User talk:Amoruso/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, 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: 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 03:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Ian
WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE. --Ian Pitchford 10:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

IFY: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement Zeq 11:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Page move of Ben Yehuda Street Bombing
I have moved the page back to its old position. You didn't wait long enough for replies and you also made some mistakes during the move, including losing the page history and the talk page. Please see Talk:Ben Yehuda Street Bombing.

I would also like to take this opportunity to talk to you about something. I understand you have strong feelings regarding Arab-Israeli matters. However, you may have misunderstood the way Wikipedia uses and cites sources.
 * If you want to cite a fact (e.g. something that has happened) then you cannot uses sources regarded as extremist. Further, you should use caution if you have partisan sources, i.e. websites and publications of political parties and religious groups. Caution should also be used when using company or organization websites as sources. You shouldn't use such sources when more reliable sources on the subject are available, or already cited, in the article.
 * If you want to cite an opinion, then you may cite such sources. But you shouldn't cite opinions to try to establish facts. An opinion is by nature unverifiable. Opinions are better used when Wikipedia is discussing a public debate or disagreement, as opposed to when Wikipedia refers to something that has happened or didn't happened.
 * Discussion boards, wikis, blogs, or personal websites are rarely acceptable as sources. Also note that editorials are opinions and not facts.
 * Lastly, it's not up to editors to determine what something should be named/labeled. As editors we cite sources, therefore we use the names and labels most commonly used by the sources discussing the subject, regardless of whether those labels are accurate or not.

I hope this is informative. I do believe you can be a valuable contributor, but your determination to present what you believe is the truth may be perceived as disruptive to the Wikipedia process. -- Steve Hart 19:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments and help. I wouldn't say I have much strong feeling about it but rather knowledge and interest. I can't help but try to fix many of the mistakes here in wikipedia. Many of the articles unfortunately are simply propaganda by Arab supporters and they don't reflect the facts. Many of them aren't WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE . What I try to do is bring serious sources which will show the things the way they actually are (as long as they're verfiable of course):


 * I understand that for some people, any person who is not an Arab or is called Benny Morris or Ilan Pappe (i.e New historians or Jews speaking against Israel) are in fact extremists. But it's not the case. The leftists on the boards are very eager and enthusiastic about themselves and seem to have a lot of time. That's fine, but they should learn to accept other researches.


 * I do not use any discussion boards, blogs etc, but only books, articles, news-sites and so on. Except for external links when it's relevant some personal sites may be used.


 * Thank you for handling the bombing page. I waited quite a lot of time and didn't see any objections, not that there's any reason there should be an objection according to NPOV policy in wikipedia. I wasn't sure how to redirect the page though - the discussion didn't have anything in it, but the history is indeed important of course.


 * The opinions I tried to put (very few) are only on the debates like you said.


 * This is not about opinions but about legtimiate historians and their researches. It doesn't always fall into line with the perspectives and belief that editors already established in their minds about their events, but it doesn't mean they don't have a place.


 * The label of the bombing just seems POV. Wikipedia should stop use the word "massacre" or name it on all massacres IMO. I saw articles being merged/deleted/moved before for name changes like this.


 * Thank you again for your comments and help.


 * Amoruso 20:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for leaving a note on my talk. I was afraid we'd fallen out given the latest debate on the other article. Regarding the page name for the Ben Yehuda Street incident, I'm personally (as in my opinion) leaning towards agreeing with you. The problem is that my opinion (and yours) is largely irrelevant because it is not the opinion of editors, nor NPOV, which determines the proper name for an article. Wikipedia's naming guideline states that articles get the name most commonly used in the outside world. So, sources have to be presented proving which name is most commonly used, followed by discussion and some sort of consensus.


 * The NPOV policy states that viewpoints should be fairly presented in proportion to the prominence of each. But it's not a blanket statement to include information from various sources just to achieve NPOV, the information still has to be significant and has to come from verifiable and reliable sources.


 * As for your troubles, in my opinion you sometimes make great leaps in logic in your conclusions. One example is the text, or rather sentences, from some old editorials in Arab papers which you believe expresses the view of most Arabs (back then). If you believe this you need to establish prominence by collecting all the editorials from that period to show that most of them expressed this view - and even then it will still be the opinion of newspapers, not the people or Arab leaders. I'm sure that if we stop enough people on the streets of Haifa eventually one person will express support for the Arab view, but you won't (hopefully) see Wikipedia try to use that person's statement to say that this is the view of all Israelis. Nor should wikipedia try to present the view of Israeli peace organizations and their publications as the most important or "right" one.


 * A different example is the full context of a questionable quote presented to you by another editor. Strangely, you responded by pointing to a 1969 quote as evidence that the person changed his mind. But just as the quote comes from 1948 so does the full text, and both the 1948 full text and the 1969 statement expresses a similar opinion. Now, you can claim the full text is incorrect, but then you should see if you can find the real text in a library.


 * Frankly, I'm not sure you will be allowed to edit for much longer if you are to go on like this. I witness repeated attempts of inserting information over the objections of other editors and dismissing these objections as "totally irrelevant", "lies", "violations", "distortions" and "personal attacks", in direct opposition to how wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not a discussion board which I'm certain that you know. But the unfortunate truth is that sometimes consensus cannot be reached and all we have to do is move on. Still, I'm wishing you all the best and I hope you are able to stay. -- Steve Hart 18:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * With regards to the editorials back in 1948, you forget one important thing. There is no editorial claiming otherwise. If it was a matter of opinion, then you will be correct, but it's not. The amazing thing is that everyone, I repeat everyone, reported the events that way. Nobody blaimed Israel for the exodus, which is why it is so much important. As for Ghoury's comments, I was trying to show that sometimes people change their mind - same allegation was brought there in respect to Atiyah who later said he didn't mean what he said. The same thing is about Ghoury, because he later denyed the allegations and said - "look, I actually said other things later on..." but the "slip-up" is so important here, and proves the whole point. This is in respect to leaps of logic which aren't leaps of logic at all. Furthermore, it is irrelevant what leap of logic I make, but it's relevant the scholary researches of historians who put emphasis on it, and justly so.


 * I agree with your comments about NPOV, which is the reason I try to search only verfiable quotes, and furthermore - those that will add something to the discussion. I especially like Katz's comments on these issues, and he's a very much reliable source.


 * about "Wikipedia's naming guideline states that articles get the name most commonly used in the outside world" --> indeed it's unfortunate... it seems "bombing" is more popular than massacre, but will probably apply to all events of death to Jews. I think an encylopedia should try and take an NPOV stance here. It certainly won't look good if every death of an arab is murder ot a massacre and every death of a Jew is a killing or a riot/bombing/violent event of sort. I do have to say that Israeli Media too often refer to the death of arabs as massacres and death of Jews as "piguim" which means... "attacks". Strange, yet disturbing.


 * If I'm not allowed to edit anymore (possibly I'll give up myself out of sheer bordeom and disgust etc seeing the violent nature and the extreme bias of some of the editors) then it will only prove what I see here as extreme bias of users like Zero00000. Mind you, he was been warned repeatdly by various user like Israigand Zeq for his POV deletions and his attitude, which doesn't comply with wikipedia policy of No personal attacks and so on. And yet, I understand he's a moderator ? Which is stange by itself. Amoruso 19:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "There is no editorial claiming otherwise. ... The amazing thing is that everyone, I repeat everyone, reported the events that way"
 * You don't know that unless you yourself have looked at all the editorials, or you can refer to a source who has looked at them all (and explicitly says so).


 * "in respect to Atiyah who later said he didn't mean what he said"
 * From what I see, Atiyah explains that he didn't say what Jewish sources claim he said (and his opinion appears to be supported by the full text, as opposed to the use of just the single sentence), which is something different than "didn't mean" what he said, which is your view.


 * "about Ghoury, because he later denyed the allegations and said - "look, I actually said other things later on...""
 * I'm not aware that Ghoury has been quoted saying this or anything similar anywhere in the discussion so far, sorry (and I can't find it on searching). You referred to some refugee figures, but that's a completely different discussion.


 * "I think an encylopedia should try and take an NPOV stance here. "
 * This is the crux of the matter. I think you believe Wikipedia should be better than the rest of the world by telling the truth! But you are wrong. Wikipedia will continue to tell lies as long as the rest of the world tell lies. Wikpedia is like a mirror. There's an interesting esay about this here: WP:ROUGE (bottom)


 * FWIW, I'm not familiar with Zero's (or Zec's) history at wikipedia so I won't comment on that.
 * -- Steve Hart 20:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Some notes
Hi Amoruso, in regards to your edits on Palestinian refugee and Palestinian exodus, I want to ask you for a favor. While I don't agree that Katz is as neutral a source as you claim, I'm usually not one to advocate censorship on Wikipedia. However, you could do us a huge favor by trying to make your point (i.e. showing your sourced POV that you want to convey) without endless quotes from one rather biased source. The problem I have is that you are bombarding these articles with an endless tirade of anti-Palestinian quotes that, intentionally or not, turn the article into a hate blog. Again, while I admit I don't agree with your analysis as I think its a distortion of history and a sort of dehumanization, I am NOT asking you to remove it. What I am asking is that you make your point concisely, neutrally, (i.e. provide the point of view in a neutral way, if that makes sense), and in an encyclopedic manner. Endless quotes and tirades like that are not encyclopedic material. There are much better, proper, and neutral ways to make your point. Thanks Ramallite (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

p.s. I noticed a new article Western Wall Tunnel in which you used a Haaretz article by Akiva Eldar as proof that Arafat 'incited' riots. That article says nothing of the sort, and barely mentions the tunnel incident just in passing as 'evidence' that Arafat was trying to get out of a dead end. It would be helpful to make that small section both accurate and NPOV. Thanks. Ramallite (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Ramallite, thank you for your comments. My edits on all articles are made from an NPOV and are accurate. I'm not bombarding any articles with anti palestinian quotes, but only referring to Katz's analysis in specific places where it is warranted. All my quotes are proved in an encyclopedic material. There are also not many quotes, like you say "endless" but rather few, concise and to the point. There is nothing "hateful" among them, and they're all being explained properly and in the NPOV manner.


 * As dfor the Western Tunnel article, Arafat never denied the incitations. He took pride in them and these are very well known facts. Amoruso 15:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "He took pride in them and these are very well known facts" is not an adequate answer. The problem is that your source (the Eldar article) does not support the sentence you added, so either change the sentence to match the source, or get a new source to support your sentence. Most sources (like New York Times, etc) say that while he praised the rioters for 'defending Jerusalem', there is no evidence that Arafat meant, or planned, for the situation to escalate as it did. As for the anti-Palestinian quotes, I still contend that they are extremely un-uncyclopedic. Like I said, there are much better ways to make your point (using Katz as a source) without a tirade of quotations, most of which are either not relevant, taken out of context, or have been discredited (see Zero's comments on the article talk page). You can still use Katz, but if you go to Encyclopedia Britannica or any proper encyclopedia, you will not see a point being made using a tirade of anti-(topic) quotes of questionable authenticity or context. I believe you are well aware of this, and I hope you will take my advice with good faith even though you have already declared that you do not assume good faith. Ramallite (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As for good faith, I'm well aware that we should assume good faith. I do assume good faith about you, but I've had proof of bad faith  already by certain users, and therefore the assumption stage is no longer relevant. For you, it's still assumed. You can edit that section in the western wall tunnel if you want, but I will add the actual speeches Arafat made which I think do speak for themselves. None of the quotes have been discredited. Zero's comments are totally irrelevant and don't hold any water. Some of the people that said what they said later reverted their opinions, and that only goes to prove the whole point... the theory was changed yet if you go back to the war, all comments support the endorsement theory while no-one made any argument to the contrary. This is indeed the whole point. Katz has written quotations to illusrate his point, to prove his theory. It has nothing to do with Britannica which is not a history book. We're writing comments about events, and are quoting from history books of different scholars, and therefore it's all very relevant. Amoruso 16:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Warning
This is a formal warning. You are going to be blocked if you continue your bad faith edits. --Zerotalk 16:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC) (administrator)


 * here's an example of bad faith from zero. He wants to ban me because I'm bringing quotes from scholars that he doesn't agree politically with. He's trying to abuse his power which is disgusting. Amoruso 16:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Popups
Zeq is the only person I know who refers to Navigation popups as an "anti vandalism tool." --Ian Pitchford 20:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a known fact actually. Please refrain from getting into war edits. If you want to include the dubious quote do so in the discussion page. Until it's setteled, the comment won't be included. Amoruso 20:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see one academic source for "Mecca's Al Qibla, 23 March 1918", If you can't provide a source other than an obscure volume by an Irgun propagandist the quotation will have to be deleted. --Ian Pitchford 22:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your threats are out of line. However, check out http://historycooperative.press.uiuc.edu/journals/ahr/108.2/communications.html Isarig 22:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Babybomber.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:Babybomber.jpeg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ytny 23:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian exodus
Because the quote is quite irrelevant and does not make the claims you and Isarig are attributing to it, as Zero0000 has very clearly explained on the article talk page. Please don't keep putting it in. Thanks, Palmiro | Talk 00:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a simple question of logic. The statement, "The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state", does not mean or imply that "Arab states endorsed the refugee flight", which means that your paragraph is a non sequitur. One can carry out actions which lead to a given consequence without "endorsing" that consequence. Do you think Hassan Nasrallah "endorsed" the bombing of al-Manar TV? Palmiro | Talk 01:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the introduction of the quote you can change it, but it's still relevant. There are two theories here - that it's the arabs' fault and that it's the jews' fault. Ghoury specifically puts a direct blame on the arab states in question for the refugees - he doesn't make any connection (nor in any full text) between Jews and the exodus. That's the significance. Amoruso 01:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I give you permission to contribute to the article under your name. If you need any further sources, feel free to let me know. Here are the first two sites that show up when I google "Palestinian Refugees". and. If you need help or anything else, let me know. --Shamir1 21:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hebron et al.
Sorry if I came accross as rude on the talk page, I was just in a bad mood. I hope you don't perceieve this as some anti-Semetic campaign on my part, because I'm Jewish too. In fact, I was just in Israel for all of July (see the history of my userpage), and I have to say it was an amazing trip. If I ever go back I'll visit Hebron, along with all the other cities/settlements/whatever they are. BTW, I think this is a good compromise. Shalom. &mdash; Khoikhoi 22:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem mate. you are correct, we can even hang out next time. Amoruso 22:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be cool, I sure could go for another falafel... &mdash; Khoikhoi 22:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Try SAVICH too. :) Amoruso 22:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Timeimmemorial.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:Timeimmemorial.jpeg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

1929 Palestine riots
Please check what happened to that page. It suddenly became an 'incident' (while at Deir Yassin, there was of course a 'massacre'). --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Carryover from Palestinian exodus

 * Absence of a DNA test on a sample of at least 5000 Palestinians, we are not going to convince each other of the ancestry of Palestinians, so unless you have the results of DNA tests I don't know about, we can just continue to believe what we want to believe. I happen to know that we have a lot more in common with semitic groups of the levant (and that includes you) than with Arabia, although I understand how this very idea may sound repulsive to a lot of people on your side (naturally a form of racism). Second, how could I have a Palestinian state in a desert like Jordan? Nablus is not in Jordan. Jerusalem is not in Jordan (thankfully). Gaza is not in Jordan. Bethlehem is not in Jordan. Jordan has 2 populations, the original Jordanians (who appear to be from Arabia originally) and the Palestinian diaspora. Trust me, they don't get along, and the Palestinians I meet when I'm forced to go to Jordan don't really feel at home there (understandably). Lastly, I always find it amusing when Israelis of the right wing (which I assume you are?) attack Palestinians for not recognizing Israeli claims, as you have aptly demonstrated that I have no right to exist in my land. Not only that, right wingers complain that some Palestinians want to 'destroy' Israel, but you need to go to Gaza and see who is actually getting destroyed as we speak. I appreciate your kind words about "if every Palestinian was like you", I've heard that a lot, and my response is always the same: you clearly have not been acquainted with a lot of Palestinians (except for the footage you see on Arutz 1 or whatever Arutz you watch). And I am actually less moderate than most!! Ramallite (talk)  15:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't really want to debate here, I don't find it very friendly as compared to internet forums and I don't think we'll come to any agreements... and also I don't think it will be useful if I repeat myself. Yeah, Bethlhem Gaza and Jerusalem aren't in Jordan, so what ? What is the relation between these places and Palestinian people ? :) It doesn't make sense, no matter how you twist it.... if there are so many palestinians in jordan, then that should be the state, it's all part of the british mandate of palestine which deemed the whole area as national home for the Jews - what's the connection between gaza and the westbank except both being conquered by Israel in 1967 ? nothing... Arab tribes have moved from Arabia historically, and you're an Arab, aren't you ? If you claim you're not Arab then that will be a different issue, especially if you're christian - though those are concentrated in lebanon and from phinican roots like the Maronites. But if you're an arab you're an arab period... of course you don't get along in jordan because Jordan is a dictatorship controlled by a Bedouim family, one tribe, over millions of arab palestinians. Take over there and we'll live side by side. It's an insult to claim our people's holiest city as belonging to you too after you cared about it like **** until Zionists proclaimed it. It's really an insult to intelligence. Nablus, Jericho, Hebron, Jerusalem - these are cities mentioned in the bible and in the prayers and the history books of our people - there are ancient synagogues there and artifacts and it's the history of my people, why can't "you" let us live in our homeland ?


 * Did you ever have a look at the lynch on ramalla or at pictures from 1929 hebron massacre ? What I'm saying is, that non educated people like you who have a sense of western culture, cynicsm, amiable relationship forming abilities... I don't know if you know what they're capable for. Do you live in Ramalla for real for long periods of time ? What do you think of mass rallies of Hamas burning flags, bus models, chanting "songs", shooting at the air non stop, what do you make of the happiness over dead "martyrs" and so on ? I suspect you live abroad, correct ? The mass hamasnic support of palestinians around us act in viciously medival animalic ways in public demonstrations - you won't see these things in Israel. And Israel will never bomb anyone except to hinder terrorist activities - this I'm sure you know. Amoruso 15:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Yeah, Bethlhem Gaza and Jerusalem aren't in Jordan, so what ? What is the relation between these places and Palestinian people ?"
 * Ah, denial of our right to exist.
 * I want you to exist man.


 * "if there are so many palestinians in jordan, then that should be the state"
 * There are many Jews in America (about as many as Israel). Are you saying that should be a Jewish state as well, by extension of logic?
 * Let me ask you - should there ? what is your demand on Israel then ?
 * No there shouldn't be. I don't demand anything of Israel except one thing: Do not treat me as a subhuman only because I'm not Jewish, and do not deny my right to exist in my own land (and I don't use a biblical definition of "own land", I use the same criteria any other person on the planet uses) just because I'm of the "wrong religion". Ramallite (talk)


 * "it's all part of the british mandate of palestine which deemed the whole area as national home for the Jews"
 * That wasn't us, and that wasn't you. That was the colonizing power at the time, Britain. Their proclamations are no more valid to me than expired milk.
 * There proclamtions were valdiated with the league of nations. You can't dismiss this and at the same gladly quote every current UN resolution you like.
 * I have never quoted UN resolutions. I think the UN security council is worthless, and the resolutions dealing with the middle east are worthless. My value for human rights and dignity does not rise out of UN decisions, but my own morality. Ramallite (talk)


 * "Arab tribes have moved from Arabia historically"
 * Prove it. Prove that the 'Arabs' of Palestine are the same Arabs of Arabia. Besides, there were many Jewish tribes in Arabia too, but that's besides the point.
 * prove ? read the books, history books concerning this. All the admitted affinity. Jewish tribes in Arabia were generally massacred and stopped to exist.
 * Please recommend these books to me. Regardless, as I scientist and a biologist, nothing but science will convince me. How many Saudis have you seen with green eyes? Now go meet some Palestinians from Hebron (and that's just one small ridiculous example out of multitudes). Ramallite (talk)


 * " If you claim you're not Arab then that will be a different issue"
 * Tell me, what is an Arab? What defines an Arab? I honestly don't know the answer to that question. I believe the only common factor is language, but that's not enough linkage is it? All 'Arab's are obviously not genetically linked. People from the levant to Morocco call themselves "Arab", but they don't have the same genes as those in Saudi Arabia do they? If they do, prove it. And if you prove it, so what? By your logic, half the Belgians should move back to Holland, and another third to France. And this is true of almost all modern nations. What's your point? (for the record, most Palestinians consider themselves to have more ethnicity from Canaanites and other Semitic groups, and not the Arabians, although I understand why it would be impossible for you to even consider this since it flies in the face of your ideology. I personally don't have an ideology).
 * You know this isn't true. You know veyr well of the Arab conquest in the 7th century... these are all dcoumented facts. You know very well of Greater Syria, the Arab League, the union country between egypt, syria (and libya), jordan and Iraq and all the comments made by all the leaders. You know very well countries were given to princes in response to political interests, and nothing divides these countries. Hence the same language, flag type, culture etc. In time seperatism can occur of course, and in fact it probably did with the Palestinians in the 20th century, but it shouldn't be in our expense.
 * Now when the Arabs had their conquest, did they wipe out the existing populations? Or was there some assimilation as always occurs in history (look at Ashkenazi vs Sephardi). Look at Latin America, which was subject to Spanish conquest. Can you claim that native Bolivians and Ecuadorians are ethnic Spaniards? Maybe Brazilians are more ethnically Portuguese, but that's because the Portuguese massacred most native inhabitants of the land. No, amigo, a conquest does not an ethnicity create. Yes Abdulla of Jordan is descended from the Hijaz, but the very fact that people can actually trace his ancestry, yet are unable to trace Palestinian ancestry anywhere else, should be a big clue. In Palestine, if somebody has a relative or ancestor from outside Palestine (e.g. Jordan, Syria), that's an automatic label. It is usually evident by family/tribe name. So it's very hard to conceal origins when it is in the nature of Palestinians to point them out. My good friend's grandmother is Syrian, and she is always referred to as such (the Syrian grandmother). We have no reason to hide this. Moreover, this grandmother will always be regarded as a "foreigner". Ramallite (talk)


 * "Take over there and we'll live side by side (about Jordan)".
 * You first. If you think that rotten land is worth taking over, go ahead and do it. Your army is much more capable. As you said, the British gave it to you didn't they?
 * well this is more important us historically and we're already here, while you are already there. Btw, if we do conquer jordan, can we expel all palestinians to western side and you'll leave us alone?
 * Oy vey oy vey, you guys are always complaining about Palestinians (or is it Arabs) wanting to push you into the sea, but you have no problem pronouncing your wish to push us into the desert. So you are asking me whether if you pushed us from home into hell, would we love you? Let me ask you, if Yasser Arafat came and slapped you, would you give him a French kiss? Ramallite (talk)


 * " It's an insult to claim our people's holiest city as belonging to you too after you cared about it like **** until Zionists proclaimed it."
 * Yes the Jordanians did treat it like crap, and before the Jordanians (until 1948), Jerusalem had more Jews than Arabs (they were the majority). And after Jordan, the Israelis came back and destroyed a lot of the Muslim quarter. So no, we couldn't have treated it like crap because we never had it.
 * did you ever want it ? Is there palestinian literature/history/songs/prayers regarding Jerusalem ? Honest question.
 * There is plenty of Palestinian literature yes. Songs: not very much but a few very famous ones. Poems: many. History: of course, the city's history is rich with all the stories of whoever inhabited the land in the last 3 millennia. Prayer: you're asking the wrong person (although it is the first of the 2 Qiblas in Islam - back when the prophet Mohammad founded Islam, he was living among the Jews in Medina and it is thought that this is the reason that the original direction of prayer for Muslims is Jerusalem. It apparently became Mecca after Mohammad had a falling out with the Jews. Isn't that entertaining?)
 * Listen: By no means would I ever deny the strong ties that bind Jews to Jerusalem. But I do not accept that my rights there (and especially the rights of the Palestinians actually living there at the moment) be trampled on simply because we're not Jewish. This way of thinking belongs in the 19th century, not the 21st. Ramallite (talk)


 * "Nablus, Jericho, Hebron, Jerusalem - these are cities mentioned in the bible"
 * And they are also mentioned in my aunt Sarah's personal diary. So what? You cannot bring religion into this debate, because you look like you are trying to impose religion on another people. Leave that to our friends in Afghanistan, trust me, you don't want to be associated with imposition of religion. Saying "this is mine because the bible or koran say so" is a recipe for disaster.
 * well I'm not saying you have to believe God. You're confusing the rules of the bibles, conduct, etc, to historical descriptions that were collaborated with archelogical evidence to one extent or another - it's the history of our people, language... you know, it's pretty cool. Think about praying in a synagogue and then findingn out a synagogue in a place depcited in a bible which is 2000 years old. Not cool ?
 * I agree, that is cool, but again, not a reason to deny basic human rights to non-Jews. Ramallite (talk)


 * "Did you ever have a look at the lynch on ramalla"
 * Yes, did you look at the mutilated body of the Palestinian farmer killed by settlers the morning before the lynching?
 * no, do you have details ?
 * There used to be a website for it but it was removed last year. Either way, it's not a tit-for-tat. Israel has already captured most of these responsible including the **** with the bloody hands in the window. You are welcome to assassinate him, or worse, deport him to Jordan. I am not proud of what happened, but I am not proud of the behaviour of most parties in this conflict either (and that includes you guys too). Ramallite (talk)

Where you standing next to your friend when his head exploded because of a 'dumdum' bullet fired by the Israeli army when he was standing holding an anti-occupation banner (and this was back in 1989 not during Al-Aqsa intifada)? If you want to debate gruesome killings, we have plenty of stories of our own.
 * are they stories though or facts ? I don't know but watch the footage of the lynch and tell me what kind of people eat people's brains and do things to the guts of people whose only crime was enter the city. Why any Israeli who enters the westbank dies horribly on spot and more than a million arabs live happily inside Israel and nobody does anyhting to them ? Why can't there be Jews in Palestine state ?
 * Okay, read carefully: There are a good number of "Jews" living in Palestine. There are also Jews who are married to Palestinians and living among us. I personally know 2 couples myself. And they have regular jobs and go about their daily lives as usual. Most of these people are foreign Jews, not Israelis. We have never had a problem with "Jews", we DO have a problem with armed settlers and soldiers who don't want to live in peace, but who have the bible and believe it is their G-d given right to kill or humiliate any Palestinian they see because we are not Jewish. They think it's okay to confiscate our land, take most of our water for their swimming pools, and cut up our farmlands for their bypass roads. These are the people we have problems with. Also, for every Israeli that has died in the West Bank, there are a thousand who have come and shopped, visited friends, or given political lectures. Murders do happen, unfortunately. Do you think I would feel safe walking around Tel Aviv right now if people knew I was a Palestinian? I wouldn't last 10 minutes without a gun being shoved in my face. Ramallite (talk)


 * "What do you think of mass rallies of Hamas burning flags, bus models, chanting "songs", shooting at the air non stop, what do you make of the happiness over dead "martyrs" and so on"
 * I think they are useless bullshit, but they don't compare to actually dead bodies of children flying in the air after an Israeli airstrike that supposedly doesn't target civilians. Again, you complain about our banners and chants, but are banners and chants the same as your missiles and tanks?
 * well, I think it's atleast the same as the suicide bombings in the markets, malls, bus stations, buses, clubs...
 * So if Hamas promises to stop this BS, as it has for the last 1.5 years, do you think the Israelis will stop? Ramallite (talk)


 * "And Israel will never bomb anyone except to hinder terrorist activities"
 * You will never be able to convince any Palestinian that Israel does not target innocent civilians. The army always says that on TV, but no Palestinian believes it. And no, not even me.

Yes I am from Ramallah and lived there most of my life there, but as it says on my user page, I'm abroad most of this year doing research. Don't judge Palestinians until you've actually met enough of them, saying I'm different because I must live abroad is terrible.


 * I'm saying you're different because you've been exposed to Western culture, like many palestinians who lived in Tunis in fact and are more educated. The area of the middle east is backward in the world because of the muslim totalitarin regimes and that attitude has slipped into Hamas and Jihad and palestinian culture I believe, and it's very sad. If you were western in sense, truly against fanatic behaviour, I, who cares so much for the lands, would have given you anything you wanted for peace, ANYTHING, as long as there will be peace and cooperation there will be a silicone valley there. But it's a dog eat dog world.... you know, I think Israel should have its self respect for its history and fight for what it deserved and the only alternative seems to be death. Read the Hamas charter and the PLO charter before that (which was never really truly nullifed by proper mechansims).


 * And my friend, why should we target innocent civilians ? what purpose ? You'd think that if we did, we'd it "better" no ? You know Israel has the capability of killing tens of thousands a day probably. I'm sure you are very much aware that Israel tries to avoid civilians as much as it can, if not for moral reasons then for political reasons. I'm sure you're aware that there's no policy of killing civilians. Amoruso 18:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well that's our fear. Most Palestinians (and you can ask) believe that this is a gradual process. Yes, for political reasons you are not doing a better job at killing us now. But 20 years ago, for political reasons, Israel wasn't firing tanks and missiles at unarmed civilians just to claim to kill a 'militant'. Now it's okay. 10 years ago, nobody would have imagined putting human beings in cages, but now we have the wonderful gader. So Palestinians see this as slow but dangerous escalation which will ultimately result in either genocide or expulsion. That's why so many people are getting desparate. If you look at the history of the world, genocide is part of human nature. And most Palestinians believe that that's slowly where we are heading: expulsion combined with some sort of genocide. It's just going to take time to build up to it. The Israelis have to make sure we are properly 'de-humanized' first before the world will let them do it. More and more people in my community are convinced that this is the ultimate Israeli plan, and it's scary. Ramallite (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

continue
Ok Ramallite, first of all I must say you're a "strange chicken". I know you'll tell me that most Palestinians are like you, but are they really ? Are you Muslim or Christian ? You seem to be an atheist, and there doesn't seem to be a huge political party in gaza talking about atheism is there? It seems everyone voted for Hamas and that's a dangerous escalation of your society. You're a minority which also comes into effect with statements like "I don't care about the UN resolutions" which is the main weapon every other palestinian/arab uses on the internet as well. Also, your statements not denying Jewish connection to Jerusalem or to ancient synagogues is somethings I never hear from any palestinian/arab on the web. So you have to realise, if you truly represented Palestine there wouldn't be any problem to begin with because we would have found a way to co-exist.

I have a question for you about those poems and stories about Jerusalem - do you have any ? translated ? I want to know if there was this love and appreciation for the city ... because I never heard it, and let's face it, why wasn't there a palestinian state ? Did you fight the occupiers with a palstinian flag before ? Did you fight the malmulk and the ottoman ? Did you really ? There was no Palestinian state because there was no Jewish state... as long as the Jews were dhimmi in arab lands and everywhere they were including palestina, then it didn't bother the Arab empire... that's why you had no national aspirations before... you can't pretend that you always had national aspirations as people and ignore the fact that this theory only came about once Zionism took a step forward.

Now these Jews that live in the westbank/gaza... how many are there ? I never heard of them, perhaps you mean a few really anti-israel guys which don't represent the Jewish people really, I mean what's that... of course you can walk in Tel Aviv and nobody will touch you, in fact you do that all the time... Palestinians come to Israel to get work in huge numbers, and the public doesn't differenate between Arabs in Israel or arabs from gaza etc, you can walk and drink a cafe and shop in the mall and then you can also marry here (!) and get social security (there are limitations of the marriage now depending on age, see court verdict, but none until now..) service and go to the hospitals for treatment and clog up lines to the bank and to the water parks.... In fact it's Jews that can't walk into Rammallah and no we can't !! if I accidently get my car into ramallah i will be killed on spot. and I also can't just walk around in Sachnin or Nazrat which is MY OWN country in 1948 border ! How's that ???

Most Israelis and most soldiers don't follow the bible and don't think anything negative of arabs because they're not Jewish... it has nothing to do with it. We're trying to secure our borders in a really phucked up situation. You're saying Hamas stopped the terorr, well they didn't - they're sending hundreds of rockets into Sderot and all the places otef gaza after we uprooted OUR people from their homes... who's performing genocide ? isn't it the tanzim which still keep bombing up ? the islamic jihad ? Yes, you think it escalates... but any other People in the world would have long expelled all the Palestinians out to neighbouring states, this is what happens in civil wars. It is your people who don't want to live in peace so what goes around usually comes around... just till now forced migration and population transfer is only done on Jews (sinai,gaza,samaria) while Arabs are encouraged to stay, and you don't have to live in fear that the guy next to you will suddenly blow himself up either. This is all really funny becaue the conflict could have ended already had you already accepted peace. Trying to twist it around is pretty weird. Amoruso 06:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What does "palestine" mean to you?
Dear Amoruso,

For me, "Palestine" is first & foremost a geographic and historic region. That's what it was long before the PA was inflicted upon its residents. Palestine, whether I like it or not, is the acceptable popular name corresponding to "Eretz Yisrael". It is the name of a region, including also parts of Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. Israel has consciously decided to perpetuate a vacuum in yesha. So, by default, the region maintains its generic name - Palestine.

So, what's wrong with these categories?- Hebron (Category:Cities in Palestine), Battir (Category:Towns and villages in Palestine) or Shiloh (Category:Archaeological sites in Palestine )? could be nice if Shiloh would be in Israel- but it isn't. Irrelevant of world opinion or recognition, Israel has never attempted to annex yosh, and even declared they would give it away for nothing. So why bend over backwards, against Israel official stance, to say otherwise?

See what I wrote at Talk:Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian.

peace upon you, Shilonite 20:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * thanks for this message. What you wrote there, and what you write here makes a lot of sense. Your arguments were convincing and I tend to agree about this. I didn't read those categories as relating to the region but to a state. That was also the purpose who wrote those categories since he wrote "areas under the palestinian authority" and not areas under the georgraphic region of palestina. Maybe if it was changed to "Palestina" or to "Palestine/Eretz Israel" then it would be best, since that will make clear that we're talking about a region and not a political state which doesn't (yet) exist in international law.


 * I do have a problem though with your general acceptance of living under Palestine and not Israel. While you're right that Jews should be able to live under Palestine like palestinians living under Israel, I think that firstly Jews will never be able to do that in large numbers and definitely not in communities because Hamas' purpose is to wipe off the Jewish entity entirely. And it will gain support from Syria or Iran or whoever comes in the way of Muslim/Arab conquest. Jews will be able to live under Palestine if there was no Israel. Just like Jews were able to live in Arab states. AS DHIMNI. While we have our own state Jews will be persecuted in the arab states including Palestine, because we will always be regarded as a threat and not just as another minority. Secondly, the idea of living under a foreign rule controlling our holy cities is something I can't accept. If I can walk around the western wall for fun but pass under a Palestinian flag with a Palestinian passport/identity card, then I don't want to.. it will be denying who I am... the idea of Zionism is to be politically soverign, to be a people like all people. Jews should live under states and enjoy their right but not in the areas of the Land of Israel... this is also the reason why I'll never travel to Sinai/Jordan etc when it's under foreign rule. Amoruso 06:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation on Eden Natan-Zada
You've violated the 3RR rule on Eden Natan-Zada. Please self revert or you will be blocked.

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.Deuterium 12:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * you don't seem to know what's 3RR. I didn't revert, I changed something else entirely. Amoruso 12:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops, you're right, your last change wasn't a revert. My mistake, sorry. Deuterium 12:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * btw, the 3RR on this doesn't apply reguarly anyway since it's a biography and it's potential libel. and while we're discussing it, I don't know what bothers you. He's a murderer who killed 4 people and then was murdered himself. That's his story. Amoruso 12:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What bothers me is that he was a terrorist, he was part of a terrorist organization, he committed an act of terror and you want to whitewash him and apologize for terror, which is pretty sick. It's the same thing as going around uncategorizing Palestinian suicide bombers as terrorist.


 * Also the WP:BLP 3RR exception only applies to living people, not dead ones, and even then I doubt calling a terrorist a terrorist is libel. Deuterium 12:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * any libel should be deleted by law, this libel could be against his family. But it doesn't matter, officialy he's not a terrorist since he acted alone and murdered israeli civilians, he's a regular murderer. But he was deemed as the jewish terrorist in colloquial sense, so I have no problem of that . But he was also murdered afterwards and therefore there should be that category added. Amoruso 12:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Murder"? More like self-defence. Perhaps we should wait until someone is convicted of murder before categorizing Zada as a murder victim. Deuterium 12:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now you have violated 3RR by changing him from category terrorists. It hasn't been proved that he was murdered yet. Please revert yourself. Deuterium 12:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't need someone to be convicted of murder to fit into the category. his death is classified as murder, the footage shows him sitting in the bus handcuffed and disarmed. how can this be self defense ? It rage but it's murder - same thing that happened with goldstein btw. they were both murdered terrorists. I don't think it violated 3RR, but if you want i'll revert it and revert back in the future, because it's the truh. Amoruso 12:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Dangling references in United Nations Security Council Resolution 446
I was just doing some work on the reference formatting in United Nations Security Council Resolution 446 and there are some empty references there named "Lacey" and "Einhorn" that you added. Did you paste that section in from another article? You may need to go dig up the bodies of those references from wherever it came from, I wasn't able to find it. Bryan 07:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * yes I did, I took it directly from Israeli Settlement article. thank you for your effort. Sorry for messing the refs up, I don't understand how that triggers. Amoruso 07:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Palestine
I shall watch the page. I see that the blanking was reverted and the offender warned. Thanks for the h-u.--Mantanmoreland 04:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Self-hating Jews
Ha! A fine category but one that has as little chance of surviving as "bad-tempered Irishmen"! Incidentally you should get an email address.--Mantanmoreland 04:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit Summary "Blanking"
On Wikipedia "blanking" refers to when someone intentionally blanks out an entire article in an act of vandalism. The following iis an example of what "blanking" would be:. I listed your category for deletion because we have had several categories based on points of view with similar assertions of "self-hating jew" come up, all of which has since been discussed and properly deleted by consensus. I removed it from the articles because they appeared to be a POV category. You are welcomed to argue against its deletion in the CFD page and if a consensus is reached in favor of keeping the category it will be kept, but please do not accuse me again of vandalism in your edit summaries. If you accuse me of it again I will be forced to take it to an administrator to warn you against false claims of vandalism, something which we both probably don't want. Thank you for taking the time to read this and good bye.--Jersey Devil 04:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * that was funny. Amoruso 05:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Bar Kokhba's revolt
If this is not what you tried to do, feel free to revert. I thought it was a wonderful idea to make refs consistent with other WP articles. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * everything you do I trust, thanks for your efforts. The only thing I think it would be nice to show that this wasn't the last war, as depicted in the later revolts - maybe we can make that to a main article as well. Amoruso 05:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't trust anyone, including myself. I've never heard about the later revolts. Perhaps this belongs to the talk page, I think that Bar Kokhba's revolt belongs someplace else. What do you think? ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Leave it for now please until I can get enough sources to make it an own article. I think it fits to have it there too (if there's a main article then only a sentence maybe or none) as they were essentially pebbles or aftershocks of the earlier revolts, it shows the revolt never dwindled but they weren't in the same scope of bar kochba of course. Yes, they're not very known unfortunately because they don't fit "the idea that Jews weren't here for 2000 years" an idea that everybody tried to adopt even though it's contradicted already with the bar kochba revolt and then with the facts of the mishnah and the talmud etc. Amoruso 09:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * although I'd appreciate it if you think there's a better word than "later". I'm not sure, maybe subsequent. or maybe later sounds ok. Amoruso 09:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Purity of Arms - Convoy of 35
hi,

could you please provide some information why these two articles link to one another. since there is nothing written in either one of the articles it does not make sence to point from "purity of arms" to "convoy of 35". --Mandavi 22:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * done. thanks. Amoruso 22:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Bint Jbeil
Have a look at that page, and at RyanG's insistance on using the msnbc article to support that claim that Hezbollah still holds the town as of the ceasefire, when the article says the exact opposite. Isarig 03:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Rivial claims" section of Al-Aqsa Mosque article
I am writing in an advocacy capacity for User:Thestick's concerns with the "Rival claims" section of this article. I respectfully request you to provide a statement here User:Amerique/AMA as to how you feel this this section fits within WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY and WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not. Our aim is to resolve this dispute civilly and entirely within the bounds of WP:FAITH. I appreciate your time. Thank you, --Amerique 04:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the comments on the talk page were enough. The information is all sourced and is relevant to the article. Amoruso 03:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting a statement to my AMA page. I would like to try resolving things at this level without recommending the issue move forward in the WP:DR process. I will see if Chesdov will post a statement now that you have posted one. Thanks for showing good faith in the WP:DR process.--Amerique 04:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Lehi
I requested a citation for the source, which can then be examined to see if it is original research or reported there, in which case we will update the sentence. In any event, make sure you follow the proper wiki-procedures - they are there for good reason. Cheers,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 07:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't had time to take a look, but I hope to do so soon. Cheers,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 07:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

hi
Hi Amoruso, can you check this 3RR problem. Cheers --Ugur Basak 12:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, i guess that you are an admin:) --Ugur Basak 12:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * but i put something to help you nevertheless :) one helps another. Amoruso 12:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Amoruso thanks anyway:) I report that user 4 or 5 times, and i give-up reverting his vandal-edits already, currently article is vandalised and reverted to an older version:) Thanks again --Ugur Basak 12:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR
So did you. You should be blocked for Jewish nationalist POV pushing. That tomb is in the West Bank, deal with it. - Darwinek 12:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * no I didn't. 3RR is 4 times, not 3. You did I didn't. Amoruso 12:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * feel free to report. - Darwinek 12:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

ref
In the article about partition plan, you wrote : "as a division of the territory, 3/4 of the territory in fact, designated for the Jewish National Home by the Balfour Declaration according to the Jewish leaders (ref) See for example: Shamir, Moshe "Yair" 2001, page 203 (/ref) " Could you indicate whose Jewish Leaders claim this according to Moshe Shamir ? Alithien 21:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Shamir only describes the event of tearing up jordan from Palestine and his dismay of it. He doesn't cite the leaders. The leaders convoked in the Thirteenth Congress - Carlsbad, 1923 and declared their right to the eastern land. Later, in the 1930's only Zabotinsky will retain that right (essentialy the leaders of Irgun and Lehi). Amoruso 21:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Martyr Brigades
You're right, it opens for me now about 50% of the time... odd. I'm just trying to clean up the article, all the Arab-Israeli ones are rather biased one way or the other, including a botched page move at Terrorism Against Israel, which I can't even begin to sort out. Madness. give me a shout if you see me do anything untowards, I appreciate the message:-) HawkerTyphoon 15:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I just noticed your changes on the Terrorism page. With all respect, you can't delete huge sections of it. For example most of the links are official gov sites of Israel and so on. The article is obviously biased but that's because of its title initially, like articles about genocides of peoples and so on, but you can suggest deleting it / changing it very slowly and so on... removing big parts will also remove a lot of legitimate parts and I think that's wrong. Amoruso 15:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You have a good point. I'm changing it more slowly now, with less vicious edits. In my opinion, the whole thing needs a complete re-write, or indeed needs a merge into something else - you can't call something terrorism, because generally only the US, Israel and it's allies accept that term. Thanks for the help :-) HawkerTyphoon 15:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Amoruso
Could you please e-mail me? You can use the link in the "Toolbox" at the left side of my User page. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * it doesn't seem to work, the authentication business. Amoruso 07:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, it works for other editors. What happened when you tried? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Amoruso 05:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Reordering of Betar Disambiguation Page
Why was the Hebrew section for Betar moved up in the disambiguation page for Betar (disambiguation)?


 * because it's more commonly known. Amoruso 16:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Only in the Middle-East, and some places in the west. It (Betar, the bengali term) Arnob 01:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC) is well known among the 144 million Bangladeshi's, 163 million Pakistani's and 1 Billion Indians. Also, if the page is ranked by notoriety, shouldn't Betar the Zionist youth movement come first within the Jewish section? Arnob 22:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, does this bother you ? I mean, are you offended if it's like this ? Is Betar an important word with emotional connotations in Bangladesh ? Because Beitar is really the core and heart of a big % of the Jewish people so I think it's significant enough to be mentioned first, before what seems a more mundane word of a technical term in bangaladesh. So respectfully say if it bothers you, I don't see a reason to argue over such a thing. Amoruso 22:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Betar refers to the Swadhin Bangla Betar Kendra, or Bangladesh Betar, which played a cruicial role in Bangladeshi independence. It is historically and emotionally significant to people. Thus, it bothers me that it is arbitrarily placed after the Hebrew term. Hmm, so respectfuly say if you disagree, but I don't see why we should argue over such a thing. Arnob 01:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's arbitrary. The disambuigation for the Israeli Jewish term was there for years and you just added a new term. Additions are always added at the bottom. Amoruso 01:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Additions to disambiguation pages should not always be at the bottom. See Wikipedia Manual of Style (disambiguation pages): Order of entries. Arnob 01:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As for common, if you google it, you'll see first entries have to do with Betar movement. As for the Manual of Style, good link ! Betar has an article named after it, and so should be first. Then it has articles with and so should be named too. Bangladesh article is not named "betar" but rather bangldesh betar, and the wireless is not even a betar article. So it's clear that the first section makes use of the word betar much more, and should be first per manual of style. Amoruso 02:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Betar, the Hebrew term, might show up in Google first, because Bangladeshi's don't have as much aceess to the internet as those in the west. Even then, more of them use the term to refer to Swadhin Bangladesh Betar than Betar the zionist youth movement (or the other hebrew meanings). Thus, this is the most-used meaning (used by more people than the other meaning). The manual of style states: ...place the items in order of usage, with the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below. Arnob 02:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Your theory about internet use is irrelevant to check what's more common. These are the facts. I don't know how you came up with more of them referm to Bangladesh Betar, because they don't. Most refer to Betar the movement or hebrew meanings of it. And the first top 20 or so all refer to the hebrew word (the order is by most common name). Amoruso 02:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My more of them, I mean Bengali people. Arnob 03:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

As you can see here and here :, / only number 18 is the first that refers to Bangladesh Betar, meaning the Betar hebrew clearly wins the common order. Amoruso 02:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"bangladesh betar" gives only 13,700 hits.  While "betar jerusalem" (which isn't even the common name and in terms of jerusalem the team is in fact spelled WRONG) gives 20,200. 

That proves without doubt what's more common and what comes first I believe. Amoruso 03:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As you can see hear: none of the pages refer to betar the youth movement. Internet use (not my theory on it), is irrelevant to check what's more common, because we are putting the most used meaning of the term first, not the term most used on the internet. Arnob 03:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * ahh yes, in bengali letters the hebrew meaning is not very common is it ? :) nor is bengali mentioned even once here either :.

But note we are dealing with :
 * An ENGLISH language encyclopedia
 * An internet encyclopedia, sitting on the internet and based largely on internet sources

Therefore it is the ONLY possible test and BEST qualified test as well. Amoruso 03:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Arnob 03:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Actually, many articles are from the 1911 Britanica.
 * 2) The goal of Wikipedia is to: "...bring a free and accurate encyclopedia to every single person on the planet."
 * 3) More Bengali's refer to Betar the Bengali meaning of the term than the Hebrew meaning of the term.
 * 4) Why should the Hebrew meaning have prominence over the Bengali meaning in an English Encyclopedia?


 * Because like explained it's a more common name in english in google, and that's the most valid test for testing common names. If there are so much Bengali then please start using the term in English more and then the order can be reveresed. Right now, the Hebrew term like demonstarted is a million times more common in english and therefore is first. Amoruso 03:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The Manual of Style refers to the "most used meaning" not the "most used meaning in English". The google test, by the way, is just anecdotal evidence (unless you can attach some stats to those numbers). Arnob 04:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * the stats are the numbers of hits themselves. Well, I've said what I think. Btw, obviously wikipedia refers to english words. You can see that also on help. Amoruso 04:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Translation_into_English


 * Is 20,000 hits statistically different from 13,700 hits? Google does not index every webpage created, but only a sample of it. Let N be the population in question: the total number of webpages on the internet. Let A represent the number of webpages in the population containing "Betar Jerusalem" and B be the number of webpages containing the term "Betar Bangladsh". Then two population parameters can be established: z0 the proprtion of the population containg Betar Jerusalem (calculated as A/N) and z1 the proportion of the population containing "Betar bangladesh" (calculated as B/N). Now as of Sept. 2005 Google's sample of webpages had about 8.1 billion webpages in it. Let's say for the sake of argument that Google's current index still contains 8.1 billion pages (it contains more than that). Let's also say that Google's index represents a random sampling of the population of webpages (which it does not). Now let ~z0 be an estimator of z0 and ~z1 be an estimator of z1. ~z0 is 0.0000025 and z1 is 0.000017125. Can you tell me if these two numbers are statistically different (i.e. not caused by common cause)?


 * 20,000 was only for Betar Jerusalem which is not even the proper spelling. The other uses for beitar are 1000 times higher than the bangladesh use. The example of using betar jeruaslem was to show the amazing gap and to strike the knockout so to speak. but if you insist, betar without bangladesh gives 530,000 hits ;) Case closed.  Amoruso 04:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Neither is Betar Bangladesh by the way (there is Betar Bangla, etc.) But are you telling me 500,000 hits is statistically different from 20,000 hits in the population of total webpages? Arnob 04:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * betar bangla on its own will only give 4000 or so, so that won't help you. It does seem like the debate ended as far as I'm concerned. The case is clear. I wish you a good day. Amoruso 04:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not only is the case far from clear, it raises some tangent issues that Wikipedia needs to address.

Lehi
I shall when I can. Skule year and all. :(--Mantanmoreland 15:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)