User talk:PalestineRemembered/Archive1

/Archive 1

I started editting on 4th Oct 2006, and attempted to archive this first on 3 December 2006

Welcome!

Hello, PalestineRemembered, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• 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:Questions, 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!  ?Humus sapiens ^??? 03:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Qiryat Gat

Please refrain from compromising this article's neutrality. This entry is about the Israeli town Qiryat Gat, not the contentious history of the no longer extant, pre-State of Israel Arab town of Al-Faluja. If you wish to create a new, more complete article on what happened on the lands formerly known as the towns of Al-Faluja et al., please do so. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for grievances. Those interested in this topic (myself included) would welcome a separate article on the topic (which you could link to in the entry on Qiryat Gat). Please respect best practices when it comes to POV, neutrality, and relevance. ~~Mcdonal6~~

I don't see the problem - there's nothing controversial or POV about what happened in this town in recent, living, memory. We know what happened, it's documented in numerous sources, International treaties, UN observers, Quaker observers, the Israeli Foreign Minister, the San Fransisco Chronicle and Israeli historians. The erasure of this material is tantamount to vandalism (and there's been no attempt to discuss it in the proper place).

And why does this information not belong in the main article? Particularily when the material that's being introduced instead is very POV indeed! The statement: "it is quite likely that many Arab residents were pressured to leave by Israeli forces, the unfortunate side-effect of years of Arab aggression" is a disgusting attack on completely innocent victims, who were supposed to be protected by the word and signature of the government of Israel. PalestineRemembered 21:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, it's irrelevant. In the same way that mentioning Yasser Arafat's homosexuality might be considered irrelevant in that entry. The subject at issue is what does the settled contention of Al-Faluja - a town currently represented by vanishing mounds of ruins on the outskirts of Qiryat Gat - have to do with the present town of Qiryat Gat? I can understand that this frustrates you, but history is often frustrating. Unfortunately for many, it cannot be rewritten. An equivalent example might be a mention in the Toronto, Canada entry of the fact that Toronto sits on land appropriated in war from the Iroquois nation. You have to move on PalestineRemembered. ~~Mcdonal6~~

It is quite ridiculous, this comment. Palestine was a Muslim land for thousands of years. A 50 year old occupation does not change that. The only similarity between the Native Americans and the Palestinians is that they are both the victims of genocide, but please keep in mind the majority of the population in the State of Israel is Palestinian Arab. Unfortunately for the supporters of the occupation, even Israel bringing in European Jews to Palestine constantly can not change this. Mustaqbal 09:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

There probably are other towns in the world which were ethnically cleansed within living memory. Every encyclopedic reference to such towns will headline the atrocities committed. There is no reason for Qiryat Gat being treated differently - particularily when the conduct of the occupying forces is so well attested, and where there was an International Agreement protecting the civilians. PalestineRemembered 19:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

My Talk Page

Hi! You're welcome to discuss my edits on my Talk page, but please don't use it as forum to vent any and all grievences you may have regarding WP or politics. Isarig 22:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you didn't agree with there being an entry for "self-hating Jew". I don't like it either - and I can tell you exactly why! PalestineRemembered 22:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV

Regarding a recent edit on the entry battleground and other edits I noticed you made, I think you misunderstand these policies. The question whether Katz is correct or not is irrelevant (wikipedia is about WP:V not truth). Any citations have to concern Katz's book directly and not the questions or topics he raises. Also, any claim has to be referenced to WP:RS and to maintain WP:NPOV. Finaly, your personal conclusions juxtoposing his biography with his conclusions and its implications are original research and are not suitable. Thank you. Amoruso 14:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Your commentary may be perfectly proper - but it seems that several people are now attempting to message me here in ways that are personally defamatory of me. I'm sure I could find ways to retaliate on your home page with these generalised, damaging and accusatory postings. You have my word that I'll not behave in this fashion while I'm finding my footings. The proper place for your comments were the Talk Page of the article, not in here.

Here's what I said about Katz (potentially in the wrong place, the page devoted to his book [Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine]). But I suspect his defenders recognise the serious flaws in his work and objectivity and my comments are not far from the truth:

PR->Others might be concerned about Katz's strong interest in denial. He associated with the most militant parts of Zionism from the age of 16 (in South Africa). He joined one of the groups that forced (with bombings) the British to abandon the Mandate and leave in 1948. While his personal accounts would surely make valuable history, it is less clear that he's a fit person to debunk the myths of others. It would seem reasonable to call him "highly opinionated" and even seeking confrontation. From his biography he was briefly a public relations consultant to then Prime Minister Menachem Begin. He quit in Jan 1978, apparently because of differences with the Cabinet over the peace agreement with Egypt signed the following year.

PR->Separate from Katz's controversial claims about the population of Palestine, he claims "the Arab refugees were not driven from Palestine by anyone. The vast majority left, whether of their own free will or at the orders or exhortations of their leaders". This claim was long made by defenders of Israel, but it's now been fairly throughly debunked. eg [1] and [2]. It would be wrong to suggest that all the refugees were beaten, robbed and threatened in this fashion - but they knew what awaited them. Indeed, some examples were even more sudden and extreme eg Golda Meir in Haifa, 6th May 1948 ("Palestinian Refuge problem revisited" Benny Morris p.310), "...... there were houses where the coffee and pita bread were left on the table, and could not avoid thinking that this, indeed, had been the picture in many Jewish towns (ie in Europe in WW2)" PalestineRemembered 21:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:OR

Please do not intorduce OR based on out-of-context quotes into the encyclopedia. Thanks. Isarig 19:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, what's this about, don't I get the chance to know what I'm supposed to have done wrong?

Can it be that I've pointed out that David Ben-Gurion is quoted as intending to "smash Lebanon" as far back as 1948? (and was speaking of seizing the south of Lebanon at least 11 years before that, 1937)? Do the intentions of the founders of Israel not belong in a discussion of what Israel has been doing to Lebanon in the last few months? PalestineRemembered 19:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The Ben-Gurion statement you have used is out of context. The context of that quote is that Lebanon had invaded Israel, alongide 4 other Arab armies. israel was fighting 4 fronts simulataneously, and BG is pointing out that the weakest of these fronts, where Israel shoul dfocus, is Lebanon. even If you had provided the full context, it would have constituted OR and POV in an article about Hezbollah, an organization created more than 30 years later. I hope this explains what you had done wrong.Isarig 20:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You did not answer my question - you forced me to guess what it was I might have done wrong.

And your comment (which may have merit in the context of 1948) doesn't respond to the wider point that Israel has always intended to turn Lebanon into a failed state. Ben-Gurion intended it long before the Holocaust (1937 at the latest), Israel badly destabilised Lebanon by flooding it with brutalised refugees in 1948, the same in 1967, and Israel smashed it's way in in 1982, and precipitated a slaughter than some people consider a genocide. Latest, Israel is supposed to have scattered the south of the country with c. 1 million land-mines.

And you've also failed to deal with my 2nd question - do the intentions of the founders of Israel not belong in a discussion of what Israel has been doing to Lebanon in the last few months?

Or was this revert without any discussion an attempt to inveigle me into an edit war? PalestineRemembered 21:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't add stuff to controversial articles without cites. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your personal blog. Elizmr 22:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing controversial about the intention of the founders of Israel to seize the Muslim (southern) part of Lebanon. And the material I added was cited (more if you doubt any part of it). The only small discrepancy is whether the "intent of the founders of Israel" is the same thing as "the intention of Israel". PalestineRemembered 16:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry. I believe that you believe this stuff and don't think it is controversial, but I think most editors would agree that it is not only highly controversial, but actually completely untrue. You will need to provide quite extensive cites if you plan on inserting that in any Wikipedia article. The cites you provided previously did not support your statement. This isn't a blog or a propaganda Web site. Please see WP:SOAP. Elizmr 18:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should examine the writings and sayings of the early Zionists, the people who founded Israel. They were very expansionist. The leading such Founder, David Ben-Gurion, identified the Muslim south of Lebanon as the most important direction that Israel should take, since it would link to the Christian (Maronites) of north Lebanon.

I'm persuaded there may be problems with adding my claims to the "Hezbollah" entry, but they're certainly not based on the facts of the case. The article as it currently stands needs extensive revision, it ignores the huge damage done to Lebanon by the refugees its neighbour created (and continues to create). PalestineRemembered 19:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• 1. I see you are still not providing any sources.
• 2. Israel settled 600,000 jewish refugees from Arab lands peacefully see [3] for info on these Jews and their treatment in Arab countries. Israel is hardly to blame for the behavior of the Arab refugees from Israel in Lebanon. Perhaps if Lebanon had treated them better (rather than keeping them in camps for political reasons while ignoring humanitarian ones) and let them integrate they would have been less of a problem. Elizmr 19:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I cannot respond to someone who ignores the references and cites I've already put in (especially when the "from the Nile to the Euphrates" expansionism of the Zionists is so very well known)

Nor can I respond to someone who posts Zionist propaganda, levelling unfounded allegations at every other nation in the region. Most (all?) of which had enjoyed long and happy community relationships, which were torn up by the Zionists themselves.

Nor can I respond to accusations against the victims of Israeli ethnic cleansing - except to remind you what we put Milosevic on trial for, and what we bombed Serbia for. PalestineRemembered 20:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It is ok if you don't respond. Please just don't put your uncited original research into Wikipedia. And you might want to be WP:CIVIL and not use the word "Zionist" as if it were a curse. Elizmr 22:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me remind you of one of David Ben-Gurion's first actions as Prime Minister of Israel. He told his General Staff "Our aim is to smash Lebanon" (Michael Bar Zohar, Ben Gurion: A Biography).

And let me remind you he was proud to be a Zionist - though if you have some problem with it, I will understand. PalestineRemembered 06:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware that all the surrounding arab countries declared war on Israel right after the UN voted for the partition and Israel declared independence? Elizmr 23:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

By the 15th May 1948 (which is the date when some very inexperienced armies first moved), it would appear that Israel had already ethnically cleansed between 200 and 380,000 Palestinians. In 1999 we bombed Serbian forces in Kosovo when they'd de-housed only a few thousand. We acted then because we were aware of the really serious effects such behaviour has on neighbouring countries - later we put Milosevic on trial for these alleged crimes. In Israel's case, the ethnic cleansing they carried out almost toppled Jordan and did topple Lebanon, turning parts of it into a "failed state" (it's still in that condition either 39 or 58 years later). Fair-minded observers would think that the response of Israel's neighbours in 1948 was far too little and far too late.

There we are, you've now goaded me into some OR - but what I've told you is so blatantly obvious and well supported that nobody's previously bothered to spell it out quite as starkly as I've done. PalestineRemembered 21:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Black flag

I was going to suggest you read WP:NOR and WP:V, but I see your Talk: page is full of suggestions that you do so. If you want to make a claim in Wikipedia you must provide a reliable source that makes that exact claim. You cannot insert your own theories, based on personal websites. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This looks very much like an attempt to intimidate a newcomer to Wikipedia. I have attempted to add perfectly proper material to the Kafr Qasim massacre article, pointing out that the "Black Flag defense" supposedly created by the prosecutions after this massacre has never been successfully invoked in the 50 years that have passed since.

My edit has been summararily reverted, without any form of discussion. If I'm wrong, it would be very, very easy to prove me wrong. In the meantime, my source makes the exact claim I say it has done - why are you querying it? After all, the words of Israeli servicemen can hardly be "unacceptably Palestinian POV"! This site has been in operation for 4 or 5 years, it's the work of dozens of Israelis (a fair number of whom have been jailed for their participation) - who are you to call it a "personal web-site"?

I'm doing my utmost not to take part in the "edit-wars" I see going on constantly - my caution seems to be rewarded by quite heavy-handed postings such as the one you've sent me here. PalestineRemembered 21:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, Jayig was not WP:BITEing you. Your posts have contained a lot of unsourced material. I know how strongly you feel about this, but that doesn't justify putting your own ideas in an encyclopedia without the proper citations. If you want to blog, you should, but Wikipedia is not a blog or a soapbox WP:SOAP. It would be very helpful if you were to read the links people have been sending you and edit accordingly. Elizmr 21:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

While I'm clearly a Wiki-beginner, I'm quite sure my posts contain almost nothing that is unsourced. The claim that "The Black Flag Defense has never been successfully used in the 50 years since 1956" is sourced from people who've made a particular study of the subject, and if they're wrong, it would be very, very easy to prove it.

I do feel as if I am being WP:BITE. There's almost certainly nothing wrong with the statement I inserted, nor with the cite I provided. Why is this important factoid being excluded from the encyclopedia? PalestineRemembered 19:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You specifically went to my Talk: page and asked me to comment, so I commented; it's rather disingenuous to now claim I am trying to "intimidate a newcomer on Wikipedia". The onus is not on other editors to "prove you wrong"; rather the onus is on you to prove that you are right. You need to provide a reliable source which states what you're claiming. It's as simple as that, as stated in WP:V. You can't draw your own conclusions based on what you interpret from personal websites; that violates WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If I post a claim made by people at the very centre of this business, and others come along to revert me, then the onus is very much on these others to prove there to be some flaw in my reference (particularily in this case, where my claim is "disprovable", easily rendered worthless by a single contrary example). WP:NOR refers to "material that has not been published by a reliable source". I hardly think the web-site of dozens of Israeli servicemen comes in that category (at least, where it makes specific claims covering 50 years of Israeli jurispidence, as it has done here). Or again - WP:NOR "Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, explanation or evaluation of information or data from other sources. ....... Articles which draw predominantly on primary sources are generally discouraged, in favor of articles based predominantly on secondary sources".

I wouldn't dream of excising the work of others without some pretty sound reason to think it was faulty, and without some explanation. In fact, if I were to do so, I would expect to be accused of vandalism. I think my sentence/claim does belong - to exclude it is a dis-service to the people who may depend on the neutrality of Wikipedia. PalestineRemembered 19:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to AMA request

I've had a look over your case description and the contested edits, and I don't think you have a substantial case here. One cannot "prove" the intentions of a nation, much as one cannot "prove" the intentions of the US, for instance, in invading Iraq. All you can do is provide documented evidence to say such and such a thing has happened, and what the consequences were. Providing quotes from soldiers saying they want to "smash Lebanon" does not support the claim that this has "always been the intention of Israel." At best, you could provide quotes from particular Israeli statesmen suggesting they would like to do this, but stated intentions of this sort would not necessarily carry over or translate into "national intentions," as even in Israel there is typically organized (if ineffective) resistance and political opposition to such campaigns.

I suggest focusing further editing on "things that happened" rather than "national intentions," as the later would be very difficult if not impossible to prove and would almost certainly be ridden with WP:NPOV problems from any angle, no matter what source you used. Discussing concrete goals of particular Israeli campaigns would be a more effective way of addressing the same material without getting into the problems of national abstractions. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or would like further advice.--Amerique 00:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for replying. I understand that. The problem, I think, with proving "intentions" is that intentions are immaterial to begin with. To the extent individual quotes can be used they can show the intentions of those politicians who made them, which I would say to the extent they are transparent can extend to cover those who voted for them, but a "nation" cannot be proven to have intentions like a person does. A person can have nationalistic intentions, but a nation acts as a consequence of those in power. If the actual intentions of Bush in invading Iraq were ever proved, he and his whole cabinet would probably be impeached, but those who voted for him cannot be said to have shared these intentions, as they were kept secret even from the Congress that authorised the war. He is not going to say "I started the war for oil," and even though from a rational outlook this was his obvious intention from the start, it cannot be said to extend to the entire American people, as those who voted for him were sold into thinking they supported a war against terror.

Anyway, I would just limit discussion of intentions to the intentions of political actors rather than of states, which would eliminate the problem of over-extension. I will get back to you in the next few days regarding that other article. Thanks for contributing to and participating in Wikipedia. Best regards,--Amerique 19:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to contribute to the Wikipedia and improve the factual basis of it. I'm sure I have a lot to learn about presentation. PalestineRemembered 20:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've put an extremely POV article on AFD

Just take a look at policide and let know your opinion! Count Iblis 13:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I've had a look, and I agree with you. Unfortunately, the discussion appears to be closed. The word "Policide" appears to have been invented for propaganda effect. And I'm not sure that the definition of a word belongs in an encyclopedia. PalestineRemembered 18:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but fortunately the AFD nomination did at least have the effect that the article was made more NPOV. This article will be edited by people who are less involved with the POV issues regarding the Mid East, which is how it should be. Count Iblis 00:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Third holiest site in Islam AfD debate

I've nominated this article for deletion Third_holiest_site_in_Islam, and would appreciate your comments on the matter.--Amerique 04:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete - it's a fundamentally unsound topic to be discussing in any kind of "multi-cultural" Forum. The only way this article could be valuable as a reference is if it were written entirely by Muslims (and they were going to come to some kind of consensus, which I doubt). But it still wouldn't belong here, just as a discussion on "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" wouldn't belong in here. PalestineRemembered 19:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: The word "Policide" doesn't belong in an encyclopedia

I agree with your sentiment. But note that while the people who write propaganda articles may think that they are spreading their POV to the wider world, in reality all they do is discredit wikipedia. No reasonable person who read the original policide article would have thought that that was a good informative article on policide. It was anti-Arab propaganda. So, these readers will have learned that wikipedia is not the place to get reliable information.

The concept of policide itself is controversial, but then it can be applied to every state. Isn't Israel guilty of actual policide by preventing the Palestinian government from functioning properly? So, I'm not per se against such articles, because concepts are usually more neutral than was intended by its inventors. The only problematic thing is when someone starts a new article and frames a concept around an (in principle unrelated) issue to make propaganda. Such articles must either be deleted or be edited by other editors who are interested in the topic of the article itself and not in the propaganda reasons that led to the article being created. Count Iblis 18:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Iblis. I don't see the point of the word "policide". There are three perfectly good words/phrases that cover the concepts supposedly described. They are "regime change", "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide". Policide seems to have been invented purely as a code word for "I support anything that Israel does to smash Palestinians".

Which is a real shame ..... because we urgently need a new word in this general area. A word/phrase that means "to make a failed state of a country/area/nation". That's what Israel has been trying to do to Lebanon and Jordan (and the PA, of course). Israel badly damaged Jordan and brought down Lebanon by flooding them with brutalised refugees, and then further damaged Lebanon with three invasions, massive bombings, and a million land-mines (unexploded cluster bombs).

This new word/phrase might well describe the invasion of Iraq, since all officials were sacked, and the mob was allowed to destroy every government ministry. The Russians may have done something similar in Chechnya, and the Chinese in Tibet?

PalestineRemembered 08:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Reminder

Please review WP:SOAPBOX, WP:OR, WP:NOT. I'm saying this because you again inserted your own opininon of Shmuel Katz repeating his bio in your version, which is not encyclopedic. Thank you. Amoruso 20:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Shmuel Katz is a violent extremist by history and a propagandist by career. These elements are entirely glossed over in his bio. Compare this text with the one for eg Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. Not only is the difference of emphasis huge, and completely unwarranted, but nobody is quoting the words of Husseini/ayni as if they were gospel.

Some of Katz's claims (eg that the Palestinian refugees left of their own accord) are frankly disgusting. I'm not aware that the encyclopedia needs to be "even-handed" in dealing with ethnic cleansers and alleged terrorists. Certainly not with known propagandists! PalestineRemembered 14:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we compare him with Hitler himself and that's it (Husayni and Hitler were buddies). I think you're still failing to grasp the idea of WP:RS and WP:OR. Your opinion is fine but is irrelevant. If someone talked about Shmuel Katz specifically in a deragatory way you propose that can be added. This is how wikipedia or every encyclopedia works. It cites sources, relevant WP:CITE, WP:V ones, not opinions. Amoruso 22:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said, Shmuel Katz is a violent extremist by history and a propagandist by career. These elements are entirely glossed over in his bio, and exposure of his failings are reverted with no attempt at discussion.

The encyclopedia should be warning people of his clear POV writings and deeply dubious claims to be a historian. Most certainly in his bio, but probably in the article on each of his books (eg Battleground).

Since he has published, we may be forced to accept references to his works within the rules of WP:V (and have to accept Adolf on the same basis). I'm not sure the best way to deal with his nastiest blaming of victims, I guess that can only be on a case by case basis when people reference his words.

PalestineRemembered 11:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Alas, you still fail to understand that wikipedia is not your personal blog. Critics of his book are already cited, if you find more you can add. It's really rather simple. Your opinion of him is really not of any interest obviously. Amoruso 15:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Prove to me that the encyclopedia has to treat Katz as a reliable historian, when a far less positive write-up is given to many other people (some of whom have published more popular books). His WP bio has the merest hint that he might be controversial or unreliable, and I see no cites to any of his critics. The only article in the external links is glowing in his praise. I've attempted to improve this article, my work has been torn up, lets see if these other people are capable of producing an NPOV article worthy of the encyclopedia.

PalestineRemembered 17:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Blanking of sources on Israel

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Israel. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Avi 20:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

What I took out of the Israel article was citations that did not comply with WP:V - ""Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content policies."

I am "any reader". I was unable to check that the material had been published by a reliable source. I removed it, in the manner of any responsible Wikipedia editor. I think it was two links that led nowhere, and perhaps 6 that were not in English. I didn't touch the information, I simply replaced the dead cites with "citation needed".

What I did was perfectly proper editting - whereas putting back the worthless links is almost certainly vandalism. I only checked and corrected a single paragraph - there is a great deal more work needed on the Israel article before it comes up to the standard of this (or any other) encyclopedia.

What's this "Second level warning" business? Are you an administrator, would this be any fit way to introduce yourself, and what on earth are you doing levelling this nonsense accusation against me? PalestineRemembered 21:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see talk:Tsrael and talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for ways to handle this without deleting material. According to you, I'd be within my rights to delete 70% of the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad article, which of course I did not do -- Avi 21:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not delete any material, I simply removed the non-verifiable references.

I've looked quickly at the Ahmadinejad article, and I don't rate it's NPOV very highly. (We should not be describing any countries leader as "controversial" in the lead unless he's in severe domestic trouble or at war with his neighbours). If there's anything in there that would make anyone really want to see the original material, I didn't notice it.

That's very, very different from the Israel article, because I did want to see what evidence there was for the pretty nasty claims made against "the Palestinians". Local hate-filled news-stories wouldn't cut much ice even if I could verify what they claimed!

I suspect there are English references for these claims that Israeli-Arabs were protected by their government - they could and should be used in that article. Edits like the one I made will indeed improve the encyclopedia, and reverts of the kind made will cause damage to the encyclopedia. PalestineRemembered 23:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Naeim Giladi article

Hey. I was working on the article before you wrote me, adding more material and the like. I will check out the references and other stuff you mentioned. If the page starts to get vandalized, we can call for semi-protection. I am also digging deeper and deeper into the guy's history and the work of related academics mentioned by him and he seems very credible. There are strict guidelines about how to write about living persons at WP:BIO that might also address some of the slanderous type maneuvers people are attempting. Glad you are keeping interest in the article. Tiamut 08:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Good to see you're moving the project forward. If I dared to activate my e-mail in here, I'd probably post you privately. Or there again, maybe not - I met the (censored) when I was a cyclops on another system. She knows exactly how temptresses behave. PalestineRemembered 19:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Black Flag

There are several reasons why I (and other editors) removed that statement from the Kfar Qassam article. First of all, contrary to your claim, the source is not WP:RS - it is a statement made in passing, in an on-line petition, sponsored by a partisan source. Such sources are not reliable. Second, it constitutes [[WP:NOR| original research, and violated WP:POINT. Finaly, it is false. There have been may cases since 1956 in which soldiers have claimed "patently illegal orders" and were acquitted. Isarig 16:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You could easily be right - so prove it. (But remember that the "Black Flag Defense" refers to orders to kill civilians. We're not talking about refusal to get fetch cigarettes in a military vehicle).

If you can't prove it (as I suspect), then I think the reference is entirely adequate to support this fairly simple and direct statement.

PalestineRemembered 16:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that's where you are wrong . The colloquial term "black flag defence", for the legal term "patently illegal orders" refers to orders of any kind. Soldiers have succsssfully used this defense on charges of, for exmaple, refusing to throw away fresh produce. And as I said, the truthfullness of the charge is just one of several reasons why that statement does not belong in that article Isarig 16:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Provide the evidence (as I asked) and I'm sure we can make further improvements to WP. I'm pretty sure this feature of Israeli Military Law belongs somewhere in the encyclopedia, particularily now you tell me it it's in quite widespread use. Probably belongs in this article - but maybe even in it's own article. For the moment you're taking things out and not putting anything in.

PalestineRemembered 16:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed it becuase it does not belong in this article, becuase in violates [[WP:NOR], WP:POINT and WP:NOR. I will look for the refernces you've requested, if you want to start a new article on Israeli Military Law. Isarig 16:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm still baffled as to what is going on here. I've made a simple statement, pretty much a "Well Known Fact". "Proving a negative" is notoriously difficult ..... but that shouldn't be any bar to my using this information, because such statements are ridiculously easy for people in your situation to disprove (in the odd case they're not genuine).

I'll happily take you up on "Create an article" - does that mean that, on the third attempt, I'll get the proof I've asked you for, that you should have had before reverting my edit? PalestineRemembered 17:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you read Hebrew. The Hewbrew Wikipedia already has an article about [Patently illegal orders]. It cites at least two cases where the the courts ruled that the defence could have been used in case of order to setall ammunition from another unit, or to deliberatly damage tank engines to create work for a maintenance unit. It also cites the case of the illegal order to execute the hijackers of bus 300. And most interestigly, it refers to the claim made by your non-WP:RS, and says this has never been advanced as a defence in court by anyone refusing to serve. Isarig 17:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That article in the Hebrew Wikipedia says: "????? ??? ?????? ????? ????????, ????, ????? ???? ?????, ?? ???? ??? ????."

And even I can tell there's not too much information in that lot! But I'm glad you can read Hebrew, save me "Creating an article" on a topic you're clearly itching to do yourself!

And your cases say that the "defense could have used" as if these soldiers carried out the crimes with which they were charged, failing to refuse orders ..... that's a very long way from saying it's ever worked!

PalestineRemembered 17:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Try this [4] . And no, when the courts says "if you had used refused the porder nad used this defense - you'd have been acquitted" - that's not a long way at all from saying this defense works. Isarig 17:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You reverted a statement at Kafr Qasim massacre that said: "the Black Flag Defense created has never been successfully invoked by Israeli servicemen in the 50 years since this case". It came with reference [5] that would appear to be pretty cast-iron, even if not the kind normally consistent with WP:RS (though the latter is "not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception").

I could by now be forgiven for thinking you have absolutely no evidence that the "Black Flag Defense" has ever worked (and only a pretty wobbly indication that you won't share with us that it might be possibly work).

Still, it's only 4 times I've asked you for proof of what you specifically claimed ..... which was: "There have been ma[n]y cases since 1956 in which soldiers have claimed "patently illegal orders" and were acquitted" and "Soldiers have succ[e]sssfully used this defense on charges of, for ex[a]maple, refusing to throw away fresh produce". I appreciate the care you apply to your postings.

PalestineRemembered 18:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly the same problems

with exactly the same users (amoruso, isarig and jayjg). i am so totally sympathetic and at a loss about what to do. i was going to request an AMA, might still. but it did not seem to help you much. though i did appreciate amerique's clarifications, he couldn't help with the overall problem of harassment, wikistalking, stubborn POV pushing editors. there are some users here whose interest is in suppressing completely valid information using guidelines and policies very selectively and dubiously, (in fact contradicting the spirit of the guidelines and policies themselves). it's too bad really. but don't give up. i don't like edit warring either and take a few steps back if i feel my temperature rising. but i'm not going to let them intimidate me into silence via aspersions and dubious assertions. the truth has a funny way of coming out evenutally anyway. the harder they work to suppress access to information, the more people can see what is really going on. Tiamut 23:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I've started a collection of clips of these editors. One of them in particular has posted the following personal attacks (I have several very POV things from him too, but I'm still building that collection. And in one of his postings he tells us how few fighters were killed in the massacre he wants labelled a battle <G>):

1. xxxxxx is a notorious left wing analyst ..... works were also ruled as lies in the court of law. (living author)
2. The fact you don't like his research ..... is simply your POV problem. Do not try to instigate lies.
3. xxxxxxx (editor) allegations are blatant lies.
4. The debunked discredited site you borrowed your nickname from (?) "palestineremembered.com"

I've tried very hard to discuss things first and get consensus in order to make edits stick and quickly fell foul of these elements (I think you've named the worst offenders). They're determined to POV and clearly practised at obstructing useful edits and editors (see the first postings on my User page above!). I'm not ready to lay a complaint at any of these guys yet, but it cannot be long. PalestineRemembered 07:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, WP is too vast for me to keep track of everything that happens on it. PR came to the AMA with a question on a specific content issue and that is what I advised him on. If you guys are experiencing harassment or wikistalking please provide me with evidence in the form of page diffs and I will see what I can either do or recommend within WP:AN or WP:DR.--Amerique ^dialectics 01:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, Amerique. I didn't choose a particularily good example to AMA about, but I clearly need to learn the ropes quickly.

PalestineRemembered 07:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Third holiest site in Islam

Could you put your comments on the new lead on this page? I wrote it to respond to the complaints you made on the AFD talk page and I think it does repond to some of them (except for the title). What do you think? Elizmr 13:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Your comments on the original article were similar to Almaqdisi's. His specific points of critique prompted me to edit the lead of the article to try to come up with a NPOV version that would be acceptable to all comcerned. This is why I asked you to comment. The vitriolic stuff you put on my user page (and by the way you put it on my actual user page and not my talk page, but that's not a big deal) was not a reasonable response to my request. Please try to be reasonable and work collegially on Wikipedia. Elizmr 19:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't intend to lambast Israel for destroying this quite significant mosque on your UserPage. You have my permission to delete it from there.

As I think I've made clear, I don't see this as an NPOV dispute. It's a plea for "don't jeer at the religious symbols of others". Civilised nations understand that offensive material aimed at minorities doesn't have a place anywhere (though I'll grant you that this case is a relatively marginal example, it's only in the context of an impending Holocaust on 5 million Palestinians that makes it worth commenting).

PalestineRemembered 19:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you are talking about. Why are you saying that Israel has destroyed the mosque? No one is "jeering" at a Mosque. My edits were in an attempt to HONOR the Muslim POV on the holiness of the Mosque while allowing the characterization of other Mosques as the "third" on the basis of aspects other than "virtue" to be described. Elizmr 19:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The Al-Aqsa Mosque is clearly being destroyed by Israel. It needs constant care and large amounts of loving attention, it's being starved of those things. (Aren't males from the age of 16 to 45 being excluded? - and it's other worshippers are being ethnically cleansed). One large section is thought to be in danger of collapse - don't give me this guff about it being the Muslims at fault.

It takes the biscuit that apologists for these criminals are using WP to jeer at such a threatened people.

PalestineRemembered 20:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, young male worshippers are excluded during the Friday prayers for the safety of civilians (Jewish and otherwise). As for the rest of your comments, I don't know where you are getting your information. Elizmr 20:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going by what everyone in the civilised world knows, Israel is based on terrorism and atrocity, and continues to operate in the same way.

And it's hardly WP:OR to state that the Al-Aqsa mosque is being strangled by military blockade and ethnic cleansing. Buildings of this kind require an enormous amount of care and loving attention and money. Otherwise, they fall down, and the Al-Aqsa mosque is well on its way to doing so.

Making it even more disgusting for infidels to debate whether this is the "Third holiest site in Islam". At the present rate, it won't be in existence in 50 years.

PalestineRemembered 20:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm kind of curious now about what you think the "civilized world" consists of and why you think it is appropriate to call other Wikipedia editors "infidels". This is clearly a personal attack. Please see WP:NPA (and yes, it applies to Muslim editors when interacting with "infidels" too) and WP:CIVIL (yeah, you're supposed to be civil to everyone, even Jews) Elizmr 21:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As best I'm aware, "infidels" is a perfectly proper Arabic word to describe non-Muslims. I don't know of any other word for this concept, and I'm baffled by your claim to have been personally attacked.

And baffled by your argument - which would make use of the words "goya" and "goyim" definitely out of order. There is a perfectly good English word for that concept, "gentiles"!

PalestineRemembered 20:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Palestineremembered, this came to my attention [6]. I would like to comment on this if you may allow me. Even if the word gentiles is used by some, it is not appropriate to call others infidels, or basicly the Arabic Kafir, particularly if it comes in the context of an insult. The word Kafir may be interpreted in many ways Islamicly as mentioned here at Kafir as far as it describes the status of disbleieve. But it may not be used as a way to insult non-muslims similar to how the word gentile may possibly be used to insult non Jews. It would be better to consider something like this from the Quran[7]. I read how you said it even more disgusting for infidels to debate whether this is the Third holiest site in Islam. I think you are not using the word here as an insult, because otherwise you owe Elzimr an appology. Finally, please visit the new Deletion page AfD [8]. Wishing you the best really. Cheers. Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 23:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear User_talk:Almaqdisi. I cannot take a discussion about the use of this word very seriously. The fuss made looks exactly like an attempt to make the discussion personal in order not to discuss the point at issue (Israel's gradual destruction of the Al-Aqsa mosque). It's not just an attempt to slur me, it's an attempt to re-define Arabic as a language of insults. The next step is to say "We've made calling someone a Muslim an insult, therefore we're going to bar you from using that word too". When I see Political Correctness of this kind being injected, I assume that the points I'm making are excellent, and the accuser knows it.

Now, I may have been wrong to use the word "infidel", but there isn't another I could have used, and my quick search of google suggests the word is sometimes used as insult, but more often is not. I will, however bear your words in mind and not use this particular word again.

(You will have noted the same people are making generalisations about the "The Jews" and demanding that I join that discussion. They're attempting to trick me into making some kind of similar racist generalisation, in order they can smear me as anti-semitic. This silly spat over the meaning of "infidel" comes from the same tool-box, the one labelled "ways to silence critics of Israel". But it comes from a different drawer, the one labelled "easy ways to make Arabic speakers feel bad and tie them in knots").

PalestineRemembered 15:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Baffled? Your English is good and you must be aware that "Infidel" is a very derogatory epiphet. It means someone of no faith. If you noticed I haven't gone around using words like "goy". But I could note that the word, unlike infidel, doesn't imply that a non-Jew is faithless. Sorry, PR, but you owe me an apology. Elizmr 00:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• As someone who has been observing this conversation get more and more heated, I'm going to have to agree with Elizmr, in that Infidel is definitely, 100% a derogatory term. It is a term used to demean non-Muslims. An equivalent term for you to refer to a Jewish person from a Muslim perspective would be as a Dhimma (the singular of dhimi). In terms of the word Goy, while certainly a rude word, it is not generally considered offensive or derogatory. -- Chabuk 00:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• As a happy infidel, I certainly wouldn't take offense at the word. However, might I remind PR that the social aspect of WP functions best as a diplomatic space. No area on WP is "private," the conduct policies apply everywhere, and anything you write here can be read by anyone. Calling people infidels is not exactly how to win people over to your point of view.--Amerique ^dialectics 13:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I was about to start an entire new section entitled "==Go on, declare my UserPage a zone for fact-free discussion and pure silliness==". I'd quickly discovered that most definitions I can find on the web don't mention that the word is offensive and this link [9] makes it clear that the Catholic Church uses it as a similar short-hand, with no offensive intent intended. Far from being 100% derogatory, it's a 100% genuine word for a concept that has no alternative moniker.

However, it's far too much to expect equal esteem to be granted, and the likes of me will always have to walk on egg-shells. I will bear your wise words in mind.

PalestineRemembered 17:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that any Catholics who use "infidel" to describe non-Catholic editors on Wikipedia would be encouraged to stop (and I wouldn't use it myself). Catholics are of course free to use the term off-wiki, just as Muslims are. TheronJ 18:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that non-Catholics (suspected of being anti-Catholics) who attempted to debate the exact importance of some important Catholic cathedral their allies were in the process of destroying would be told to cease forthwith. There would be no need to use the word "disgusting" about these non-Catholics (or "infidels"), because they'd be drowned in a chorus of boos.

(I cannot be sure what is going on with the article Third holiest site in Islam, but it looks as if it's being promoted by people who defend the policies that are strangling the Al-Aqsa mosque).

PalestineRemembered 19:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Muslims have done a much better job destroying Muslim holy places than Jews, please see Al-Askari Mosque for a good example. Elizmr 22:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mention the Jews, all my comments are reserved for the apartheid state of Israel. Please keep your (potential) incitement to anti-semitism off my UserPage. PalestineRemembered 07:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, your as yet unapologized for remark about "infidels" from a muslim to a jew pretty much says it all. Elizmr 22:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC) And, by the way, I think it is pretty interesting that you use a phrase geared to incite (Apartheid) at the same time as you warn me againt incitement. You are way too much. Elizmr 22:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like seeing Israel described as apartheid, you could speak out against this kind of thing, from an Israeli newspaper (oops, sorry, Ha'aretz has cleared it's archive again, but it was in there, honest!)

.... in the 54 years of the state's existence, an entire lexicon of laundered euphemisms have obviated the need to bluntly define ethno-national discrimination - ranging from "the absentees," to "army veterans" and "those eligible for citizenship according to the Law of Return." Most of the national-ethnic discrimination is carried out by the Zionist institutions - the Jewish National Fund and the Jewish Agency - and they were deliberately established so the state would not be accused of deviation from universal norms. .. the test of racism of Israel, (is) the collective discrimination against sectors that do not belong to the Jewish group - the Bedouin, the internal refugees, "unrecognized villages," cities and towns suffocating because of lack of room to expand, economic discrimination and racial prejudice camouflaged as "concern for security.

PalestineRemembered 21:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

hi

email me at mac33c@yahoo.com please. thanks :)

Hiyah Mac. It's too dangerous to activate my e-mail in this place (even though the Zionists have already attacked me in my personal and professional life, so they can't do so much more damage).

But I'm sure I'll see you around. PalestineRemembered 23:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

hey you

Do you think you can help me understand the section of Iraqi Jews at the Naeim Giladi article better? I can't make out if he wrote in the Israeli Black Panthers journal, quoted from it or was quoted in it by David Hirst. I just want to make the language clearer and don't have the source that you do. Thanks. I hope you're doing okay. Tiamut 18:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been unable to find the passage where Giladi appeared to quote the Black Panther article of 1972.

And it gets worse .... because I'm not sure I've got a reliable reference to it appearing in David Hirst's book. I'd have no objection to you deleting this section.

Actually, I added two sections to the article at the same time, someone deleted the second one, which I liked more (it's from Giladi's article [10]):

Giladi and David Ben-Gurion

In addition to the book's allegations and documentation of crimes by Zionists against the Jews, and descriptions of the racism he experienced within Israel, Giladi relates a brief exchange he shared with Israel's first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion on a tour of the kibbutz he lived in, when Giladi was 24 years old. He relates asking Ben Gurion why Israel did not have a consitutition, "Look, boy" ... "if we have a constitution, we have to write in it the border of our country. And this is not our border, my dear." I asked, "Then where is the border?" He said, "Wherever the Sahal will come, this is the border." Sahal, Zahal, or Tzahal is a transliteration of the Hebrew name for the Israeli army, or IDF.

I don't really want to remove it, since I think it's a good section, but if we can't trace the source, we will probably have to. I agree though that the Ben Gurion section is interesting. Two questions, 1) is this in the book? 2) is Ben Gurion's response to a question posed by Giladi, and if so, what is it? 3) Is it Sahal? or Nahal? I know there is a Nahal brigades, but I have never heard of Sahal. How about editing it something like what I wrote overtop of your text above? (I hope that's okay, by the way) Do you want to include it like that? Tiamut 20:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The Ben-Gurion clip is from Giladi's article (I think about 1998). Giladi door-steps the partly disgraced ex-Prime Minister at the kibbutz where he's in semi-retirement and asks him "Why does Israel not have a constitution?". I don't know about Sahal or Nahal, I don't think it matters much. Those are Giladi's words and we're quoting him. The incident (even if proved) would not belong in an article about Ben-Gurion, but the article here is about Giladi. And Giladi's book is about David Ben-Gurion, so what Giladi says about him is quite relevant to understanding him and his book.

I think your wording is better than mine.

PalestineRemembered 20:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay I changed it again. (Totally forgot that section was in the article. too much editing, not enough sleep. :) ). What do you think? Tiamut 22:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me :). What's this "Hey you" business? PalestineRemembered 22:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Jabotinsky

I removed the section you inserted under the heading "Contorversy" - becuase that is Original Research - the quoted section did not mention any controversy. Isarig 22:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I was being kind, suggesting that maybe Jabotinsky wasn't being quite this aggressively racist, and perhaps there were other Zionists who were not so set on outright theft and what we now know as ethnic cleansing.

You're far more experienced than me, perhaps you'll change the category and make it fit Wikipedia better. But to take out this highly relevant and well-sourced material, without telling me, looks very much as if you're trying to protect his reputation for reasons I can't quite understand.

Under the circumstances, I think you should put it back, formatted as you think fit.

PalestineRemembered 22:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

PS - what are you doing bringing this discussion/argument over here, when I started the discussion about your action on your page? Are you trying to conceal the protests of others and keep them off your own UserPage? Your action looks rather like escalatory intimidation of a newcomer, with accusations of OR.

You need to seriously calm down, and very closely review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. The reason I came here is because that's the convention on WP - you answer people's queries on their page - that way the get a notice that there's a response. If you want to add the Jabotinsky quote under a section labeled "quotes", go right ahead. Isarig 22:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

All of what you say may be true, but none of it makes sense.

I've only just discovered that you reverted my (fairly well-sourced) edits because I'm still struggling to find my way around. How come you're answering on my page here "so's I know I have a reply", when you did nothing to indicate you'd removed the material you now claim is perfectly acceptable (just wrongly headed)?

And it's you who has removed the material, if it's perfectly acceptable (just wrongly headed), now that I've reminded you, why not just put it back?

Finally, rightly or wrongly, I do feel as if I'm being [WP:BITE].

PalestineRemembered 23:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: First Aliyah

I have re-added the source (and added another one) to the First Aliyah article, per your request. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou. I'm hoping others will follow your example and put back material if they've accidentally taken out something well-sourced.

PalestineRemembered 12:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

My Talk Page - once agian

Hi! You're welcome to discuss my edits on my Talk page, but please don't use it as forum to vent any and all grievences you may have regarding WP or politics or other editors. Isarig 19:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought you'd behaved very honourably, putting my well-sourced edit back into the article, just adjusting the section to better reflect what was going on.

I won't mention your name as I invite other editors to respond in a similar fashion. They took out good, well-sourced material? I won't edit-war with them, I'll invite them to put it back. Won't necessarily work, of course.

Or .... do I have you mixed up with someone else?

PalestineRemembered 19:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries

Dear PalestineRemembered. Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I do know that many of our best and brightest writers and intellectuals have met sordid fates at the hands of the Israeli secret services. That you worry about me in this regard is a huge compliment :), since it means that what I write is effective. My own personal view is that the more open one is about one's identity and opinions, the safer it is. I am already a "known entity" in Israel's vast security files - as are most Palestinians who have strong opinions and express them - so I don't worry much about them finding me. They already know exactly where I am. Whenever they decide that I can't be contained by more traditional means, they will come and get me. But such has been the life of a Palestinian for many decades now. They want us to engage in self-censorship out of fear, and it is precisely for that reason that I try not to let them scare me. If they ever do come get me, there are thousands of others who can carry on in my place. I do not fear intimidation, threats, prison, or death, because I know the truth is a blessing whose pursuit is one of life's greatest pleasures, and things have a way of working out in the end. Keep on keeping on. Tiamut 12:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

May I propose you two contribute at the article Paranoia too. Cheers. Amoruso 07:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahlaan

Hello PalestineRemembered and welcome to Wikipedia. I hope we can cooperate on wikipedia to balance things out. Best of Luck --Palestine48 20:11, 05 November 2006

It's important to remember "Accept Good Faith" and that other editors are indeed doing their best within the bounds of what they know, just as you and I are doing.

But a lot of times it seems as if good, solid information (conforming to WP:RS, ie Reliable Sources) is immediately reverted when it's put up. Persevere, if a well known historian says: "For decades the Zionists tried to camouflage their real aspirations, for fear of angering the authorities and the Arabs. They were, however, certain of their aims and of the means needed to achieve them. Internal correspondence amongst the olim from the very beginning of the Zionist enterprise leaves little room for doubt" - then it has a place in articles in the encyclopedia ..... don't be put off!

PalestineRemembered 21:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Notable commentators who allege serious discrimination, but do not use the word "apartheid" at Allegations of Israeli apartheid

Why don't you just start an article entitled "Israel sucks"? Elizmr 22:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you so hurt by the words of a South African and three Israelis? PalestineRemembered 06:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not hurt, I just don't understand why you feel a need to bring off-topic stuff into an article just because it disparages Israel. I'm making the suggestion that you start a new article to get your point across. Elizmr 15:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What's off-topic about accusations of racist division in Israel? Anyway, Israelis are alleged to want a lot more separation between themselves and their own fellow Israeli-Arab citizens, so it's hardly news.

Tell you what, 19 Arab families appear to have saved 100s of their neighbours from the riots in Hebron in 1929 unimpeachable source. Why don't you start an article of "Zionist kindness", detailing the 1000s of Arabs they protected from ethnic cleansing?

PalestineRemembered 17:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It was off-topic in the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article you put it in. That's all. Elizmr 17:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right. The edits I made actually belong in an article entitled "Israeli apartheid". Israelis are desperate for separate development, they were buddies of the South Africans, their state is based on 1st and 2nd class citizens - what's wrong with calling a spade a spade?

I notice the care with which you ignore questions to you, both here and elsewhere. This is a pretty one-sided discussion, held in the wrong place entirely. Some people might even suppose this was an attempt to waste my time and sully my Talk-page.

PalestineRemembered 17:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm not sure what questions you mean. If you have info about Hebron, you should put it on the Hebron page. I once put something about Arabs helping Jews in 1929 there and Ramalite deleted becuase I couldn't find the cite afterwards. I am all for documenting the cases of Jewish-Muslim/Arab cooperation and mutual assistance on Wikipedia. As far as South Africa, Israel did join in the divestment. The issues are not black and white (so to speak). The Jews in South Africa were huge supporters of the antiAparthdeid movement (and Jews everywhere are generally great proponents of Human Rights, including within Israel, in the US). I have many friends who are Jewish SA's and actually risked their lives in this struggle for racial equality. I'm not saying that there are not problems in Israel, but I don't think the situation is parallel to South Africa. Read Benjamin Pogrund for a good example of a Jewish south african who actually knows israel, is working for Israeli Palestinian peace, and doesn't think the comparsion is relevant. As for the separation, I guess you are talking about the view that areas with a lot of Israeli arabs should be part of a Palestinian state and areas with a lot of Jews on the West Bank should be in Israel; I am not saying I am a proponent of that--I don't know enough about it, but something which proposes that Arabs live in an Arab state with full voting rights etc is just completely different from SAfrican style Apartheid. As far as any ill-intent against you and your talk page, I don't have any. I just wish you'd chill out with you one sided demonizing view of Israel. The Jews are a tiny miniority in the world and about half of them live in Israel. We may have made some mistakes, including some very bad mistakes, but we work to fix them and have also done a lot of good in the world. I wish you'd see some of the good along with the bad. Elizmr 18:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

PR: I'm putting your reply to this on your Talk page, and my reply:

I have serious objections to attempts to drag me into the racist discussion I see developing.

If I said something equivalent (but opposite in meaning) to "The Jews in South Africa were huge supporters of the antiAparthdeid movement" I'd be smeared from one end of Wikipedia to the other - because this is how the bullying Zionists always operate when they meet well informed critics of Israel. Yes, I have lots of information about Hebron - eg the Zionists went there before the 1929 riots with bombs. Clearly, this was not defensive, they were doing then what they do now, which is to cause trouble and then respond with well-practised and well-funded violence. I stayed clear of Wikipedia for a while because someone I knew to be a Zionist claimed that it could not be depended on, anyone could edit the pages. It didn't cross my mind that he was simply bitter because the arguments of his kind were defeated. Checking carefully here, I can see why he was so bitter a year or 2 ago ... and see how damage the encyclopedia has suffered since. Compare Palestinian Refugee March 2005 with what is at Palestinian Refugee now. The current article is a disgrace. PalestineRemembered 20:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just quoting Desmond Tutu (and common knowledge) about the Jews of SA being supportive; this in reponse to your remark about the "buddies of SA". By the way, your comment about bullying zionists is a personal attack. Please consider familiarizing yourself with WP:NPA and following it. And please don't put unsourced attacks on Israel on my talk pages from now on. Elizmr 21:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC). Your remarks about the Hebron riots in 1929 are unsourced and ridiculous. Elizmr 22:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, you've made a generalisation about the Jews and "What they all believed" (I'm pretty sure you're wrong, but we can ignore the accuracy of your statement). Are you going to tell me that I'm entitled to make similar racist generalisations about the same people? If not, why not?

What I said about "buddies of South Africa" was clearly aimed at the Zionists and Israel, it was *not* aimed at "The Jews".

And I don't believe that Archbishop Tutu was anti-semitic.

Bad luck about further Zionist aggression on the eve of the Hebron riots, incidentally. Katinka, "From then till now", Hebrew, p. 271 and archive of the Haganah. "Two men stayed with suitcases in Silonim's house. They had the bombs with them, but the day after they came back to Jerusalem too, because Silonim forced them to leave". Self-defense, or the determination to cause even more trouble, and sacrifice still more peaceful religious Jews living on excellent terms with their Arab neighbours?

PalestineRemembered 22:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

So you are pretty sure that South African Jews were not active in the Anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa? Elizmr 23:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's almost as if you were determined to misquote me, and put racist words into my mouth.

And your factual claims seem very liable to mislead - the links between the racist oppression of Israel and that of South Africa were very close: "Leaving unmentioned Vorster's wartime internment for supporting Germany, Israel's prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, hailed the South African premier as a force for freedom and made no mention of Vorster's past as he toured the Jerusalem memorial to the six million Jews murdered by the Nazis. At a state banquet, Rabin toasted "the ideals shared by Israel and South Africa: the hopes for justice and peaceful coexistence". Both countries, he said, faced "foreign-inspired instability and recklessness" [11]

Meanwhile, you've avoided the unimpeachable evidence that the Zionists were set on aggression in Hebron in 1929, just as they've been throughout Palestine for the last 125 years. PalestineRemembered 22:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Israel

Hi. I started a discussion which touches on an edit you made to the article Israel. That edit was reverted. I am notifying you of this discussion in case you would like to participate. --Rrburke 19:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. My sole objective is to make certain the article complies with WP:NPOV by "representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source." Right now it doesn't seem to me that it does that, because the expulsion perspective is by any definition a "significant view"; moreover, really the only perspective offered is the most common Israeli one, namely that Arabs civilians in Palestine left largely because were encouraged to do so temporarily by their civic and military leadership. There are at least three other "significant views": the Benny Morris-type ad hoc perspective -- that some left for the reason above, but that many more fled from fear or were driven out, not as part of a pre-existing plan, but on more of an ad hoc basis in the course of the evolving military situation; the "Master Plan" perspective best represented by Walid Khalidi, and the "Two-stage explanation" of Yoav Gelber. They are summarized here. To my mind, each of these views has to be included, albeit very briefly, in order for the article to satisfy WP:NPOV.

In other words, my interest for present purposes is not in ascertaining what really happened, but in assuring that each significant point of view about what really happened is adequately represented in the article.

--Rrburke 23:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism and pro-Israel

The German's words are indeed quite correct. A great website of Jews who reject Zionism is www.jewsagainstzionism.com . That website belongs to people representing the Satmar Hasidic group, which has between 100,000 and 125,000 adherents. (As opposed to the much smaller but much more extreme Neturei Karta, www.nkusa.org ). See the main Satmar writings on Zionism here (of Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum):
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/teitelbaum.cfm
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/vayoelmoshe1.cfm
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/vayoelmoshe2.cfm
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/teitelbaummayjewswagewar.cfm
The reason why I am anti-Zionist but defend Israel here is that many people do unjustly attack Israel. I know, the rabbis knew, that this would happen and that Zionism would lead to huge antisemitism. But that doesn't mean that I am commanded to join with those who wish to destroy Israel by force, those who have an irrational hatred for Israel. Against those, I defend Israel. FYI, I was beaten up by 4 'Israeli' policemen with sticks last Thursday night at a demonstration in Meah Shearim. There were also Sephardi Jews, who were also, like me and others, shouting: "JEWS ARE NOT ZIONISTS -- ZIONISTS ARE NOT JEWS", and "ZIONISTS ARE HERETICS" etc. Regarding the Zionist lie which you will encounter claiming that Satmar is a 'tiny sect', see these links:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=satmar+wedding+lipa these two
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=satmar+10%2F10%2F2006 the first three here
Nice refutation of that lie, isn't it? And Satmar is not alone in this position - the Edah HaChareidis rabbinical council joins them, and all of the other Hasidic groups in the Edah: Dushinsky, Shomer Emunim, Toldos Aharon, Toldos Avrohom Yitzchok, and others. The Edah is currently contemplating putting a death curse on 'Israeli' policemen who beat up Jewish demonstrators every night these weeks at demonstrations against the 'gay parade' (see 2006 Jerusalem gay pride parade). They are some of the most extreme anti-Zionists in the world, led by the Satmar group, which is the biggest group in the Edah. Hehe, hope this is interesting for you! --Daniel575 | (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That is very interesting, thankyou. I'm not sure I can claim to be NPOV (and chose my name in order not to deceive anyone!). But one of the things I've come to believe (looking in from outside!) is that Israel's time is running out.

And your examples tend to indicate another reason why this is the case ..... the IDF is used (according to the refuseniks) to ".... fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people".

If they do this with impunity on Palestinians, then they'll seek the same impunity to do it to you - and by the sound of it, they've succeeded.

Sadly, your example of the violence against the demonstrators is another example of the same thing - Israel isn't surviving as a "Western nation" tolerating the views of others. (I'd write more if I had time!).

PalestineRemembered 07:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of Israel

I can cite plenty of books or websites of fabricated information about what Israel is or isn't. Remember WP:V and WP:NOR. You also might want to remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 22:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you can - but I quoted one of the top Zionists, memorialised by Israel in Jerusalem.

These are his own words in his book "The Iron Wall", 1923:

....... A voluntary reconciliation with the Arabs is out of the question either now or in the future. If you wish to colonize a land in which people are already living, you must provide a garrison for the land, or find some rich man or benefactor who will provide a garrison on your behalf. Or else - or else, give up your colonization, for without an armed force which will render physically impossible any attempt to destroy or prevent this colonization, colonization is impossible, not difficult, not dangerous, but IMPOSSIBLE! ... Zionism is a colonization adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important ... to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot - or else I am through with playing at colonizing".

There you go - the words of the founder of Revisionist Zionism (the precursor of Likud) - are you trying to claim this is not what Israel is based upon?

Or are you saying you'll revert any good information about the basis of Israel and the people who founded it?

I'm stromgly against getting involved in some kind of edit-war, but the evidence is clear for everyone to see. It's pretty bizarre to discover there are WP editors who oppose putting it into articles.

PalestineRemembered 00:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

We're not getting into an edit war here. You have to follow wikipedia policies. If you don't want to follow policy, in particular WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:AGF, don't edit, it's that simple. Your claim of a "mass fabrication" is a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories fail both WP:V and WP:NOR and therefore have no place in Wikipedia. You're also failing to assume good faith in your dealings with other people. The world isn't all out to get you. Chill out. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 18:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to say, you're damn right PalestinianRemembered. .V. 22:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, welcome on board. I cannot activate my e-mail in this system, because the Zionists will use it to track me down and attack me in my personal and professional life. But they've done that already, and my boss is supportive, so to a degree I'm protected. Look after yourself, stick around and expose their lies. PalestineRemembered 23:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Email me

Dear Palestine remembered, I am unable to email you. Can you enable that, or if you like you email me, if you like, using the email user option at wikipedia. Thanks Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 09:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Re Protection of Palestinian refugee

You responded to a user who questioned why the version of Palestinian refugee protected includes the long block quote which is the subject of the edit war, and responded:

That's true but protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. Concensus would solve the issue through discussion at the talk page. If there would be no discussion w/in 48 hours i'll unprotect it. -- Szvest 15:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}

I'm baffled by the protection applied to this page in it's current state. The article frozen includes (in the 2nd section!) this long, insulting and virtually irrelevant clip from a known propagandist:

Critics of the UNRWA say that the present definition give Palestinian refugees a favored status when compared with other refugee groups ............

And the objections to this article range far wider than just this clip - half-way through the first section is the beginning of another attempt at nasty revisionism, which thereafter totally swamps the article (this first reference totally distorts the position of Yehoshua Porath, making it even more bizarre).

I appreciate you felt you had to start somewhere, but to freeze the article at this point strikes me as very odd indeed.

(Note - I've never editted this article, neither has anyone asked me to look at it or express an opinion. I've simply come across it in the usual way and been horrified at it's content and the state at which it's been frozen).

PalestineRemembered 17:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi PR. I always feel sorry to see an article getting protected but i feel more sorrow to see an article getting kicked back and forth like a foot ball. I usually deal w/ Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and i protect articles when needed, mostly on the spot. It is also noted that protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. Of course no article is to be locked forever nor for a longer period than a week in general. So in case no concensus is reached than the parties can refer to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. -- Szvest 18:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}

I guess we agreed to disagree.

By the way, Jews aren't criminals. mirageinred 22:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That looks very much like an attempt to slur me. Fair-minded observers will note that I never mentioned the Jews, your attempt to introduce them looks a little bit like an attempt to incite anti-semitism. PalestineRemembered 22:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

PS - as a member of a minority myself, I have a strong objection to this targetting of the Jews (or other minorities) in the fashion you seem intent on doing. I've been in cyber-space since 1987 .... I've never behaved in this fashion. What's your excuse?

You never mentioned anti-semitism? Then what did you mean by "Let the people back to their homes first, then let's discuss punishing the criminals who kept them out for so long?" Who are the ones occupying the land that was once part of Palestine today? Of course what you said to me certainly made me feel like you were referring to Jews. By the way I'm Asian American. I'm an atheist. Believe me, I know minority too. I know racism. I know hate. mirageinred 23:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I was NOT targeting a minority. If I made an assumption based on your vague/questionable comment, then you did too. mirageinred 23:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I hate to make three comments in a row, but lastly I want to say this. I don't have to "put down my gun" because I never had one. mirageinred 23:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I never mentioned the Jews - or indeed "The Jews". I refuse to be drawn into a slanging match that links "The Jews" to the crimes (real or imaginary) of Israel. Your determination to link "The Jews" to these crimes (real or alleged) could either be ascribed to your personal anti-semitism, or an attempt to lure me into a racist discussion and then slur me as an anti-semite.

Which one is it?

PalestineRemembered 23:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

PS - you seem not to have answered the question - when are your Zionist buddies going to put down their guns and allow the people back to their homes? Would tonight suit them, or can they persuade the victims of ethnic cleansing that tomorrow is soon enough?

I support Israel because I condemn terrorism. As if the Hamas are any better than my "Zionist buddies." Jews needed a safe haven from anti-semitism. They still need it for obvious reasons. Why don't you see this? mirageinred 23:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Israel is based on terrorism. Three Prime Ministers (Begin, Shamir and Sharon) personally carried it out, and Ben-Gurion was an enthusiastic advocate (along with others I could mention). Israeli agents continue to scour the world, hunting down and killing their enemies - who might well be people like me. They blackmail locals into doing their dirty work for them (as in New Zealand, Canada and the UK, just what we know about).

The claim of the Zionists that Israel is a "safe haven" for Jews is laughably misled (if not cynically misleading). Israel is far and away the most dangerous place on earth to be Jewish. It's been that way for the whole of the last 60 years, and it's almost certainly getting worse.

But I note your refusal to answer any of the questions I've posed you.

PalestineRemembered 23:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What were your "questions" anyway? Israel based on terrorism? Can I see a source? Some of the answers to the questions I see for now: 1. I'm not a anti-Semite and nobody should be. 2. How did I "behave?" I was just pointing out that your username and your edits obviously shows that you do not like Israel. 3. Jews moved to Israel because it was "the promised land" according to God and that's why they went there. 4. You don't seem to understand me so I'll put the answer into your words. Yes, I'm willing to let my "Zionist buddies" to hold onto their guns. whatever keeps the israelis safe. mirageinred 02:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Why would you bother posting a two-year old comment on my Talk: page? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I was puzzled why you would defend clips which said the opposite of what was claimed for them.

Particularily when the claimant was making allegations against people suffering under a harsh occupation.

Of course, you may wish Muslims to suffer unwarranted accusations, and be blamed for crimes (whether real or imaginary) alleged against Israel.

There again, you might have mended your ways in the succeeding two years - I'm sure you'll welcome the opportunity to tell us you've changed.

PalestineRemembered 08:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Katz

Obviously, I agree that Katz is a very unsuitable source for any historical article. Colin Shindler writes of Katz's activities in the 1970s: "A founder of the Land of Israel Movement and a former high-ranking member of the Irgun, Katz had originally been appointed a Minister of Information in Begin's government. His attempts to propagate both a Revisionist interpretation of the previous thirty years and a hard-line version of contemporary events were consistently blocked by Dayan." --- That's the context in which his "historical" works should be seen. --Ian Pitchford 17:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a newby, still struggling to understand the basis of WP:RS and the other 3 principles of WP. But simply publishing a book cannot be sufficient evidence for worth of inclusion, otherwise we'd have Adolf explaining why the victims of the Holocaust asked to go to the gas-chambers.

Katz seems to be unworthy of citation for basically the same reasons, he was a partisan at the centre of the killing of innocent civilians and the properly constituted officers of the law events he defended. Katz's fawning biography of Jabotinksy could count as "history". But that doesn't make the author "an historian", and neither does anything else we've been informed about.

Obviously, my library doesn't include any of Katz's books, so I can only judge his work by clips people have posted in here.

But what I've seen only reinforces my suspicions about him - here's something current (and locked) today at Palestinian_refugee: "The result has been the creation of a large, amorphous mass of names, some of them relating to real people, some of them purely fictitious or relating to persons, long since dead, a minority relating to people without a home as a result of their or their parents' leaving Palestine in 1948, the majority relating to people who, whatever their origins, are now living and working as ordinary citizens but continuing to draw rations and obtaining medical attention at the expense of the world's taxpayers -- all of them comfortably lumped together in official United Nations lists as Arab refugees and vehemently described as "victims of Jewish aggression."

That's not WP:RS, that's a highly politiced polemic. I'm amazed that anyone has the gall to post it in here.

PalestineRemembered 19:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You've just added Katz back to the UNWRA article! --Ian Pitchford 20:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have indeed cocked up this edit .... but I've already posted you to this effect. Would you care to fix it? PalestineRemembered 20:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Israel

• Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:
• Remain polite per WP:Civility.
• Solicit feedback and ask questions.
• Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
• Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Thanks! -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 22:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Readers will note that the last section on the Israel article Very One sided comes from an anonymous (very new?) editor, and mentions the fact that I seem to be bringing good information. I didn't post that, nor is it any buddy of mine. I don't know who it is, and have never solicited or attempted to solicit such mention. A second user (new? registered but no talk-page) has done something similar, the same applies.

As for your advice, your words are wise and I'm sure you're absolutely right in general editting. I'm wasting your time and mine attempting to edit that article, especially putting in proof that many/most Zionists intended seizing Palestine 125 years ago.

PalestineRemembered 18:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

PS - please would you have a look at Biography Noticeboard, Naeim Giladi. This living person (Jewish) Naeim Giladi is being pointlessly slurred by linking his comments to neo-Nazis. This matter was discussed at WP:BLP and neo-nazi links Proposal to remove NPOV tag and Restructure, and I see nothing there that justifies the harm that is being wished on Giladi's reputation. All I notice is that one of the people who did most of the work on this article seems to have disappeared after the frustrations imposed on her.

PalestineRemembered 22:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Trolling

I just read something you wrote to me/about me on another user's page and realized it was more appropriate to answer here. You have been directed to this policy before, but please read WP:AGF. Consider not treating everyone who doesn't agree with you as the enemy. Elizmr 00:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with being proved wrong or having my edits reverted with reason. Even when I don't agree, I'll never edit-war. However, I don't respond particularily well to the removal of highly relevant and well-sourced material. But even then, I'll stick firmly to the issues when challenging things.

PalestineRemembered 18:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't have anything to do with your Trolling or personal attacks and is a totally irrelevant reply to me because I have not reverted anything well-sourced you have added to a page. All the best, the "infidel", Elizmr 21:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning per WP:BLP and WP:NOT

You've been trying to add this section to articles :

Shmuel Katz a historian?

While Shmuel Katz published at least one notable historical book (on Jabotinsky, of whom he was an associate and admirer), it is less clear that his output can be classified Reliable Source in the encyclopedia.

Two particular controversies are notable:

1. His claims about the early demographics of the population of Palestine, in which he follows the lead of Joan Peters and From Time Immemorial in seeking to prove that many/most Palestinians in 1948 were immigrants drawn solely by the prosperity induced by the Zionists. 2. His claims that "the Arab refugees were not driven from Palestine by anyone. The vast majority left, whether of their own free will or at the orders or exhortations of their leaders" [1].

This latter claim has long been made by defenders of Israel, but is no longer given credit by any other historian eg [2] and [3]. It would be wrong to suggest that all the refugees were beaten, robbed and threatened in this fashion - but the threat of another Deir Yassin were ever-present. Some examples of the ethnic cleansing were less brutal, but even more sudden and extreme eg Golda Meir in Haifa, 6th May 1948 ("Palestinian Refuge problem revisited" Benny Morris p.310), "...... there were houses where the coffee and pita bread were left on the table, and could not avoid thinking that this, indeed, had been the picture in many Jewish towns (ie in Europe in WW2)". Modern historians (predominantly Israelis themselves) put the number who fled in fear of the Zionists to be 90% or more.

I think you've been in wikipedia long enough to understand why WP:OR is not wikipedia material. You can't make up your own critical section based on trash websites like palestineremembered that talk about conflict ISSUES and not the PERSON and make your personal claim about any person. We cite sources that critic others, that's ok, as long as they're notable, relate to that person in name and in specifics, and as long as there's no undue weight. You can review such an example on other person artciles. I'm afraid that if you continue not to understand this policy, I will have to try and take steps to stop it. Cheers. Amoruso 17:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop adding cut-and-paste propaganda dump to my user talk page!!!!!!

Dude, I'm more than willing to discuss issues related to the flag of Israel at Talk:Flag of Israel (where such discussions actually belong), so stop repeatedly cutting-and-pasting a whole long dump of your generic standardized boilerplate propaganda tirade to my talk page already... AnonMoos 17:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I posted the whole thing to Talk:Flag of Israel first, then waited to see what response there would be.

When there was no comment, I added it to the article.

You reverted it, sumararily and without explanation.

I posted it to your UserPage in order we could discuss it and not inveigle me into an edit-war.

You deleted it from your web-page, apparently determined not to discuss it, I re-added it.

So you've now have three chances to improve this article or point out its defects.

Failure to do so looks very much like POV vandalism - is it your intention to act like a responsible editor?

PalestineRemembered 18:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I had posted several replies to Talk:Flag of Israel BEFORE you started dumping your whole long propaganda tirade onto my user talk page. I'm simply not going to discuss this on my user talk page (which is not my "website"[sic]), so please stop posting there. AnonMoos 06:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Trolling and personal attacks on my Talk page

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Isarig 20:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a newby and I'm attempting to get from you (because you seem to be a WP administrator) how the policy of the Wikipedia operates.

Is it the case that people "should not be labelled as "Jews" - as I posted to you within a few days of my first arrival in WP, and you seem to have confirmed with the case of the Argentinian prosecutor? (If you stand by that position, then I'm not sure why you expressed such resentment of my support for you on that occasion).

Or is it the case that the followers of Judaism must be granted recognition as such, as you seem to be saying when you post in here that Juan Cole is a "jew-baiter"? (his offence seems to have been pointing a finger at people who might be guilty of "dual loyalty" - I take it that those people have made their religious persuasion public - otherwise it's not aimed at "the Jews", and the considerable number of Christian or non-religious Zionists would be just as vulnerable to the accusation).

I don't see how you can have it both ways. Either people's religious persuaasion is private, or it is public.

There is a possible intermediate position, ex-President Bill Clinton wanted to enforce on the gays "Don't ask, don't tell". (Though that seems to have been a complete failure, leading to increasing number of members of the minority being sacked from the military). I have to assume you don't want "the Jews" anywhere subject to a policy that I gather is quite badly discredited.

I'm entirely content to go along with Wikipedia's policy on this - but I'm not sure I appreciate your bullying assertion that I should know what it is I'm supposed to do. (And I'm a member of a different and oppressed minority myself, so I'm personally interested in your considered position).

PalestineRemembered 23:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Implementation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Hello. WP:BLP requires unsourced or poorly sourced material be removed. However, well-sourced material is allowed, even if the material does not show the subject in the best light, otherwise, we should remove all mention of Sabra and Shatilla from Ariel Sharon, no? As long as 1) The material is properly sourced 2) It does not threaten to overwhelm the article, and 3) It is relevant to the person's notability, the information is not subject to removal. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Biased or malicious content. Now, in regards to Naeim Giladi, I am going to research a bit more about his being a source of inspiration to whire supremacists, but as it stands now, it is not in violation of WP:BLP. It is no more "vindictive" than having Ariel Sharon called "the Butcher of Beirut" here: Ariel Sharon#Sabra and Shatila massacre; actually much less so. But well sourced, proportional, and notable information is always allowed in wikipedia articles, whether you, I, or anyone likes it or not. Please re-read WP:BLP carefully in regards to these issues, and if you believe I am mistaken, let me know how on my talk page. Thank you. -- Avi 01:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not a case of "sourced material", it's simply a nasty slur. There is no evidence whatsoever that Giladi has had any contact with the anti-semitic. Including the link in the article contributes nothing to an understanding of what Giladi is saying, and it's inclusion is apparently there for no purpose other than to damage his reputation, and cause him personal pain. This bears no earthly relationship to the project.

I'd be fully entitled to revert this nonsense repeatedly, 3RR does not apply to this kind of vicious slander inserted into the biographies of Living Persons.

I'm not prepared to lower myself to this level ..... and it's not very clear to me why some other editors think this is a fit way to carry on.

PalestineRemembered 02:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It depends. If it is deemd notable that Giladi is used as a source of inspiration to people of that ilk, then there is no violation of WP:BLP. The truth is sometimes uncomfortable, but if the sources are deemed acceptable (and I believe they are, in terms of WP:RS and WP:V), there is no issue. The question that I now have is whether or not the fact that some wackjobs hold up Giladi as a symbol of the "Zionist-hating Jew" and how even Jews hate Israel, is notable enough for the article. If it is, then I am pretty sure that BLP does not apply, as it is neither poorly sourced nor unsourced. If it is not notable, then it doesn't belong, but not because of undue weight. However, the material is undeniably verifiably sourced. A slur is a disparaging term. No one is calling Giladi any names. His work is used as proof by white supremacist/Holocaust deniers. This is cold, hard fact. The only question I can see is whether this belongs in the article. As can be seen from articles such as Ariel Sharon, we bring uncomfortable things about people when necessary and verified. Thank you. -- Avi 02:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I share the same thoughts like yours

Hi PalestineRemembered.

What you said is interesting of course. I have been trying to share the same info before. You may find part of that already here [12] and [13]. You can read that, and it basicly mentions what you say, but in a painful argument/debate style :). Read also this one Jerusalem.. 5,000 Years of Arab History. Also you may want to have a look at this Ancient History. Also, if you can get access to it, there is another interesting article Everything You Ever Knew About Jerusalem Is Wrong (Well, Almost)

I hope this does not upset others reading this discussion of ours.

Take care :) Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 07:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Block re-instated, now 2 months

............... I've reinstated your block and added an additional month for ignoring the warnings given you the first time. FeloniousMonk 00:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations for taking 3 hours to consider the case and act this time, and not 13 minutes as last time.

Still nowhere near enough time for people who appreciate my edits to come in and defend me (as 2 attempted to do last time, 24 hours after the deed was done).

Still nothing remotely like "a process of consultation", or anything resembling transparency, but less suggestive of a collusionary process. (Yes, I know you also have 100s of real trolls to deal with every day).

Now some questions for you (though one of my crimes is trying to get answers to questions, including the accuser who has got me blocked on both these occasions):

1. Is Wikipedia willing or able to stamp out the practice of inserting completely pointless slurs into the Biographies of Living People (BLP), eg [14]? This is aggressively done to critics of Israel (including private citizens as above) - meanwhile, Zionist politicians who have made the most interesting statements about ME issues get their biographies protected eg [15].
2. Is the Wikipedia bothered about the widespread practise of administrators claiming privilege (both to themselves and for others) on the basis of their ethnicity? Here's an ArbComm member doing it [16]. Many other examples of discrimination and harrassment, by editors and administrators, as it if was perfectly acceptable.
3. Is Wikipedia willing or able to clean up the nest of POV administrators currently dominating the project? (And to a lesser extent, restrict the activities of certain POV editors?). The individuals in both classes are easy to spot, and it would appear that the same people appear on nearly everyone's lists. See [17] for a blatant example of obstructionism, 15,500 words in order to make sure another BLP critic of Israel is slurred even worse.
4. Further to the above, if administrators are going to expend enormous numbers of electrons in order not to reach consensus, how about them spending time providing actual examples of WP:OR and WP:NOR in order that editors can feel they've learnt something and not be driven away in total frustration?

PalestineRemembered 17:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month in a most suspicious and likely improper fashion

The process of blocking me [18] would appear to be most suspicious and likely improper.

The imposition of a one month ban, on a first offence, with minimal warning, after just 18 13 minutes of administrators "discussion" looks very much like prima-facie evidence of an abuse of power.

In those 18 minutes there were 3 hostile and accusatory contributors. (Complaint posted 23:09, 26 Nov, blocking 18 13 minutes later at 23:2722, 26 Nov).

Two "defenders" didn't appear until over 24 hours later (28th Nov), long after an exceptionally harsh (one month) first blocking had been implemented, when protest was clearly useless. (Both these people then suffered Not Good Faith attacks, their objection that other editors were the same or worse were dismissed with "This section is about PalestineRemembered, not about other editors with whom you have content disagreements").

I believe many other people would have come to my "defense" (or at least opened up the debate to include what one editor called "ludicrously POV changes and PalestineRemembered disputing them") if time had been allowed.

I'd also like to protest at the fact that my WP e-mail was never actioned, making it impossible for me to be contacted (advised/warned/helped) by other users with whom I might have had things in common. 7 weeks and over 500 edits is more than adequate to count an editor as a "genuine participant" in the project.

Wear it as a badge of honour

The fact that you were blocked for a month shows the extent to which they fear the truth and exposes the limits of the "neutrality" of wikipedia. ^{[Potentially offensive comment edited by Chovain per my talk page. See history for details Chovain(t|c) 23:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)]} Abu ali 10:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't wish to damage Wikipedia, or change the way it functions. I don't even wish to breach WP:AGF, but if administrators behave [19] in ways suggesting that they're hi-jacking the project, then the community needs to know about it.

Do you know of examples of administrator abuse you'd like to see recorded? (I can't post to your TalkPage until my block is lifted, and I've never been able to e-mail almost anyone here!).

PS - I see you've said "I would rather that there be no reference to the mother's ethnicity as it is not really relevant to the subjects notability", and it's one of the first things I said when I arrived here. The constant claims of "You posted that in his biography because he's Jewish" is something else that needs to be stamped out. It's particularily bizarre when I see an administrator objecting to the Argentinian Prosecutor being labelled as Jewish over the synagogue bombing case they have going on there. There are clear cases of rules being made up to suit the interests of one particular group.

PalestineRemembered 22:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really follow the actions of the administrators here, so I can not tell you how much they abuse power or give you any examples beyond your individual case. Abu ali 10:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've only seen what they did to me - repeatdly reverting edits that I really thought were WP:RS - and then blocking me on in a fashion that strongly suggests collusion. 13 minutes cannot possibly be a carefully considered response. It took over 24 hours before "suppporters" of mine arrived - how could it be that my detractors arrived within such a short time?

Has your e-mail been activated? Mine hadn't been (and still has not been) after 540 edits. That leaves me completely divorced from help/advice/assistance/warnings by other editors, some of whom clearly appeciated my contributions. Later discovered this was my own mistake! PalestineRemembered 10:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I detect the hi-jacking of the project by editors (and administrators) with quite serious POV.

Contact me on andy.dyer9.tiscali.co.uk - because otherwise I don't have a single point of contact to other editors, some of whom I know supported my position. PalestineRemembered 22:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is dominating these pages with POV?

[20] "Palestineremembered", if you keep vandalising pages of Israeli related issues you will be reported. That includes turning talk pages of articles to your personal WP:SOAPBOX of false arab propaganda. Amoruso 11:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I note your objection to good information and genuinally WP:RS brought to the discussion. How much easier it would be if we stuck to laughable propaganda provided by the likes of Shmuel Katz, public relations officer of the most violent militants and alleged terrorists of 1948. PalestineRemembered 22:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I value the contributions of PalestineRemembered. This article needs balance. As it stands it seems very pro-Jew and anti-Palestinian. 160.39.240.81

I agree, Palestineremembered is not "vandalising" these pages. His is a valid viewpoint that represents the MAJORITY of the population in the middle east.

Is the veracity of something determined by a majority vote? Even if most Arabs believe Jews are devilish creatures plotting to take over the world, that doesn't make it true, or even worth discussing. PR can't seem to bring any evidence for his bold claims, and that's what matters here. okedem 16:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

(I hope it's ok to add this section; I wanted to see PR's footnotes) TheronJ 15:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to say "welcome back"

Geez PR, can you please take your foot out of your mouth and try better next time? Your edits to articles aren't terrible, but you have to do something about all the anti-Zionist rants. I was hoping I could argue in your defence that PR is to Zionists what Rush Limbaugh is to liberals, but some of what you said is simply beyond what being WP:CIVIL in the English-speaking world calls for, ever by a rabid-talk-show-host yardstick. (Though, in some alternate universe where liberals had, say, killed members of Rush Limbaugh's family, I could imagine he'd be a lot more off kilter.)

I don't know what advice to give you, but this is a place to write an encyclopedia, not vent. Perhaps you should just remove the "z" key from your keyboard? You'd be surprised how far along you can get without it, unless you are writing about Zebras or popular American hip-hop slang circa 2004 (fer shizzle dizzle!). And if you get yourself in this mess again, I could just tell people you are dyslexic and don't like onions.

And then hopefully some Zionist won't pass your writing samples around to your neighboring wikipedians on WP:ANI; I suspect the irony of doing just what you were complaining about someone doing went completely over Jayjg's head. Better luck next time. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Biased view

Please take this the way it is meant. Your contributions are so biased to your POV its unreal. Please try to understand that EVERYONE has an opinion and they are just as valid as yours. Just because you say something is so doesnt make it correct. You really dont seem able to see how superior you are acting. Why do you think your POV is somehow better and morally superior to everyone elses. Just because you say something should be changed doesnt mean we have to change it. Please open your eyes, you are acting exactly like the people you say are so evil and controlling!! Daveegan06 19:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother replying. He uses this "argument" whenever he gets conflict trying to import his own POV/legally-problematic agenda. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've learnt my lesson. There are people allowed to express their opinion, and even to launch personal attacks, but I'm not included in either of those privileged groups. I will still stand by most all of the edits I made, even as I watch more of them being erased. Here is one of them finally and completely torn up this week in the last of five small steps [21]. PalestineRemembered 22:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm new as well, but it seems to me that if you want to be a valued part of this community, then just like any other community, you will integrate best if you abide by its principles and listen to its members. If you find the principles or members abhorrent, then perhaps you should ask yourself why you want to be part of the community in the first place. Antgel 02:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The only principle of WP that I have trouble with is WP:AGF. I've repeatedly seen really good, well referenced information being removed by people who know it to be genuine, but are determined it will not appear. The people who do this are often quite blatant about it, their (often distant) attachment to the Zionist enterprise entitles them to remove whatever they feel like.

I carried out some 540 edits in the 6 weeks I was allowed to contribute (and I regret to say, in the later stages, my frustration showed). I suffered a blizzard of totally unhelpful accusations on my Talk-Page, many of which were clearly intended to be personal (I've removed most of this stuff, sorry, I'm sure you can imagine).

What am I complaining about? See [22] for feeble excuses. Or look at [23], [24], [25] and [26] as my contributions were stalked (?) around the system and pointlessly reverted.

Here are two of the people I looked forwards to cooperating with (each of them far better editors than me). They were driven from the project as I was, by precisely the kind of abusive behaviour that I suffered. [27] and [28] and PalestineRemembered 19:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Im so sorry, should of realised that only your point of view is correct, how stupid of me!Daveegan06 10:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

After seeing your edits i realised that you have worked very hard in adding to Wikipedia. I also appreciate you putting up with he admins.

Blocked again

PalestineRemembered, you have been blocked for another month. You are fresh off your two month block, and your second edit is to malign other editors of the project and soapbox about politics on a Talk: page: [29] I'm not sure how to get you to stop doing this, but I'm hoping a third block will convince you, on your return, to stick solely to discussing article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And you are lucky that Jayjg got you first, because I was about to block for it for 6 weeks. JoshuaZ 02:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Warn

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tellyaddict 17:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage

Wikipedia is not a battleground. The statement on your user page is argumentative, insulting, and indicates that you are not here to edit constructively. To be honest, it's also so poorly written that it's difficult to tell what is vandalism and what isn't. I came here from the administrators' noticeboard to try to help, but it seems the best way to help is to give you this advice:

You've been blocked numerous times for incivility; the next one will probably be permanent. I recommend blanking the page and leaving it that way for a while, or replacing it with a more positive and productive page. I support Palestine but there are better ways to do that than to attack your fellow editors or Wikipedia itself. Childish rants only make us all look foolish. Kafziel ^Talk 17:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that. It was a wise decision. Kafziel ^Talk 17:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Careful readers of this page will discover how it was I came to stop using the "Z" key and write "Onionist". I think the violent reaction to this harmless transposition may say more about the objectors than it does about me. PalestineRemembered 18:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)