User talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg/Archive 3

Israel Lobby
The Mearsheimer-Walt working paper has received mixed reviews by some well-known book authors, such as Hitchens, Chomsky, Zunes, Massad, and Alterman. These writers agree with some aspects of the paper but not with others. Here is an example:

Joseph Massad, professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University, writes, "Is the pro- Israel lobby extremely powerful in the United States? As someone who has been facing the full brunt of their power for the last three years through their formidable influence on my own university and their attempts to get me fired, I answer with a resounding yes. Are they primarily responsible for US policies towards the Palestinians and the Arab world? Absolutely not."

Here we see that Massad, like Hitchens, agrees with some of the primary contentions in the working paper, but not with others. Hence it seems like the above passage would be appropriate for the Mixed Reviews section. Quoting from the mixed review of Chomsky should be similarly appropriate. Why should it be left out, while that of his rival Hitchens is included?

Is the *choice* of the Massad quote the main source of the problem here? If so, would the following revision be perhaps more appropriate/relevant?

Joseph Massad, professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University, claims the pro-Israel lobby is "extremely powerful in the United States", but also writes,

"Are they primarily responsible for US policies towards the Palestinians and the Arab world? Absolutely not." Joseph Massad, Blaming the lobby

Evidence of Compromise
Moshe, can you please go here, and see if you feel like leaving a short comment there?; it is very important to me. Thanks Zmmz 09:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverting without explanation
Moshe, you just reverted on Israeli settlement claiming that [It] is [not] necessary to provide a summary when we have have gone over it more than one time before. I bet you didn't even check the edit history diffs or the newest Talk posts. There exists a current ongoing discussion and it is disrespectful in you to ignore it. Moreover, there are changes you reverted that have not been addressed in Talk, such as compromise wording about Jerusalem, the wording of the introductory sentence and reference to the Golan Heights. You would have know this if you did not engage in blind reverting, and done other editors the courtesy of studying the diffs and the Talk. Please either reverse yourself or explain your position in Talk. You should be especially careful not to neglect Talk in controversial articles.--AladdinSE 12:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Khaybar
Are you going to write more about the Battle of Khaybar or you think readers will know each and everything about the Battle of Khaybar by reading that one sentence. Thank You Salman

Regarding East Jerusalem in Israeli settlement
Hello. I wanted to point out this thread, as you may miss it with all the different Talk sections. Thanks.--AladdinSE 09:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

IrMEP
Adam Shapiro was invited to speak on a panel. That's not affiliation.  &#08492;  astique &#09660;  par &#08467; er  &#09829;  voir  &#09809;  00:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * When IRmep spoke on capital hill Adam Shapiro was on their panel, that would be affialiation. .- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * IRmep invited Adam Shapiro to speak on their panel. I'm not going to deny there is some clear admiration for each other, but panel invitations are not affiliations.    &#08492;  astique  &#09660;  par &#08467; er  &#09829;  voir  &#09809;  00:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyways you have violated the 3RR probably without knowing, maybe you should self-Revert.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've edited and done 2 reverts. Your next revert would violate 3RR.  With such a controversial subject as this organization, you had better be very clear in your language.  If you want to write about the panel and how Adam Shapiro was on it, and what he talked about, then it would be appropriate to the article.  If you want to insinuate there is some affiliation, then you had better prove something more than that.


 * I've stated it before and I will again, I'm acting out of correspondence received by the Wikimedia Foundation. Please do not blind-revert my edits.  I have no intention of promoting this organization but I will see some sort of balance in the article.     &#08492;  astique  &#09660;  par &#08467; er  &#09829;  voir  &#09809;  00:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If Shapiro and IRmep had never come into contact before they would still be affiliated by virtue of the fact that Shapiro spoke on their behalf in front of congress. Here is a definition of "Affiliation- To become closely connected or associated.". Imagine if it wasn't Shapiro talking for IRmep but a Lawyer doing it for free, would you deny they were affiliated then?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your definition states To become closely connected or associated. An invitation to speak on a panel is not affiliation but a casual association.  Again, I have no intention of promoting this organization.  Please do not continue to revert me and allow me to do my job.    &#08492;  astique  &#09660;  par &#08467; er  &#09829;  voir  &#09809;  00:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyways check the edit history of the article, you made a clear violation of 3RR please either revert yourself or change what you wrote to something more compromising.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your reverted me two times, you reverted two other times as well though.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Read WP:3RR.  &#08492;  astique  &#09660;  par &#08467; er  &#09829;  voir  &#09809;  00:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine I will change it to "Adam Shapiro (who started the pro-palestinian ISM) was on the panel of IRmep when the organization spoke on Capital Hill and shares his same views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." will you be fine with that?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As long as you're not attempting to derive any conclusion by what you write, feel free.   &#08492;  astique  &#09660;  par &#08467; er  &#09829;  voir  &#09809;  00:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I've asked our correspondent to provide more sourceable information about their organization. Hopefully this will offer more than just silly quotes from their website.    &#08492;  astique  &#09660;  par &#08467; er  &#09829;  voir  &#09809;  00:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Israeli settlement
What claim does the source not make? It's all in the chart. The source differentiates between Israeli civilian and Israeli security, but lumps all Palestinians together (I guess because we don't have an army and the number of Palestinian policemen killed is relatively tiny).Ramallite (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Benny Morris
I noticed that you had removed the Jewish link from the first sentence of the article on Benny Morris. Considering that his major focus is on the Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, and a Jewish background therefore be relevant to his topics, I have readded it in a less awkward spot in the "Life" section. Joshdboz 10:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Frye
You say "Actually eminence basically means", then I say we where talking about 'eminent, then you say 'well, that's what I meant' and '"Well known" is more matter of fact and objective'. Pray tell how? It connotes and denotes a different concept. Please don't lecture me on the subtleties of the English language. And I reapeat - just why is this so important to you? I came there on an RfC because I have some experience in the field, and we are just calming down the 'disputants'; so am coming to this from a position of neutrality & trying to foster some mutual understanding - reigniting this beast is not going to be helpful. I believe you are confusing the words eminent & pre-eminent.Bridesmill 13:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

For 'just happened upon', your timing couldn't have been more inconvenient ;-) normally such an edit would be 'no big deal' - here it is in the middle of trying to sort out some very heated debate - & I'm not fussed about letting this stand as most people in the discussion have compromised quite a bit. Perhaps the article just needs to be left alone for a while ;-) (no offense meant).Bridesmill 23:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

He is 'well-known' only in the circle or Iranian studies; so that's not a good word (yes, I know, it had been one of my suggestions, but in retrospect was not very wise). But as an Iranologist he is eminent - not pre-eminent - but eminent; even his opponents will agree with that, unless they confuse 'eminent' with 'eminence' or 'pre-eminent'. Bridesmill 00:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Just curious - is your 1st language English? (no insults intended here - just trying to figure how you are reading the english & why you see it as you do - the linguist in me. "Widely respected" has a positive connotation which not all might share. "Distinguished" on the other hand, I think it would work well - but then I thought 'eminent' would work well LOL. Just noticed you had same thought as me - let's see how it goes over - I will leave note on Frye talk page. Bridesmill 00:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your Message. I don't see anything wrong with "eminent" but "distinguished" is fine too. --ManiF 00:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Moshe; Interesting - I never cease to be amazed how many very 'subtle' differences in connotation there are (not the soda/pop ones - they're blatant) Will have to add this one to my list. Thanks. Bridesmill 00:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

My vote for most potentially confusing language is definitely English ;-) Cheers Bridesmill 01:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome, I just didn't find his comment appropriate or necessary. --ManiF 06:22, 23April 2006 (UTC)

I made the remark because of all the people accused, you are the ony one to technically 'fit the bill', but you are also the one least involved, and to read your edit sequence as 'hating iranians' would require a fairly schizoid mind. intended as a comment on the whackjob nature of the insult & nothing intended vs. you - I was tired & pissed off, which is a poor combination; reading it now it comes across very poorly & normally I would post an explanation of sorts - wondering whether in this case it is better just to let the trolls fade away.Bridesmill 14:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Bias?
I'm sorry you feel that way, but you yourself admit this article hasn't brought out the best qualities in you. Maybe rather than try to bring in people with vastly different viewpoints on the subject and instead allow people with little opinion on the subject to make sure the article doesn't lean one way in one section and another way elsewhere.

The fact is, one of the complaints expressed by the complainant was that they were tired of the bias on both sides of the aisle expressed, and would rather see the article deleted. I told them that sadly, the organization did not qualify as non-notable, therefore deletion would not really be an option.  &#08492;  astique &#09660;  par &#08467; er  &#09829;  voir  &#09809;  01:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Map
Moshe, the other map is self-published and in German. I think we're better sticking with a published (and very reliable) English-language source. --Ian Pitchford 12:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Lowbrow (art movement)
User:68.165.234.224 who removed pictures from Lowbrow (art movement) has only done this edit. Suspect vandalism. The art project WikiProject Visual arts is urging more pictures, not less:
 * Upload and add images to all visual arts pages. If any pages need images, it's visual arts.

Tyrenius 11:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey and the Native American tag
Hi, If you dig about in the murky depts of Jeff's talk page archive you'll find that there was a vote on that particular tag, and the consensus was that the Native American project tag probably did belong on the talk page. I figure if anyone objects to removing the tag, it'll probably have to be put back on the talk page. Just so you'll know why, if it happens...--Aim Here 14:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Simon Schama
Ok, but you needed to mention the United States in the sentence, otherwise it sounds like a rebroadcast in the UK. if you mean the first broadcast in the US, thats notable (I've rewritten it that way). You also need a reference for the claim of "high ratings" for the History Channel broadcast. The History Channel is an American specialist cable channel, and is unlikely to have the anything like the scale of audience (even for its most popular US-themed programs) as a British free-to-air terrestrial national broadcaster showing a British-themed series. Bwithh 17:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Casus belli
I'm not sure about the value of this field Moshe, but I will definitely think it over again. Thanks for letting me know of the debate. Best wishes, --Ian Pitchford 08:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Now THAT's a strange one! --CTSWyneken 11:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Space Shuttle and Roman Chariots
Just for your amusement:

I heard the space shuttle is the width it is because it had to fit on railroads. Railroads are as wide as they are, and cars as they are, because they have to fit on roads. Roads are as wide as they are to accomodate horse carts. Horse carts are that wide, because that was the width of -- you guessed it -- a chariot. So the shuttle is specked to a Roman tank!

--CTSWyneken 13:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Now THAT's a strange one! --CTSWyneken 11:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hamas
The article you reverted are subject to intense debates. I kindly you urge you to argue for your edits, if you dont want to get reverted. Bertilvidet 14:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Non-Shakespearian tempests
Hi - I realized only after my note that your edit summary was a joke, I thought you meant that I was somehow trying to be misleading (although I couldn't figure out how). I was using my older iBook at an angle, with what seems to be a dying TFT, so I didn't realize what the true colours on that map where... my sincere apologies... Ramallite (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC) p.s. Funny thing is, I don't recall ever having used that phrase before. (And I wrote it wrong the first time, it's 'teacup' not 'teapot'). Ramallite (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Im sorry, but I can only count two reverts. The first edit was just that: an edit, I reverted JayJg once, continued editing, then reverted you once. Please abstain from making false accusations. --Cybbe 17:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Popups
Moshe, You can find out more about popups at:. It adds to the tools you have available as an editor. You just create a page like this one: Best, --Ian Pitchford 07:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought it sounded fiddly at first too, but all you need to do is click here to create your page and then paste in the text from link 17 above. --Ian Pitchford 12:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Problems with edit sections
You had some stray "ref" things around; I removed them and fixed it up. Jayjg (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

alex jones article
dude...why did you delete my additions to the article? are you victor thorne or something? what i posted was very valad and lacking from the article.

alex jones article
...if you don't know who alex jones is or victor thorne then why are you editing an alex jones post? The comments i added, and will add again, are extemely valad. i agree the mp3 isn't a proper source, but i can assure you that victor thorne personally wrote the 'opposition' section to get his name on wikipedia, and to attach it to alex jones, who is a celebrity. attack the big dog...get noticed....remove the whole opposition thing...and every reference to victor thorn...wing tv...and lisa guilliani....or LEAVE MY COMMENTS. i've been a guest on alex jones show...i've spoken with him and his producers off air numerous times.....alex jones has published some of my work....and you should take my posts extremely seriously. here below are my comments, which i am going to post again...so please leave them this time...

Jones' supporters insist Victor Thorn and Lisa Guliania are shameless publicity hounds, who are attacking Alex Jones in a desperate attempt to get attention with hopes of selling products themselves. Other listeners believe their claims come from bitterness and jealously of Jones' success.

These are the comments i added...edited them a little from the previous...they are now neutral...and should stay...like i said before....

Jones' supporters insist Victor Thorn and Lisa Guliania are shameless publicity hounds, who are attacking Alex Jones in a desperate attempt to get attention with hopes of selling products themselves. Other listeners believe their claims come from bitterness and jealously of Jones' success. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipediareader (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry but I cannot "just take your word for it", without a proper source editors are not allowed to add anything, it is considered original research.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not post that much on sombody's talk page again, it is considered disruptive.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hamas
Hello there. Yes I guessed the edit was accidentally. However, it does underline the need for looking attentively through new changes before reveting them. Cheers Bertilvidet 07:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: six Day war Role in the air
I'm a bit pressed for time, but basically, my disagreement was: "During the Six-Day War, the IAF demonstrated the crucial importance of air superiority during the course of a modern conflict."

Air Superiority is undoubtably important, but this was not a new lesson demonstrated by the IDF that had not been known before. Rather, without risking a fallacy of composition, the lessons taken out of it were specifically related to the theatre. Vietnam is another example aside from Kosovo and Serbia, where air superiority was not crucially important, as it was largely ineffective, and was not necessarily crucially important to the outcome of those conflicts. One person who writes quite extensively on this is James F. Dunnigan, How to Make War: A Comprehensive Guide to Modern Warfare for the Post-Cold War Era. Additionally, since I'm splitting hairs, Modern conflict should be either Modern desert conventional warfare, or alternatively Modern inter-state conflict.

Thank you for your time in discussing with one who is new to the Wikipedia editing community.

Great uprising in 1948's article
Many editors considered that the background section is not neutral and in particular, all the details introduced by Ian in nov05. How do you explain this is still there ? [I am not ironical; this is a real question] :-( Alithien 21:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Your Username
Hi, I was just passing by and had to ask... Is your username really a real name? Curiously, s  &raquo;  abhorreo  &raquo; i  10:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I too think that your username is quite something. I realise it's not your real name (nobody's parents could have such a cruel sense of humour, surely :-). But would love to know how you chose it! Nomist 16:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, I figured it was something like that :) s  &raquo;  abhorreo  &raquo; i  06:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Casus Belli technical problems
That would be me screwing up the template code ;-) Is the problem fixed now? Kirill Lok s  h in 04:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Image:Soldier.jpg
Are you sure the author released all rights? The website you got it from says it's copyrighted, and gives no indication towards it releasing any rights. Indeed, it actually says "All rights reserved." --Rory096 19:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

3-revert rule
Please try to solve your disagreements at talk page. The best way to prove your point is to provide reputable references. Revert wars seldom help. `'mikka (t) 01:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Supop1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Supop1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 12:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi
I saw you on the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FloNight |RfA]] page of FloNight and felt like saying you a big and nice hello. Let us continue to build the Better than the Best global encyclopedia. Thank you and regards. --Bhadani 16:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Supop3.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Supop3.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This OrphanBot is out of control. A lot of nerve it takes to post automated messages on user talk pages (after not joining talk pages of articles). This is conventionally known as spam.Timothy Usher 12:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I now appreciate its function, if not its manners.Timothy Usher 23:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Aminz
Yes, I agree with you. Thanks for catching that. --Aminz 08:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for changing "God" back to "Allah" in the apostasy in islam article. --Aminz 10:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Supop7.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Supop7.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 11:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Moshe
I was wondering if it is related to you? --ManiF 08:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * When did you send me an e-mail? Weird, I don't recall receiving an e-mail. --ManiF 09:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If it was important, please resend it because I didn't receive anything. --ManiF 09:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL, that's not what I meant - feel free to email about anything. --ManiF 09:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Underlined links
Hi Moshe. Mine are always underlined and I cannot imagine them any other way. Did you change your prefs? You may try playing with them. Just wondering, how did they look before? Afterthought: did you upgrade your browser? ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC) This page wants to be archived, IMHO.←Humus sapiens ну? 04:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Elementary! See WP:ARCHIVE. LMK if you need help. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)