the specific politics and academic, cultural and historical matrix of Israeli-American relations, and approaches the subject fully informed about the world of Arabic history and culture which, though the 'Other' in this narrative, has tended to be lost from view in the traditional historiography.

These two give one an overarching structure. For the details on each moment, or epoch or phase, the historical literature is vast, of course. As a general background to the cultural, mythistorical grid behind Zionism's structural dilemma, the crisis between universalism and particularism, secularism and messianic nationalism, Arnold Toynbee's A Study of History, vol.12 (OUP pb ed.1964) is still, at least for me, deeply illuminating, in its reconsiderations of criticism of his remarks of Judaism scattered through the earlier volumes (vol.5 pp.117ff., for example). Best wishes, and my apologies for not being more active. Just too frustrating, really Nishidani (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Late reply.Apologies

Sorry to be late. Spring has had me planting in my gardens most of the day. I've only looked in to make a few rapid off the top of the head edits.

I think if you check Ghcool’s sandox draft you will see that he got the 26 citations down to 8, still six too many. Most of the passage you remark on is rubbish, but you’ll still find a lot of quality sources repeating the the nonsense. It is the result of a rearguard attempt to retain the traditional Zionist narrative of small Israeli'invaded' by five huge Arab armies, against the incremental rumours that things were far more complexr. It’s one of the problems, further, in the I/P area, that bad reliable sources abound, and those who keep abreast of research have to deal with people who trust or push dated reliable sources.

The termination of the British mandate over Palestine and the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel sparked a full-scale war (1948 Arab–Israeli War) which erupted after May 14, 1948. On 15-16 May, the [four] armies of Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Iraq [entered] Palestine.[20][21] Units from[21][22] five[23][24][25][26][27][28] Arab League countries (Egypt, Lebanon,[29][30][31] Syria, Jordan and Iraq) then reluctantly[32] invaded the newly self-declared state[23][25][26] precipitating the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. While in some areas, Arab commanders ordered villagers to evacuate for military purposes,[33] there is no evidence that the Arab leadership made a blanket call for evacuation.[34] Many rumors of awful acts which were committed by Jewish fighters as well as a number of serious actions taken by Jewish forces led to a growing number of fleeing Arab population.

I'll summarize, now I've had tea, what I say below. Everything hinges on two sets of terms: 'invade/enter' and 'Israel/Palestine'. The old story, still in many sources, confused Israel with Palestine, whereas the state Ben Gurion & Co declared technically was that designated in the Nov.1947 partition plan. Some countries clearly of the 5/6 invaded Israel (Egypt bombed Tel Aviv, Iraq arguably failed, Syria did a bit), but not with their 'armies'. Even Egypt's commitment was small compared to its overall force. Lebanon did not invade. It entered, late in the day, Malkiyya on the 'Palestine/Israeli' border, a place that was to all extents a Lebanese/Arab village, to make a defensive salient. Jordan's did not invade Israel, it 're-entered that part of Palestine designated to be Arab. Israel before its declaration had, in one sense, invaded/entered Lebanon, and the designated future Arab area.

I would be tempted, offhand, and probably violating WP:NOR, to rewrite that thus:

After the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel on the 14th of May, and the termination of the British mandate at midnight that night, war broke out between Israel and its neighbouring states, stoking the flames of the civil war already burning through much of Palestine over the preceding six months. On the 15-16 of May, Egypt committed its army to operations in the south, and bombed Tel Aviv; units of the Syrian and Iraqi armies endeavoured to invade the Galilee, but were repulsed; Lebanon abstained from formally invading, while Jordan’s army reoccupied the Palestinian territory it had, under mandatory authority, helped the British to police down until the 13 of May. Over the following months, these forces, together with irregular troops and volunteers, and some 4,000 Palestinians, engaged with the Israeli army over much of the former territory of Palestine.

Some notes

• (1)The expiration of the British Mandate was scheduled for midnight between the 14th and the 15th of May, 1948.
• (2)The state of Israel was declared at 4 pm local time, on Friday the 14th (Compare however the erroneous simplification in Israel's Declaration of Independence 8 hours before the official expiration of the mandate. The problem was that Shabbat began at dusk, and an historical decision could not be taken, according to religious authorities, over that period. The declaration though made that afternoon was to take effect at midnight, in conformity with the precise time of the expiration of Britain’s mandate.
• (3)A virtual state of war had been going on for some time, and the borders set forth in Novermber 1947 were not respected. In the weeks before the declaration of the State of Israel, operations in that part of the Mandatory territory designated as Arab were invested, for example in Operation Yiftach led by Yigal Allon, through a bridge pincer movement across the designated Arab part. The same goes for Jerusalem, which in November 1957 had been defined as an international territory, surrounded however by land allocated to the Arabs. Yet battles there were constant. Gush Etzion was located in the Arab sector. The area just north of Haifa from the littoral to Galilee in the East, bordering Lebanon, was subject to ethnic cleansing before May 15, 1948, as units like Carmeli and Allon’s swept through the area designated for the future Arab state. Palmach units operated in what was technically part of Lebanon before May 15. Three countries attacked Israel, as that was constituted by the map set forth in the UN partition plan of 1947. From 1947-May 15 1948, Hanagah and its Palmach elite, local kibbutzim paramilitias, the Irgun and Stern militias were in constant warfare, often offensive throughout Arab designated territories.
• (4)Legal considerations were in the minds of many parties as to what territory was who's at the time, for the so-called invading 'armies' were quite aware they were at risk of Un sanctions had they acted contrary to standard international law in this regard.
• (6)‘The declaration was followed by an invasion of the new state by troops from Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria, starting the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, known in Israel as the War of Independence'. Israel's Declaration of Independence.

Not true. Israel was not invaded, at best parts of Palestine were occupied. The Arab Legion had been slowly evacuating to Jordan since December 1947, and the last detachments, no longer under Mandatory authority from the 13th, withdrew across the Jordan. It returned on the 15th and 16th but only to a sector already designated as Arab. The Egyptian army entered an Arab designated sector (however where as Bir Sheba, Jewish colonies existed) on the 15th, but did attack the newly declared state of Israel that same day by bombing Tel Aviv, and by subsequently launching, across Israeli territory a push to enter Hebron and met up with (and at the same time assert their parity of rights with) Jordan and its army. Lebanon may have had a hand in Qa’uqi’s Army of Deliverance (Jaysh al-Inkaz) a foray from its territory into the very western edge of the Galilee, ‘Palestine’, to secure Malkiyya, an Arab village virtually on the border and set up a defense at that point. The Lebanese commander Fuad Chehab refused the Defense Minister Majid Arslan’s demands that Lebanese forces coordinate with Syrian forces for an invasion. Subsequently Israeli forces again invaded Lebanon, but there was little if any Lebanese response. Syrian forces tried to enter from the Golan via the area between Lake Tiberias and the Galilean panhandle, but the army had only been told war was imminent a few days before. They did attack Israel, for the area was designated as such, and took effect with the declaration. But got virtually nowhere, and the so-called ‘army’ was repelled by two superbly organized kibbutzim.The Iraqi units just to the south, tried to pass over the Jordan next to the Yarmouk river, and only managed to occupy a hydroelectric plant, since the kibbutz of Gesher blocked their advance, and pushed them back.. They were thus forced to enter via Jordan, across the Allenby bridge a week later, and took up positions in Nablus, pushed through to Tulkarem, within 11 miles of the Mediterranean, and within the Arab-designated territory, but the Israelis counterattacked from the north to cut off a potential pincer movement, cleansing villages in what was designated as an Arab area. The Iraqis managed to beat them back out of Jenin, but they kept a good deal of the Arab designated territory. So Egypt, Syrian, and Iraqi troops entered, or attempted to enter and were mostly rebuffed, exiguous parts of Israel, Lebanon did eventually assist in retaking Malkiyya, but the Maronites ensured the army was not to invade Israel, not at that period. Jordan, in accordance with agreements given both to Israel and foreign countries, simply reoccupied the areas of the future Arab state where they had already been stationed before their withdrawal on the 13th of May.

By the way Martin Gilbert (as cited in Israel's Declaration of Independence note 10), unless those who cite him here err, makes another of his mistakes in saying Truman recognized Israel 11 minutes after that declaration at 4 pm. Truman’s declaration was at 18.11 (6.11 pm) in the US, which corresponded to 12.11 am, 15th of May in Palestinian local time, a full 8 hours 11 minutes after the declaration.

Drop me a note if this is not helpful. Probably isn't because on this particular matter (as with the war of 67) I don't think most RS are reliable. Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

hi there fellow editor

Hi Suicup! How are you? There don't seem to be a whole lot of editors left to communicate with anymore regarding the Mieast and I/P conflict topic areas. just wanted to ask how things are? have a few things to mention to you at some point as well, though not now, like that Arbcom case. how are things? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

hi. thanks for your reply! actually, i was just checking in, to see how things are. glad to hear about your current efforts. feel free to be in touch. thanks. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)