The article in volume II of of the State Department Digest of International Law ended on the following page with the conclusion of the speech from the British House of Commons.
During a conversation between Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs and Abdel Monem Rifai, a Counselor of the Jordan Legation on June 5, 1950 Mr. Rifai asked when the US was going to recognize the union of Arab Palestine and Jordan. Mr. Rockwell explained the
Department's position, stating that it was not the custom of the United States to issue formal statements of recognition every time a foreign country changed its territorial area. The union of Arab Palestine and Jordan had been brought about as a result of the will of the people and the US accepted the fact that Jordanian sovereignty had been extended to the new area. Mr. Rifai said he had not realized this and that he was very pleased to learn that the US did in fact recognize the union. Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa
Volume V (1950), Page 921 [1] There is an editors note on the same page about a $27M appropriation to assist Palestinian refugees and fund the projects the Clapp Mission had recommended. harlan (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Zero0000! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 28 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
I can't say that your edit summary was clear enough towards your concerns with the content changes on Avi Shlaim. RolandR and CJCurrie made a couple of irrelevant/false claims towards the standings of the newspaper and I've tried to explain their errors to them. Your concern however, if I understand correctly, are that the criticism "doesn't read like a criticism". Since to me at least is does, I figure you might want to elaborate on the talkpage. Maybe make a rephrase suggestion or some other collaborative suggestion that you would find satisfying. JaakobouChalk Talk19:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Dan Margalit is worth quoting. But what criticism did he make? Shlaim says A was the the worst decision, Margalit says B was the worst decision. Why is that a criticism? You say tacos are best, I say enchiladas are better; who cares? If Margalit directly accuses Shlaim of going soft on B, that would be criticism. But does he? As far as the proposed text goes, it could be that Shlaim and Margalit both rank A and B as the worst two decisions with not much to call between them. Zerotalk01:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zero0000! Thanks for the heads up. While I didn't have much time when making that edit, I will definitely keep this in mind for the future. Cheers, Ynhockey(Talk)03:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, excuse me...
...that is not a content dispute going on at George Harrison. The user is changing the well cited cause of Harrison's death, then using citations that say that Harrison died of exactly the cause that the user keeps changing. One look at the refs he's inserted will tell you that. I don't know why is is perceived as a content dispute. Radiopathy•talk•03:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should the page be unprotected now that the 2 users involved in the edit-war have been blocked ? That will allow other uninvolved editors to continue regular editing. Abecedare (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the link and clarification. I'll be sure to correct the wording accordingly where it is encountered in our articles. Cheers and happy editing. Tiamuttalk10:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, and thanks for the welcome back. The UN-link is very useful, and should be included in the -48-village-articles. Perhaps we could figure out a "standard" way of presenting the info? I would like to include both links in each article, both to the UN-page and to the 1970-copy.
Also; I would love to see a commons-cat with each of the 48-villages; we could start with a subset of the maps. I'm trying to get Ashley to do the job....(he can edits on commons).
And, I would love to expand Dayr al-Shaykh; on commons there are now two pictures of the maqam of Sultan Badr:-) It is ancient; apparently from Baybars days, and Petersen writes a lot about it (p.136-139). Also mentioned in Tawfiq Canaan, (1927). That article really deserves to be expanded. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zero. Thanks for adding info on 1931 census to Sharafat, East Jerusalem. Do you hve any info on the 1943 British census in Palestine? I believe it ws an animal census (though I'm not sure) as I can see a bit about it in this source. I'm trying to draw up a section on agricultural and pastoral prctices in the village and I think that source might be helpful. Thanks. Tiamuttalk14:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There were some taxes on animals and this required a count to be kept. See this for example (I dont' see what year is being referred to). Also here (1927). The Department of Agriculture conducted regular animal censuses. However I doubt that it will be possible to get data on a particular village; most probably the census reports only contained statistical summaries. I will see if I can find such a report, but at the moment I don't have high hopes. Zerotalk02:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into it. Sorry by the way about the error in dating the Mehola junction bombing. I thought Anthoy Cordesmann would be reliable source for something like that, but if you are saying that nespaper reports plce in at 1993, then it seems there is a problem. I'll look into the issue further. But what do to when multiple reliable sources characterize the Afula Bus bombing as the first one? Is everyone wrong? Or are we missing something? Tiamuttalk10:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect someone described it as the first suicide bombing in Israel, then other people repeated it without realising the qualification is important. Once a myth like that gets started, there is no stopping it. Zerotalk10:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe your assessment is your correct. I've added a note to Talk:Cave of the Patriarchs massacre drawing on material from Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad by Matthew Levitt, Dennis Ross. It states clearly that the Mehola bombing was the first car bomb suicide attack, but the Afula Bus bombing was the first succcessful car bomb suicide attack inside Israel proper. I suspect that because the Mehola bombing didn't result in Israeli fatalies, it is often overlooked. And the qualifier "in Israel" is important to describing as Afula as the first as well. Tiamuttalk11:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the file is indeed in the public use now, maybe it should be uploaded to the Commons? In the Russian version of the article they use the same image with arrows and it was uploaded under fair-use conditions which is apparently wrong. So can you upload it to the Commons so that all language sectors can use it as a public domain image? Thank you. --Deinocheirus (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
palestinefact.org
I wrote an article about palestinefacts.org here on wp several years ago..after a year or so it was nuked without me being notified ;-( I thought I would ask an admin to recover it for me, and have it moved into my user-space (like Tiamut has done with User:Tiamut/Hafrada.) I just never have gotten around to it. It had all the contact-info, etc, which was later hidden away in archives. I cannot remember the exact name; Palestinefact.org or Palestinefact. Zero: if you can look at my deleted user-page, there was a (red!) link there. May I ask you to recover the article, and move it to my user-space? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 02:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It´t gone from my contribution-list, methinks. But go to the User:Huldra-page (which was deleted in August last year); undelete that, and you will in the history find that I listed the articles that I had started. Palestinefact was among them. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the website doesn't meet WP:RS, I am concerned by the undiscussed removal of all references to it on Wikipedia, especially for non-controversial facts. Why is the same not being done for other non-WP:RS websites, such as palestineremembered.com, which features prominently in dozens of articles? —Ynhockey(Talk)00:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just some notes on palestineremembered.com: I don´t think any of the "regular" contributors here use that site as a source any more -it might have been a case 4-5 years ago, but not today. Personally I use the site for two purposes: linking to the 1945-census, (which there is a copy of on the site)..and under the "External links"-section. Now; the reason why I link under the external link-sections is...the pictures. The site hosts some great pictures which people have uploaded. Under Al-Nabi Yusha', to take an example, the site hosts the best pictures online (AFAIK) of what is probably the most important Shia site in present Israel. I haven´t seen as good pictures anywhere else (except in books). Palestineremembered.com also lists their sources (a big plus!) --but I have seen that they have mixed up the material at some of the villages. So I agree: they should not be used as a source, at least not for any controversial material. But I will continue to link to it under "external links"-section, unless that is explicitly forbidden. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that many of the citations were for non-controversial facts, but they should be easy to cite to sources meeting the rules. I only deleted content in the case of one or two extreme claims. Regarding palestineremembered.com, most citations are to its hosted scans of British and UN documents (which is allowed by the rules, see WP:Citing sources#Convenience links). Claims of fact which originate with palestineremembered.com or come via palestineremembered.com from unreliable/unverifiable places should not be allowed. These are not the only two web sites that should be used more sparingly, but one thing at a time. Zerotalk02:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I undid one of your changes, because you seem to have been deleting references to this website everywhere. This seems like a bad thing to do, because you have not touched any of the material for which this website was a reference. WP:RS is not an absolute measure, anyway; it is OK to cite unreliable sources, or even opinion, if it is made clear in the article where the information came from. cojoco (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I posted at WP:RSN. Regarding your last statement, I don't agree. As far as I see it, policy is to not use unreliable sources even for completely uncontested information. Citation of such a source for an opinion could be ok if the attribution of the opinion is reliable (eg the web site of a political party can be cited for the opinion of that party). In the case of this web site, we cannot even use it in the form "According to X, ..." since the web site does not identify any person or organization as responsible for its content. Zerotalk07:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I notice that you have been removing a large number of references. I think this is quite damaging, so I've added a note here at the Administrator's Notice Board. cojoco (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a note now to WP:RS/N. Maybe I shouldn't have brought your name into it, but to me it seems that there are a lot of unreferenced statements lying around in these articles now without any supporting references, which might take a while to clear up. cojoco (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Zero0000, thanks for the offer, but Nbleezy already sent it to me. I just finished reading it (it's very interesting). Hope to begin a draft in user space tomorrow. Just have to do decide how to transliterate his name. :) Anyway, thanks again. Tiamuttalk22:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, all the history and the text is not lost from my edits. The non cited material has been there for a long while. I have even left up some old and "citeless" portions of the article. I just think its time that this article becomes sane. If there is text that I have deleted because of a lack of citations you need only to find the cite and return it to the original position. Onefinalstep (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am starting to see the end of my User:Huldra/Morris-list, finally! I have now put in the Morris village # in all the villages that I have found. The ones that I have yet not found are *mostly* redlinked. I supect/assume many of them are Beduin.
There are a couple of things I would love some help figuring out:
I can't find any map evidence of two Majdal Yabas close together as Morris marks them. SWP has only one, census 1931 only has one, similarly Village stats 1945. I rather suspect Morris made a mistake. Zerotalk10:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To Majdal Yaba belonged the vast lands stretching from Petah Tikva to the west, Deir Ballut to the east, Kafr Qasim to the north and Al-Muzayri'a to the south. With a total area of 26.63 Sq. Km, [2] all those lands, castles, springs, mills, rivers, quarries, vineyards, citrus grooves etc which are within that boundry belonged to Majdal Yaba. Please have in mind that it was the headquarters of all govenments which had ruled the place all over history, and a lordship during the crusaders. Ras Al Ain was the regional administrative and military headquarters, while and Mirabel was the regional watch tower and lord's residence, they are inseparable. Ras Al Ain was only deserted in recent history after it's british occupation in Sept 12. 1918, who built a big camp over it's lands calling it Camp Ras El Ain (120 Maintenance Unit) [3]. Parts of Al-Mirr also goes under Majdal Yaba lands, it was dominated by a christian family who said to have sold it in 1931 to the Keren Kayemet who built KibbutzEinat at this land in 1952, hope this clears things up regarding the Morris' two Majdal Yabas [4] , Ras Al Ain [5], Antipatirs [6], and al-Mirr [7] refered in Morris-Khalidi lists Kessale (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Village #201, Ras al Ein?
We have no article. It is marked as a location on PEF (11, Mn) and Mandate maps. Midway between Petach Tiqva and Kafr Qasim. SWP II,150 says "Ras el 'Ain.—An abundant perennial supply of cold clear water forming a pool even in August, from which a stream is conducted in a small channel to gardens below. The water issues from a masonry structure which has in it a small recess, as at 'Ain es Sultan." Same source p210 says "Ras el 'Ain (Mn).—A wall of small masonry and rubble, with a niche pointing south behind the spring ; two aqueducts, partly rock-cut, partly of small masonry, the upper one only in use. The work looks like the Roman work of the Kan at el Kufar (Sheet XVII.), and that at 'Ain es Sultan (Sheet XVIII.)." (no mention as a village, rather as a spring). 1939 map shows it as a stop on the railway line and there is a pumping station there. Can't see it is 1931 census or 1945 village stats. Khalidi (end of p396) says "former village...deserted since the 1920s". Zerotalk09:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have no article. Tiny village 1.5km NNE of Lydda. SWP II,251 says "A very small hamlet of mud" (not much for an article!). Khalidi in preface (p. xix) says that it was not included as it was "largely vacated before the commencement of hostilities". Village stats 1945 shows population 0. Zerotalk10:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good question! My guess was based on the fact that Huraniya does not appear on maps, or census 1931 or stats 1945, and Khalidi's index says "al-Huraniyya, see al-Masmiyya al-Saghira [Gaza]". Then in the article on al-Masmiyya al-Saghira (p126) he gives alternative names Masmyyat al-Hurani and al-Huraniyya. Another Morris mistake? Zerotalk00:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is the old site of Sarona, bought out during the mandate period, see Sharona. The location was about 1km SE of modern Sharona. I don't know its 1948 story. Zerotalk08:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one is very mysterious. Morris describes it as a village and quotes an IDF communique about "at least 20 houses". But I haven't yet found a single mention of it anywhere else. I'm guessing bedouin encampment. Zerotalk05:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know. But I found the location. "Esh shut" appears on a 1925 map of Southern Palestine as a ruin. The address is 31:14N, 34:29E, about 2km NE of Gevulot. I'll look at a more recent topographic map next time I'm in the library. Uri Milstein (Vol II, p289) refers to "Shu'ot" near Gevulot as an inhabited village. Zerotalk08:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
#376 Arab al Nusseirat, both in Tulkarm..but cannot find any "candidates".
Note Morris' index says "Arab al Nusseirat tribe". In the 1931 census the population of Arab el Nuseirat is included with that of Kafr Zibad, which is in the West Bank. Zerotalk09:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was also wondering if #142 Khirbet Ras Ali could be another name for Khirbat Sa'sa'? It is in about the same place.
Hello Zero0000. You are mentioned in WP:AN3#User:Zero0000 reported by User:Emmanuelm (Result: ). It appears that the inclusion of this material is a question of WP:Undue weight that normally requires consensus to decide. Since there have not been four reverts in 24 hours the only remedy the noticeboard could apply would be protection. This could be avoided if someone had a plan for resolving the issue. Do you have any suggestions for how this dispute might be submitted to a wider audience for feedback, for instance a WP:Request for comment? EdJohnston (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regrading your edit to Israel - when placing a reference, please use the proper templates (like Template:Cite web). I've spent quite enough time formatting sources, and don't enjoy having extra work of this kind on my hands.
See that talk page. Incidentally, Google's translation of one of the pop-ups at amudanan.co.il is "Females very dark and a bit of trouble." Zerotalk23:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I never took French; the only language (besides the Scandinavian ones and English), I can sort off read, is German. If you want to see what books I have access to, then you can search here. We have the Abel-books, but not the others. I have also found that my local library is *very* forthcoming in ordering whatever books that I want...in English, just as long as they are on sale through Amazon. (There is *some* advantage in living in a filthy rich country ;) ) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Complaints about POV
Thank you for your concern about my alleged abuse of POV. I find it very curious that you should complain about others' supposed abuse of POV, when it is clear from my own short experience, and from the comments of many others on this talk page, that it is your repeated practice to wantonly revert edits, including many which were legitimate and compliant with WP policies, simply because they did not accord with your own POV. I see you're an admin though, and may ban me, or delete this post, or do whatever you wish. So, congratulations, and good for you. But bad for Wikipedia. And bad for the truth. Objectiff (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Emerson
I know you complained about Epeefleches edits to this article several months ago on the talk page, I thought you would be interested to know that the article has become essentially a puff piece. It goes out of it's way to support his views and downplays any criticism of him. I been involved in some nasty edit wars recently which has discouraged me from taking on controversial articles at this moment. I just thought I'd bring the matter to your attention. annoynmous04:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On April 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sheikh Bureik, Lajjun, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
The Security Council operates under "provisional" rules of procedure that do not address that particular issue.[8] The Introduction and Chapter 1 of the Security Council repertoire explain that the Council has refused to adopt any permanent rules that might limit its flexibility to respond to unique situations.
I can tell you from personal experience that US Central Command counted down using local time in the theater of operations, and that there were no air tasking orders from USCENTAF until the 17th. The Security Council didn't even meet to take up the matter of the expiration of the 15 January deadline until the 28th day of the war, on 13th February 1991. There was a heated discussion about the need for rules of procedure "in order to assure prompt and effective action" under article 24 of the Charter at that time. See pages 16 and 41 [9] Subsequent resolutions that supplemented the original SC Res 661 sanctions did specify the Eastern Standard Time zone, e.g. [10]
In any event, Security Council resolution 660 contained a demand that Iraq withdraw all of its forces "to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990." By implication, the wording of 678 permitted the Iraqis the latitude to get that task accomplished "on or before" 0001 hrs on 16 January (GMT+3) Iraq/Kuwait time. The Secretary General's remarks after the vote indicate that the wording was open to interpretation, i.e. "even on the most stringent reading, the resolution just adopted envisages at least 45 days of earnest effort to achieve a peaceful solution of the crisis." See page 86 of the pdf. [11]
At the time this was a sui generis case where the Council was actually delegating away its authority to the Government of Kuwait and some (but not all) cooperating member states "to use all necessary means" & etc. The forces in the theater of operations were not under the operational control of the Security Council, and there was a vigorous debate about the authority for such a thing under the terms of the Charter. There is a discussion about the evolving practice of the Security Council on that topic here: [12]harlan (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References to foreign-language books
Could you take a look at Chaim Michael Dov Weissmandl#Books and advise how to link to an online copy of a foreign-language book? It took me ages to track this book down, as it's been out-of-print for ages, despite being highly influential. Thanks for the help!
--Nmagedman (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On May 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sheikh Danun, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On May 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Al-Qabu, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
The search function at archive.org is sensitive to diacriticals. So "Guerin" and "Guérin" don't get the same results. Also, some of these books are poorly scanned, so searching inside the book can entirely miss the content. Using the index can help.
For your consistent provision of links to and copies of historical works, maps, and other resource gems which have improved countless articles. Thank you. Tiamuttalk15:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
)
Hi
Hi. I tried to pull up "7 appears in "After bombings, America faces up to prejudice" Charles M. Sennott, 21 June 1995, The Boston Globe.", but it appears to be behind a paywall. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[41] John Poloner's Description of the Holy Land. 1421AD.
[42][43] Extracts from Aristeas, Hecataeus, Origen, and other early writers.
[44] Vol 6. Anonymous Pilgrims, City of Jerusalem and Ernoul's account of Palestine, Guide Book to Palestine, Description of the Holy Land by John Poloner.
[45] The History of Jerusalem by Jacques de Vitry. 1180AD.
[46] Theoderich's Description of the Holy Places. 1172AD.
[47] Pilgrimage of S. Silva of Aquitana to the Holy Places. 385AD.
Hi, Do you know what/where "Mazra´a, Khirbat al-", mentioned in Pringle, 1997, p. 70 is? Cheers, Huldra (talk)
It is 1km from the coast, 2km south of Tantura. SWP II, 4&33 (el Mezrah). No population in modern times as far as I can tell, including now. Zerotalk02:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. Also, do you have the pop. numbers for 1931 for Mazra'a? At the moment, the article has no info for the period between 1880s and 1948. Any info would be much appreciated. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a classic instance of original research. You refer us to a typewritten document which you claim to have found in an archive. Even if the document is there, it is a primary source, and cannot be used as a reliable source. Your interpretation of this document is certainly original research. RolandR (talk)16:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source of the sentence in question (as written in the article) is "Statement of Yehuda Lapidot [Irgun], file 1/10 4-K, Jabotinsky Archives, Tel Aviv". this is the link to Jabotinsky Archives. this is file 1/10 4-K that is on the archive web page and indeed it includes Lapidot's testimony. There is no original research here. Someone added a false sentence that supposedly has a reference. I checked the ref and found out that there is nothing in Lapidot's testimony that supports the sentence. There is no interpretation here what so ever. the sentence that is in the article is not supported by the source period. What was wrong with my actions? 79.178.35.155 (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know the file was not sanitized for publication? There must have been quite a lot of consternation when Koteret Rashit first published the file. Also there are other sources. Milstein in his recent book "Blood Libel - The true story of the massacre at Deir Yassin" writes "Later on Yehuda Lapidot related that when they discussed the question of how to deal with the inhabitants that would not flee, there were Lehi men that proposed killing them, in order to frighten the Arabs in the whole country and to raise the morale of the Jews of Jerusalem, but he and his comrades, the Etzel commanders, had reservations about their proposal, claiming that this matter belongs in the political field, and they said that they would bring the proposal to their headquarters." He also gives another similar testimony: "Ben Zion Cohen (an Etzel man) later related that there were disagreements also on the question of what to do with prisoners, and that most of the ones present in the meeting said that the adults should be killed, and also those among the elderly, women and children that will fight, while he and Lapidot claimed that civilians should not be harmed." Milstein cites the Jabotinsky Archives directly (but without a file number). Silver cites the publication in Koteret Rashit, also without giving a file number. Zerotalk01:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm afraid not. And I can't easily get to a library that has it! I do have the books by my wife's grandfather, Moshe Svorai, which may cover the same material. What is it that you want? email me if you would rather; you know my address. RolandR (talk)07:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You said jerusalem being the third holiest islamic site is a mainstream islamic viewpoint, but this is clearly false. Shias consider Najaf the third holiest place. Salafis disassociate from any shrines. Destruction of sacred sites in Hijaz by the Saudis, initiated by Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab continues even today, to prevent, what some consider to be the practices of grave-worshipping and revering the deads and ask favors of the dead buried there. So there is no way any Salafi scholar calls Al Aqsa 'holy' considering islamic prophets are buried there. Plus, Quranists do not accept hadith so Quranists wouldn't accept Bukhari interpretations of Jerusalem being holy either since Jerusalem is not mentioned by name in the Quran as al-Quds.
No you didn't. All the groups you mention add up to about 15% of Muslims in the world, so their view is a minority view. Twelver Shia's usually list Jerusalem as the fourth holiest site, but I don't see this mentioned on Wikipedia (it should be). Inserting "some" into a sentence makes it useless for readers, it could mean the opinion is held by 3 people. Zerotalk02:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On May 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hableh, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On May 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Khulda, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for the missing SWP pages Zero0000. Been busy in real life as of late, but looking forward to continuing to edit with you in the future. Did you see the 5,700 hits for Khulda (which I listed at WP:DYKSTATS)? Great work and happy editing. Tiamuttalk08:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some literature related to 1799 French invasion. A breif description of Gen. Damas encounter with the peasants is at pages 69. at pages 75 and 76, footnotes 1 and 6 there is a mention of nahar-el-ougeh, I believe this is the farthest the frensh were able to go closer to Majdal Yaba, and I believe the peasents who attacked the french and the mountains inhabited by the Naplousians mentioned here are those of Majdal Yaba, and it seams to me this is the reason why even the name of the village was not mentioned at this literature and it was name Megdeh at the map [61]Kessale (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The same story appears here however the General's name here is Lannes who this time pursued a troop of mountaineers into passes of Naplouse it mentions the Turks firing from behind rocks and down precipices. From the narration, and the techniques used against the Franks, this supports my theory that the inhabitants on Majdel Yaba at that time were not villagers but trained Turkish soldiers [62] page 175
On May 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sulam, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On May 15, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mazra'a, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On May 15, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Al Mazar, Jenin, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On May 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Al-Mirr, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
...but I'm actually not a sock, nor a shoe. I'm a person of separate body and identity with one Wikipedia account. It is downright offensive and rude to cast aspersions on my legitimacy-- and because I uphold a contrary viewpoint, having accounted for the plethora of verifiable sources and my own research on the truth of the massacre. You have made it all the more apparent that you are purporting a slanted, intolerant perspective that is to your interest. --HumanitarianHeart (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I completely forgot your queston about the Uzi Leibner-book: [63]
No, no library in my country has it (search here [64]..to find all books available to me). My "local" library is *very* generous in buying new books, whenever I ask, for the most esoteric subjects. However, they have one absolute rule for buying from abroad: it *must* be through amazon.com. (This is a rule made "at the top-level", to make fraud impossible/difficult, apparently..) And, at the present, there are no copies available at amazon :( And I don´t feel like buying more books myself, from abebooks, before I have "mined" the ones I already have... I´ll keep it in mind, though! Cheers, and thanks for the tip!, Huldra (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On May 27, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ar'ara, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hmm, do you prefer the term Palestine? I'm sorry but this is an open encyclopedia and it's completely inappropriate for anyone to treat an article as their own personal property. You've reverted a good faith edit that I have made to the article Zionism without a comment in the talk page - which is custom. I consider this edit warring WP:EW. Your explanation is nonsensical because Zionism is a movement not a time period - a movement to establish a jewish homeland ... where? I added a note to MW who apparently also "doesn't make sense" [67]. I understand now why this article is tagged as biased.
--Hutcher (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My objection is to the writing, not to the content. Zionism focussed its attention on the place (call it what you like) where Israel standards now, but they didn't focus it on "modern Israel". The latter is an entity that came into existence in 1948 and the earlier Zionists were not fortune tellers. Btw, you don't seem to know what edit-warring is. Zerotalk03:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Just wanted to say thanks for chiming in. I understand why I was blocked but as you noted there were some issues that may have been overlooked by the involved editors. I would like a review to possibly clear my block log, do you have any suggestions? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: NPOV tag at Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations
P.S. I was googling for a cite to the old John Quigley article regarding the martial law measures Israel had adopted, and mistakenly found a source which mentioned martial law and a different Quigley pages 49-50. The journal name simply didn't register. I've gotten the citation corrected now, thanks for the heads-up. I think your earlier comment about NPOV was correct. The article might also be tagged either {{overcoverage|region=Israel|part=Article}} or {{Systemic bias|bias=Israeli POV}} harlan (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a photograph of a paper map. I have a access to several full sets but in a library across town. If you have requests regarding specific places, let me know and I'll add them to my next trip. I can't promise it will be soon, though. Zerotalk05:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The maps of East, North, and Northeast of Jerusalem in 1943 would be great; thanks again. It is the elevation contour lines that I am most interested in. I will just watch your talk page until you get around to it. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ:τᴀʟĸ06:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Zero, I am hoping to add some more to this article. e.g. public discontent to the ration system and conscription. But having done quite a bit of work here I am not confident working under the POV banner. Can you suggest which areas need work to get it removed? Also I have to say that your feet are in better shape than mine. Long may they stay that way. Regards. Padres Hana (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Picture in file from Jstor
Hey, a while back you sent me some files from Jstor.
In the "Marking Religious and Ethnic Boundaries: Cases from the Ancient Golan Heights" there is an image on p 526 from the village of Al AL (EL Al), do you know if I'm allowed to copy it and upload it to Wikipedia or wikimedia? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, since you started the Franco-British Boundary Agreement 1920 article you probably know a lot about this subject.
At the Golan Heights article there has been texts added about that Golan heights was part of the British Palestine Mandate and ceded to the French Mandate of Syria for oil in Iraq.
I might be wrong about this but I vaguely remember reading something last year about that the triangle in northern Golan became part of the french mandate in exchange for that the British mandate got the entire Sea of Galilee. I read this in "The boundaries of modern Palestine, 1840-1947" p130, 145, 150 or around those pages, these pages are now unviewable for me. Do you have access to this book?
Hey Zero, you said on the GH talkpage that you were away from home but you had sources about that the zionist movement pressured the mandate negotiators for land, water, sea of Galilee, for the triangle. When do you think you will be able to bring sources supporting this?
Was the Franco-British Boundary Agreement 1920 a suggested border or a real border?
Also is the claim that the french also got oil for the triangle correct?
Garfinkle, Adam(1998) 'History and Peace: Revisiting two Zionist myths', Israel Affairs, 5: 1, 126 — 148. I need a day or two. Zerotalk06:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First Allied agreement on boundaries
If the British ceded anything to the French in December of 1920 it was territory that had been allocated to the Arab State in the Sykes-Picot agreement and at Versailles. The first formal attempt to establish interim boundaries was an "Aide-memoire in regard to the occupation of Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia pending the decision in regard to Mandates, 13 September 1919" It divided the territory between the British, French, and Arab administered OETAs. It was premised upon the "principles of the Sykes-Picot agreement"; "the Sykes-Picot line"; and mentions "the Arab State" that the British and French governments had committed to support in Zones A and B under the terms of Sykes-Picot. The memo is available in the FRUS, but J. C. Hurewitz has it with the editor's notes from the Documents on British Foreign Policy series [70] All of the plans involving OETA North, South, and East had to be changed after August of 1920, when the French overthrew Faisal's Syrian Kingdom. FYI, the staff at the UK National Archives have always advised me that no official maps delineating the boundaries between the three OETA's were ever produced.
Balfour dispatched his infamous memo from the Paris Peace Conference in the same month as the Aide-memoire in regard to the occupation. It was included in the Documents on British Foreign Policy series, and is the one in which he said "in Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country, & etc." I suspect most authors have never read it in its entirety. Balfour recommended that Palestine be "extended" to both sides of Jordan, but not however, to include the Hedjaz Railway. That recommendation suggests that in the minds of the British government officials, who were in the position to decide, "Palestine" was [already] a territory laying entirely to the west of the Jordan river. Balfour also said that Hussein was supposed to delineate the borders under the terms of the 1915 agreement.[71]
I've never seen a copy of the April 1920 draft Palestine mandate. The FRUS quotes a relevant portion of the San Remo resolution which mentions it, and provides the National Archives and Records Administration document number for the San Remo process verbal. The text of the Mandate may be included in those holdings. The text of the draft, as of August 1920, with references to the Treaty of Sevres; British "sovereignty"; and no mention of the territory east of the Jordan river is contained in the 1920 Yearbook of the League of nations, Volume 1 [72]
Most of the British Cabinet Papers from 1915-1979 that are of any historical interest have been digitized. They are available for free from the UK National Archives website as ocr'd pdfs.[73] The overwhelming majority are only available through a shopping cart system and have no static links. That means the server they are located on is not indexed by any of the main search engines, so you are stuck with the one supplied by the Archives website. Here are some I've collected that are must reads:
The Settlement of Turkey and the Arabian Peninsula, Political Intelligence Department, Foreign Office, 21 November 1918, CAB 24/72 (formerly GT 6506). [74]
British Commitments to King Husein, Political Intelligence Department, Foreign Office, November 1918, CAB 24/68 (formerly GT 6185) [75]
Palestine, James H Thomas, 19 February 1924, CAB 24/165 (CP 121 (24) * mentions on-going treaty negotiations with Hussein re: "Mandated States of Iraq, Palestine and Trans-Jordan." [76]harlan (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Biger said there were only internal British discussions regarding the borders before Samuel assumed his post as High Commissioner and that the British side in allied boundary discussions did not view Palestine as a single unit. See the discussion on this and the following pages. [78] Biger also wrote a chapter about the early river and lake boundaries in Israel with maps in IBRUs Middle East and North Africa See pages 99-107 [79]harlan (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Return of AbdulHornochsmannn
See here. I cant revert the users edits as I am currently topic-banned, but this seems fairly obvious. Also vandalizing the category and templates and removing the cause of depopulation from a few articles. nableezy - 15:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Zionist editing"
Thought you might find this of interest:
Since the earliest days of the worldwide web, the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has seen its rhetorical counterpart fought out on the talkboards and chatrooms of the internet.
Now two Israeli groups seeking to gain the upper hand in the online debate have launched a course in "Zionist editing" for Wikipedia, the online reference site.
Yesha Council, representing the Jewish settler movement, and the rightwing Israel Sheli (My I srael) movement, ran their first workshop this week in Jerusalem, teaching participants how to rewrite and revise some of the most hotly disputed pages of the online reference site.
What you erased from this article is a well known fact, albeit seldom reported for political reasons. Obviously police reports cannot be attached for privacy reasons. Your lack of knowledge and understanding proves that you indeed have no connection to the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.57.153 (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Describing living people with derogatory labels in edit summaries
I have asked for input on your recent actions here. The consensus of opinion from uninvolved editors there is that what you are doing is inappropriate, and that I should ask you politely to stop, which is what I am doing here. HupHollandHup (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Azzam Pacha
Hi Zero0000,
"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades"
The debate that you initiated around this sentence is very exciting even it is not in the scope of wikipedia (100% wp:ti).
I agree with your last comment : an Arab would not have used such a comparison. Why to refer to Mongolian massacres [of Arabs] and Crusades massacre [of Arabs]. The second one could be understood as a revenge but the first one ?
I don't agree with your theory that he would have spoken of the massacres of Palestinian by Jews. On the days before the invasion, the reports indicate that the Arab leaders, particularly the Egyptians, were very excited and sure of their victory.
Another interesting point of comparison is the "official Arab League" communique for the "invasion" of Palestine :
The Governments of the Arab States emphasise (...) that (...) [Palestine] inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, [and whereby] minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries, and [whereby] the holy places will be preserved and the right of access thereto guaranteed. ( [81] )
I think he never said that, and that Stone is the original source of the affirmation. He had enough reknown to be quoted by Schetchman later and all the zionist historiography whereas the others didn't mind...
Hi Zero0000. Azzam Pacha has certainly stated that Arab League had to intervene in Palestine to prevent the massacres of Palestinians Arabs by Jews. I fully agree.
I agree too that he may have compared zionist jews to "crusaders" and, but that would be more strange to Mongols.
I found several sources stating that the reference is Ahkbar Al-Yom, October 11, 1947 ... and one of them adds : "as quoted in Jewish Agency for Palestine, Memorandum 1948" [82]. Noisetier (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC) And in fact to be precise : Jewish Agency for Palestine 1948, Memorandum on Acts of Arab Aggression to alter by force the settlement of the future government of Palestine approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations, submitted to the United Nations Palestine Commission by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, Lake Success, New York: Jewish Agency dated march 1948[83]Noisetier (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
That is wonderful that you found 2 references of this document in *UNO archives* ! We move forward.
In his book of 1953, State in the making, p.233, David Horowitz (edit: this one is not the "wikipedian" one), Jewish Agency representative (again...) reports a meeting with Azzam Pasha dating September 16 where Azzam would already have made a reference to the Crusaders (again) but here in a more logical way.
The JVL version seems to match the small scraps I can read at books.google.com (note there are multiple editions). Meanwhile, perhaps you can find a library near you with a microfilm archive of akhbar el-yom. I am trying.. Zerotalk10:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You think you could help figure out what the boundaries are for the portion of this map that is zoomed in on the Golan? I just need the N,S,E,W endpoints for the right half. nableezy - 18:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I replied on the talk page. Actually it doesn't seem suspicious to me in any way. If I ever have time, I'll look for a person who has lived in Yamit or traveled there and ask if the setting looks familiar, because I believe that's the only real indication. Cheers, Ynhockey(Talk)18:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have good knowledge of the sources used at Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. Icon of Evil has been now used as a source at Nazism to state some facts about al-Husayni. For now, I've just attributed them. Note that the editor who introduced the book as source at Nazism, User:WookieInHeat, is currently blocked for an unrelated incident (but still in the same IP area), so he cannot respond until tomorrow or so. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
