User talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg/Archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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


Archive of Previous Username

see: User_talk:Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg/Archive


Six-Day War

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

Pictures

Hi,

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

Shalom, Buna ziua, Salam, Guten Tag!

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

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

Mufti Quote

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

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

Jordan

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

Come up with any ideas or sources yet on that, or have any comments regarding my suggestion? Tomer TALK 07:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
no...and unfortunately I don't really have much time these days to work on it... Zero might know of something tho... If you're up for the task, you might consider a bit of collaboration on it with hir... Tomer TALK 08:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Mufti in 1948

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

Deletion

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

How do I delete my user and user talk pages?
Where there is no significant abuse, and no administrative need to retain the personal information, you can request that your own user page or talk page be deleted. Most frequently, this occurs when a longterm contributor decides to leave.
Just add to the page: {{deletebecause|the reason you need the page deleted}}. A sysop will then delete it after checking that the page does not contain evidence of policy violations that may need to be kept. If there has been no disruptive behavior meriting the retention of that personal information, then the sysop can delete the page straight away in order to eliminate general public distribution of the history containing the information. If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Non-main namespace pages for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user and user talk page. If a user page and user talk page were deleted because a contributor left, it may be restored by a sysop if the contributor returns, particularly if the history contains evidence of policy violations.
User pages that have been deleted can be recreated with a blank page, or a link to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians to avoid red links pointing to them.

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


Hello again. Your former user page has been deleted. Your former talk page is now automatically redirected to the Archive page. The reason is that there are a number of edits in which you signed with your former name and, at least for the time being, other editors may want to contact you. Let me know if this is okay with you, or if you want your former talk page also deleted outright. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions. Glad to be of help! Ramallite (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi - every time there is an edit to your user talk page, you will get a "new messages" flag. Your new message flag probably stems from the fact that I added a redirect command to it. In order to see it, first log in under your old user name and go to User_talk:Julian_Diamond and, as you said, it will be automatically redirected. But if you look under the main title, you will see in small letters the phrase "(Redirected from User talk:Julian Diamond)". Click on that, and it will take you to the actual page with the redirect command on it. There should be nothing else on that page, and now that you have seen the page, the "You have new messages" flag should disappear. You can even click on "history" to check if anybody else has added anything after my last edit, but I don't think so. I hope this helps. Ramallite (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Zero

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

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

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

Yuber's new article

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

Mufti quotation

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


With best regards, Heptor.


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

Email

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

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

Your talk page

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

JEW

[Removed vandalism]

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

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

1948 Arab-Israeli War

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

Moshe, we have a major problem: The two most involved editors (Ian and Zero) are both the most knowledgable and share the same bias. This has introduced a large amount of bias in this article. Every point that leads to a positive or even reasonable view of Israel is subjected to the highest standards of evidence/research before it is allowed to stand. Not knowing the field as well as they do, I do not know when to insist that they justify each point (or delete it) that demonizes Israel and focuses on the suffering of the Palestinians.
When I focus on a specific issue, like the perception of genocidal motives on the part of the Palestinians (or rather, on the part of certain leaders and presumably their closest followers) and do some research, the effect of their bias becomes clear. It is simply obvious that after the Holocaust, with clearly identified leaders like the Mufti (considered the father of the Palestinian movement by none other than Mattar), the Jews and much of the rest of the world thought the Israelis were fighting a genocidal foe. This is essential for understanding the war and some of the horrific actions of some Israelis.
Yet, as you saw, this is systematically censored out, while the horrific actions of Israelis are carefully researched so they cannot be kept out. We cannot present the context in which those actions occurred, which does not excuse them or make them any less horrific, just more understandable as a part of HUMAN nature. Instead, a picture is painted of special, monstrous (i.e., with pure greedy motives to take the land from the Palestinians) Jewish victimization of the peaceful Palestinian people who had a Nazi collaborator who just pretended to be a leader, but who they ignored. How do they justify this bias? Because Davis and Decter are tainted by their connection to Israel, someone put a bloody cover on some book of Pearlman's (NOT the one I referenced), and Schechtman associated with Jabotinsky. Meanwhile, such associations are deemed irrelevant when considering Mattar (who left out of his biography of the Mufti the part of his Nazi collaboration that led to his indictment by Yugoslavia for war crimes) and Kalidi.
Yes, the use of the word "catastrophe" by Pitchford exemplifies his bias. And I am one of the editors who helped rework the initial sentences; I moved the "catastrophe" appellation back next to the Israeli title for the war, to give them equal air space, in introducing this article. But using the word where he did makes his agenda clear. Kriegman 13:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your contribution to the 1948 war. Please see what I am against in Talk:Palestinian_exodus Zeq 14:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, you do have a major problem, which is that you view your role as WP editor as defending certain entities and views, rather than being a neutral reporter, as is called for by WP policy: You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. As a general rule, it's a bad idea to edit articles on subjects about which you have strong feelings -- Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. There are plenty of informed, competent, detached editors who are in a far better position to guard against bias in those articles. But to those with a strong point of view, an NPOV article is likely to strike them as biased -- One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not-accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas. -- Jibal 05:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

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

Ethel Rosenberg

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

Halibutt's RfA

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

Category:Cities with significant Arab Israeli populations

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


Ramsey Clark

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

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

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

Jewish Settlement Police

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

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

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

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

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Gazelle-52p02.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

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

Ariel Sharon

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

Jack Abramoff

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

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

Brackets you removed

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

Dissident Voice

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

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Machsom Watch, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

AIPAC

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

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

Please refrain from personal attacks

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

Figures

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

Paul Findley

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

Lehi

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

That's lovely and I did it, but a separate issue is "pre-state Israel". It isn't correct because they operated in all of Mandatory Palestine, not just the parts that became Israel. What about "Palestine prior to the establishment of Israel" (or founding, emergence, etc.)? --Zero 03:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh no, not that myth. During the Lehi period 1940-1948, "Palestine" was a precisely defined region that had its own citizenship, passports, stamps, etc, etc, and it did not include (Trans-)Jordan. Even the mainstream Zionists used the word that way. The only exception was some Revisonist Zionists who would have been blocked for WP:POINT if the rules had been the same back then. --Zero 03:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I suggest "Mandatory Palestine" linked to British Mandate of Palestine, but "the British Mandate of Palestine" would be ok. --Zero 03:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Palestine

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg/Archive1&oldid=1184805418"