User talk:Tiamut/Archive 3

Arab wiki project
[] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skatewalk (talk • contribs).

Thank you
Thank you for your message on my talk page. I know that many Arab editors feel isolated some times as there are not many and there are so many articles. I believe a project page will enable every to share their collective wisdom on Arab-related subjects, even when they are not necessarily of a user's topic of interest. I don't see how this is the promotion of pan-Arabism or any ideology as Wiki Projects are not exclusive clubs.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 13:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment on my talk page. I am very glad to hear that Palestinians are against suicide bombings and are not in any way proud of them. I stand corrected.--Gilabrand 06:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Arab article
As I did read this article, it contains a lot of unusual information, propagandistic views and weasel words in the article Arab. I therefore would like to get a group with me who are able to rewrite this article in a best way to get best results. Anyone who want to join our team add your name below in the Arab Talk page. Please note that after the team has gathered, we will place "under-progress" tag. Irqirq 14:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Arab
Hi FayssalF. It is good that you clarified that Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia and that there are no teams built to exclusively edit articles. I would just say that I think people are just excited about the prospect of the WikiProject and jumped the gun buy organizing at the Arab talk page instead of where they would if the project goes ahead. I also wasn't sanctioning the idea that people have to specify their country of origins to get involved (in case your comments were directed to me). I only mentioned my own by way of voluntary introduction and general sharing. Anyway, I think being firm about what Wikipedia is and isn't is good, but perhaps we could be more understanding of what I as an optimist would like to see as enthusiasm that needs a little guidance.  T i a m a t  17:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Tiamut. Noway, i was talking to the users who signed. My userpage tells you from where i come so that's not the point. But creating Team A and B based on nationalities is nonsense. I was talking to the users who used the tiny flags. Nonsense.
 * We'll get the WikiProject. I understand that some people would think of the project as a threat if i'd exaggerate. That is normal as it happens at WP Spain Vs WP Catalonia and WP Valencian Community. However, i made it clear at the WP Council yesterday that WikiProjects are to enhance the quality of articles according to wikipedia policies. No POV agendas and no disruprion would be tolerated in the project BUT today there come some users (i don't know but they just appeared!) talking about building a team to write a simple article! Nonsense. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  17:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey FayssalF, thanks for clarifying. I agree fully with your comments. I would also say that after having reviewed some more of the comments on the page that the "team" is mostly not part of the Arab WikiProject proposal and seems to be a parallel effort. (Very confusing!) In any case, I'll be keeping my eye on things as well. We really do need an Arab WikiProject though we definitely do not need people misunderstanding what it is about. It's not a private "Arab" club, but a way of coordinating efforts to improving and expanding Arab-related articles to bring them in line with Wiki policies like NPOV and NOR, which they badly need right now. See you around.  T i a m a t  18:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  18:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tiamut
Hi Tiamut, Yes some people which are not Arabs or some who don't wish to be Arabs have caused a chaos in this article. People who have worked with Arab related topics should work together to vanish such vandalism. And once again thanks for your help. Irqirq 19:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * With all respect I do not support any Arab projects, It's like uniting something that are divided. Regions in Arab league are divided into 22 countries. Every country got a unique history uniting this will cause nonsense and bad influence on the Arab identity. Anyway I will remember to join after I have finished focusing on my team. Irqirq 20:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Arab Jews Number
Hello Tiamut, May I ask if you how many Arab Jews there are in Israel and who are the largest group Iraqi?, Moroccan?, Egyptian? or any other jews from Arab country? thanks. Irqirq 15:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help. Well I am trying to imporve the article Arab Jews. but I am not sure if Morrocaan jews are the corect people to be listed as Arab Jews since they where Spanish Jews wich escaped and by the way I am trying to make an Ethnobox listing on this article but I can't find enough sources and who is the right group to be listed as "Arab Jews". I will need your help If its possiable thank you very much. Irqirq 16:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The newest WikiProject


Announcement
Hi, and welcome to the newly started Arab world WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the Arab World.

The project birthday would be celebrated every August 24.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including WPARAB Announcements there.
 * Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, and other tasks.


 * Important notice
 * We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful. These guidelines can be subject of discussions at the project talkpage or simply WT:ARAB.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask User:FayssalF for the time being, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!

POV sources

 * I removed POV sources, references that you mentioned, can you ples make sure you watch the article. Incase they start adding them again.
 * I removed the nationalism section, Nusayri said he wants to mention it in the istory section. Please add in the discussion page. Where do you think it should be added
 * Thanks for your efforts to clean up the article--Skatewalk 00:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Arab Jews
No, Thank YOU for supporting this subject. You are just far to kind than neededIrqirq 09:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

blind reverts
perhaps it was not your intention to ignore the talk page and revert the material despite it being tag reverted by a drive-by reverting user. however, you have both ignored the talk page and made an incorrect edit summary when you only gave a reason for removal of "battle of jenin" (it already beying linked in the article) but have not given a reason for the removal of Jenin, Jenin. i request you consider explaining this edit further on talk or revising this possible oversight and reinserting the Jenin, Jenin link.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  23:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow!
My first barnstar! Thank you very much for that. In the weird way of wikipedia (www!), it's only a little diversion for me from my main projects, so quite a surprise to get a barnstar. More "www": I only came across this chap when looking on the James Miller disambiguation page for the architect who designed the railway station in the small Scottish town where I grew up - he wasn't there, so I set up a stub article for him, James Miller (architect), which I think is probably my best single edit.

I try to do what I can on the I-P articles, but I generally find them unpleasant and stressful to work on, so I admire the work you're doing on Wikipedia, and thank you for making life a little easier. Meanwhile, back to the www:John Boyd Orr, who grew up in the same place I did, and went to the same village school (the same old Victorian building even, which sadly no longer exists); then I've got a couple more Nobel peace laureates lined up to work on, then a whole shower of Quakerism-related articles, some of which are currently pretty dire. --NSH001 12:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian people
Hi Tiamut. Thanks for your note about adding material (8/21-22) while keeping in mind my earlier points. Without going into the whole dispute over WP policy (eg undue), let me try to give you my thoughts on editing your contribution. Kudos to you for finding various sources. (a) I believe the average reader would appreciate an intro sentence or two to this section. Something about the relevance of Biblical-era claims of ancestry and how such claims, though lacking support among mainstream archaeolgists or historians, still resonate for many Palestinians. (b) It's my guess that the average reader would need you to unpack Z Mohammed -- maybe just put that dense quote in footnote(s). Also, ZM seems to make same key point as Salim Tamari. So perhaps like this: "If the evidence for Canaanite ancestry has been weak, why have such claims persisted? Historians (?) Z M and S T say that the the search for Canaanite roots has arisen mainly as a reaction to Jewish nationalist efforts to establish Jewish claims of Biblical ancestry. However, they argue that such claims implicitly validate/reinforce Jewish nationalist discourse. (fn quote ZM ST) They thereby rejects Canaanite claims as (both historically flawed and) as a counter-productive strategy of Palestinian ideology." (c) Both ZM and ST quotes are in academic jargon and presume, I think, too much knowledge for our readers. You probably don't bat an eyelash at terms like patrimony, a priori, and modern European contingencies, but for somebody who is learning from the article itself, the quotes are quite dense. (d) This is an interesting but rather minor point: "Tamari further notes the paradoxes...." Again, maybe you'd need to first tell readers about the (somewhat) parallel movements and then give Tamari's critique. Also, I'd drop "anti-Zionist" as an overly reductive modifier for the (Jewish) Canaanite movement. (e) But the rest of the paragraph gives another, more important point by Tamari. Separate this point. Maybe write: "Various early Zionists used rhetoric themselves that, perhaps inadvertently, reinforced (Arab/Palestinian/Moslem ?) claims to Canaanite ancestry." Then give Borochov, Ahad Ha'am, BG etc in text or footnotes. But why not move this point, which reinforces the Canaanite claims narrative, before the criticism of ZM and ST? (f) Can you sum up the section somehow? Or do your sources describe the current level of Canaanite claims today? Like: While claims to Canaanite ancestry thus have been criticized on both scientific and ideological grounds, such claims continue to appear in Palestinian popular writings {footnote sources}. Or conversely: Since claims to Canaanite ancestry thus have been criticized on both scientific and ideological grounds, such claims are seldom heard in Palestinian popular writings today.
 * Well, maybe I've written too much. Hope this is useful and that you can follow my suggestions. Take care, HG | Talk 19:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi HG. The more reading I have done, the more it has become clear to me that there is some evidence for a Canaanite descent for modern-day Palestinians and that this is not a fringe opinion in anthropological, historical, genetic, and even archaeological circles. For example, [this article http://nidal.com/anaccash/THE_EMPIRE_OF_THE_AMORITES_REVISITED.html] presented an the International Symposium on Syria and the Near East explains that: "The 'Formative Period', ca. 1,000 BC to 1,000 AD, is the period during which the characteristic social morphology of the area was formed. The specificity, or cultural and civilizational 'flavor' of the North-Western Mashriq [Syria and Palestine] was established during the 'Foundation Period', but it is during the 'Formative Period' that, through various processes and under many different influences, the peoples of the area organized themselves in the 'multiconfessional societies' typical of the 'Modern Period.' At the start of the 'Formative Period' it is as if we could see three 'ethnic' super-groups emerging from the 'Amoritic' nebulae that characterized the previous period. We could provisionally designate these super-groups as the 'Arameans', the 'Cananeans' and the 'Arabs' (including all their various kingdoms and/or emirates). These groups then mix and mingle in various ways, and also variously interact with the successive dominant military powers until they are nearly linguistically and socially homogenized by the end of the period, but organized in the characteristic mosaic of religious communities." I think the article needs to be more clear on the fact that the issue is largely one of semantics caused by the shifting use of self-identifying terms by people in the region. In any case, I do appreciate you feedback and will be using some of it in future edits.  T i a m a t  22:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. It's good of you to keep me informed, since like most folks I like to think something useful will come out of my disparate efforts. I didn't entirely see how much your excerpt (in my Talk page) strengthens your point, but as you can tell I'm not myself trying to gauge the substantive merits. If you'll allow me another comment, intended in a collegial way -- you sound a bit like an enthusiastic (fellow) scholar and you may need to be cautious to avoid original research here. Perhaps don't push too hard on synthesizing the data or on convincing your WP interlocutors that it's not fringe, just write up a few lucid sentences for high school students who are looking at a handy encyclopedia. Ok? My 2 cents. Be well. HG | Talk 23:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Kermit the frog singing, "It's not easy being green" popped into my head for some reason after your comments which didn't dampen my enthusiasm, though I think I heard what you're saying. Summarizing dense scholarly materials in an easy-to-read format is a little challenging though, particularly on a subject that people are quite emotionally sensitive about and are apt at finding ways to disqualify as invalid paraphrasing - thus, the tendency toward quotation. Nevermind though, I'm up for the challenge as always.  T i a m a t  23:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if you're thinking of Kermit, then may accept another word of caution from Oscar the Grouch. You said: "the issue is largely one of semantics caused by the shifting use of self-identifying terms by people in the region." It sounds like you are thinking that if it's "merely semantics" (as the hoi polloi might say), then the Canaanite thesis will gain traction. However, linguistic anthropology (etc) takes semantics quite seriously. If scholars say that 'Canaanites' and 'Palestinians' have different denotational fields, due to semantics, then I bet the thesis would be undermined, not supported. Look again at the quote you provided: "the 'Arameans', the 'Cananeans' and the 'Arabs' ... are nearly linguistically and socially homogenized by the end of the period...." The author is saying that, by 1000 CE, the Cananeans (= Canaanites?) can't readily be distinguished from Arabs.  Instead, they're organized by religions. Maybe Arabs generally can trace their ancestry partly to Canaanites, but does this really support the thesis of a (ethnic, linguistic, population?) correspondence between Canaanites and Palestinians, who are a subset of Arabs? I would guess not, though maybe I need to try harder not to judge the substantive merits of the info you send me. Skeptically yours, HG | Talk 10:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi HG. You are entitled to your skepticism. My opinion on the subject is not informed by only this source (which as you correctly point out is not explicit in the claims it makes). My point is that the idea that there was continuity in the population resident in Palestine over the years is not a fringe opinion. Logically, it followed that explicit claims of descendency from earlier populations like the Canaanites, while often shied away from by scholars, are not so far out of left field within this context. It is important I think to highlight the semantic differences in the population's conception of self, as raised in the article I provided you above, but there is a general consensus that continuity of residency, mixing and intermingling was the norm, rather than the exception among the various groups who passed through Palestine.  T i a m a t  10:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Tiamut, thanks for your prompt reply. Perhaps I can occasionally serve as a useful sounding board (is that the expression?) for you. As you say, you've taken on an interesting challenge in trying to summarize some dense academese for the Wikipedia readership. (BTW, have you searched for literature reviews of this corpus in dissertations or journals? A review of multiple studies would make it easier for you both to sum up the findings and demonstrate notability.) Anyway, stay in touch, thanks! HG | Talk 10:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement HG. I have searched for literature reviews, but the pickings are slim. I think part of the problem is the hesitancy of scholars to take up this debate due to its political implications. For example, this study on Palestinian DNA and its relationship to Canaanite and other earlier populations in Palestine was pulled from publication (an unprecendented occurrence) after complaints surrounding the political terminology employed by its authors. There are some secondary sources on this issue, which may also prove valuable to the article and the reader's understanding of how these issues relate to Palestinian identity and the conflict with Zionism over Palestine's patrimony.  T i a m a t  10:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Speaking of your concern about politicized academic discourse, I just wrote a note here  to PalestineRemembered about the (his) premise of anti-Palestinian systematic bias in US and British news media. I also invoked your (user) name, too, I hope not inappropriately. Feel free to strikeout or edit my reference to you there, or I can do so if you wish. Good luck and regards to Kermit! HG | Talk 11:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, on this I disagree with you. All this talk of Palestinian descent from Canaanites seems a little superfluous. besides, who cares? I'm probably descended partly from Canaanites too ( that is, if even a fw of them converted to Judaism). what diffewrence does it make. this topic often seems like a convoluted way for Palestinians to try to outrank jewish claims to a presence in Israel, although I definitely don't feel that's your motive here personally, actually. Sorry, but that's the way I feel. I am not debating you on this, because I don't oppose well-sourced data, even if I disagree. However, i just want to let you kinow my thoughts on this topic, since it is a subject of some debate. However, I do feel your approach to this is rather well-mannered, as it is based on finding sources, and you do not seem to just throw data in impulsivley or anything. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Steve. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the matter. My interest in the material derives from its being defined by Palestinians as part of their identity, and a general interest in ancient history and the opinion of scholarly sources on the subject. I agree that you're probably part descended from the Canaanites too, (as are many Jews, and other human beings and this is something also already implicitly noted in the article via the DNA section as well). I know it seems like a rather esoteric debate, but the issues you raised of "outranking" one another are also discussed by scholarly sources in the text and these things while possibly self-evident to you and me, are like ancient Greek to most others not familiar with the discussion. I'm just trying to decipher the ancient Greek. :)  T i a m a t  14:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Aren't these two votes at cross purposes?
This vote and your vote here seem advocating opposite positions. For example, you suggest a disambiguation page would be a step in the right direction, and yet for the template, which essentially is a disambiguation page in miniature, you support its deletion. Certainly has me confused. -- 146.115.58.152 00:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The template is a redundancy if there is an article entitled Apartheid that discusses the full meaning of the word with links to articles that use that word. The template is also littered with links to tendentiously related subjects, (articles that even lack the word "apartheid" and without a full contextualization of the word's broader and alternate meanings). If you check the history of the Apartheid page (clicking on the redirect and checking the history there) you will see a sketch of what I had in mind for that page, which is vastly different than the content of the template.  T i a m a t  00:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, parts of the history of Apartheid (disambiguation) looks very much like the template today. or, or , for example. Though just like the template today people were editing warring over which links it would contain, so the list changes week by week. I don't understand why you think a new disambiguation page would be a different situation. -- 146.115.58.152 01:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation was my second-choice after an article dealing with the term in its multiple meanings precisely because the lack of contextualization leads to edit warring.  T i a m a t  09:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh well, a moot point as you have gotten your wish. -- 146.115.58.152 06:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not my wish. I'm not a god. The community weighed in and a decision was taken based on the comments made. Why the focus on me?  T i a m a t  09:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Um ar-Rehan hook
Yeah, I just saw it and like it better. In fact I hadn't yet heard the term Seam Zone, but since the article wasn't about the zone per se, it's nice to have something more specific to the town. Btw, do you know an explanation of the name? Did/does a lot of basil grow there? Rigadoun (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Thanks for your contributions! Daniel 02:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
The Empire of the Amorites Revisited --Skatewalk 02:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Reem Riyashi
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Reem Riyashi, and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 09:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut or Tiamat?
Hi, when replying to you over at the allegations of apartheid page, I notice that your user id and your signature are spelt differently. I had been wondering why so many people seemed to spell your name wrongly. Now I've found out. Is it that either spelling is equally acceptable to you as they're both possible transcriptiond of your name in Arabic?--Peter cohen 15:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've changed it back to the original as I indicated I would on your talk page. Hopefully the confusion generated will subside. Thanks for asking again. It reminded me of how it would be confusing, especially to people who haven't edited with me previously.  T i a m u t  15:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the replies. Having spent too much time in my youth playign Dungeons and Dragons, I was aware of the name being one for a monster but hadn't been aware of the Sumerian origin.--Peter cohen 15:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your note, and the address..I hope you will receive something before Christmas! As for Tawfiq Canaan; hey, you always seem to start articles that I had intended to start! ..You have done a great job. Benvenisti discusses him in the "Sacred landscape"-book: I will try to add that. Eh, and I suppose you have seen my Reem El-Reyashi‎ comment ;-) Anyway; glad to see you around, Huldra 16:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * yes, I absolutely agree: Reem El-Reyashi‎ was not a very good article....(I thought I had seen the story before, so I searched for "Reem") ..........Anyway, the Tawfiq Canaan article is excellent. A small point: in all the references to Jerusalem Quarterly there is a problem: we cannot see that the ref. is to  Jerusalem Quarterly! (look at the bottom of the page; under "References")
 * Now, I see that you have put the name "Jerusalem Quaterly" in the ref:  .......However, it does not show up.  (Also; I think there is a spelling mistake: Jerusalem  Quaterly ) I am rather unfamiliar with these ref-tags...so I think I will leave it to you to fix it ;-) Huldra 20:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Israel and apartheid -- pro/con
Hi. You mentioned specificity and hence WP:OR as possible problems. I recall an objection to a possible title that might be confused with Israel and South Africa relations, but otherwise I'm not sure what unrelated topics might be invoked. Couldn't an explanatory note meet such speculative objections?
 * I though it best to reply here because there's a concern, articulated by John Nagle, that continued discussion of renaming is like trolling /will feed trolls. As you might guess, I drafted a too-lengthy reply to justify why the title is worth further discussion. I'd be please if you'd read it and give me some feedback. Until then, I won't ask you more on Talk:AoIA about "Israel and apartheid" in case you feel I'm pestering you. Thanks. HG | Talk 23:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Your nonsense
Shouldn't you be edit-warring on some Israeli-Palestinian article like you usually do to push your Arabist pov instead of trolling on my talk page? Do not disrupt my talk page again. Egyegy 00:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no reason for you to delete this comment, and then post this uncivil comment on my talk page. I have not encountered you anywhere but at the Arab page, where you contributions have been cited as quite disruptive, consisting primarily of anti-Arab soapboxing, poorly sourced no less. I am asking you to read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL (and WP:OR and WP:NPOV for good measure). And this is the last time I will ask you to. The next time you breach these guidelines and policies, I will report you to WP:ANI. Thanks.  T i a m u t  11:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Anything like that coming from someone whose contributions consist mainly of Arabist pov pushing edit wars is comical. It was you who also not too long ago edit warred on that page to delete the same references about Egyptians after I reverted you . I said before to you and your cohorts (and you're all in good company ) to stop posting the stream of anti-Egyptian venom on that page and the pov deletion of sources that question your motives if you don't want other people to react. Egyegy 18:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand what WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF are about. You have also misrepresented my editing history and accused me of "anti-Egyptian venom" based on specious, or in the case of the latter, no evidence whatsoever. Please stay far, far away from me. I don't like reporting people for what amounts to pettiness and ignorance. Thanks.  T i a m u t  18:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Uhuh, so much for being "civil"! Egyegy 18:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The Legal status of Hawaii Page
Aloha Tiamut -- I could really use your help as a member of the CSB project to take a look at this page and give your mana'o (thoughts). I am in an edit war with someone who insists that his POV can be pushed and I cannot counter it, because of "undue weight" (it is true that Hawaiians are now a minority in Hawai'i, and those both knowledgeable in history and willing and able to speak out about it are a relatively small group, but I don't think the indigenous viewpoint being squashed is ok either). I am not asking for anyone to participate in the struggle itself, but there needs to be a broader perspective, so if you can take a look at it and give your thoughts (it's okay not to know anything about the subject; it might be better that way), it would be really appreciated! Aloha, --Laualoha 04:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo nui!! Your quick response was amazing, and the academic references really helped a lot. I will try to be more meticulous in citations myself -- not my strong point, but I'm working on it. Again, mahalo! Aloha, --Laualoha 15:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Lovely edit, Tiamut, over at the 'Arab Jews' page. I was particularly moved by the 1919 declaration. Sorry for calling on your private leisure time for assistance in this matter. Finest regardsNishidani 20:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Identity Crisis
No hurry needed in these things of course. Apropos 'the identity crisis Zionism posed for Arab Jews', you will note of course the analogous problem Zionism posed for European Jews, many of whom were in a stronger position however to contest that nationalism's claims on their more complex cultural affinities than was the case with Arab Jews caught up in turbulent conflict between Zionist immigrants and the Arab majority in Palestine. Apart from Lacqueur, I find also Lenni Brenner a good guide on this. Nishidani 20:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Child shaheedim
I believe that Gilabrand has agreed to remove the offensive link. See further down on her talk page.

I hope we have resolved this controversy, which was almost as idiotic as it was offensive.

--Ravpapa 05:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I never put it there in the first place.--Gilabrand 06:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment on my talk page. I am very glad to hear that Palestinians are against suicide bombings and are not in any way proud of them. I stand corrected.--Gilabrand 06:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your relentless edit warring
Your messages are almost as ridiculous as your editwarring. This wouldn't have started if you didn't keep violently editwarring and pov-pushing your agenda. Let's see how long before we see you get blocked again. Egyegy 01:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Egyegy, I am trying to save you from a block by allowing you the opportunity to self-revert. If you want to ignore my warning, that's your decision. My decision then will be to report you for violating 3RR. It's your choice.  T i a m u t  01:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd love to see how you're going to say I made a 3rr violation that didn't happen. Then I will recommend that you get blocked both for your constant reverting of my additions, which I didn't do to yours, and for gaming the system. Egyegy 01:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see the report regarding your 3RR violation here.  T i a m u t  01:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
 You have been blocked for edit warring again (at Arab diaspora). To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. --  tariq abjotu  17:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! What's going on here?  T i a m u t  17:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Tariqabjotu. I saw your comment explaining this block which you posted about half an hour after you delivered the notice here. I had already sent you an email before reading it.
 * As I state there, I was trying to avoid an edit-war with a user that it has been admittedly difficult for me to work with collaboratively. I definitely wouldn't have reported the editor if I thought that my own actions were grounds for a block, and wasn't aware that my block log history (a rather sordid tale I review in the email I sent you) would be used against me even though I did not violate 3RR. Indeed, after another editor made the same edit Egyegy did, I asked him to engage in discussion instead of simply reverting. WP:3RR, from my understanding, is supposed to be a preventative remedy, not a punishment. Please consider the email. I would like to request an unblock from you, before asking anyone else. Thanks.  T i a m u t  20:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Tiamut; I must say I do not understand Tariqabjotu´s block at all, and I have told him so: . However, according to him: you must post a unblock request if you want a chance to be unblocked. Best of luck, and take care, Huldra 03:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Huldra. I appreciate your support. I've placed the unblock request below and am hoping for the best.  T i a m u t  10:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: also: just after you were blocked a vandal changed the template to one of your user-boxes, see Notice_board_for_Palestine-related_topics. So for 4-5 hours you had a user-page announcing that you were a neo-nazi :-(
 * The worst thing is: even if you had seen it you could not have changed it (I think): you had edit User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/PalReturn  to do that. I suspect that the vandal must be a rather experienced WP user. I will keep an eye on your user-page for as long as you are blocked. Huldra 04:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandal has been indefblocked. -- Avi 05:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Avi. That was a little crazy and disturbing no?  T i a m u t  10:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't perform the block; someone beat me to it, but I would have. Yes, notwithstanding our political difference of opinions, I wholeheartedly agree with you that it was disturbing and uncalled for. Sheesh! -- Avi 12:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again Avi. It means a lot to me that you see it that way despite our differences, and speaks to your own fine judgment.  T i a m u t  14:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is what I get for having posted to your talk page - I get all this altercation coming up on my watchlist. I should just leave well enough alone!


 * Nonetheless, I would like to make a suggestion (for when you get unblocked). If I understand correctly, this whole flak is about the sentence referring readers to Egypt#Identity.  Why not just take it out?  It isn't really relevant to the article, anyway.  If you have a statistical breakdown of the diaspora by nationality, you could cite numbers for Egyptian emigrants separately, and let readers draw their own conclusions.


 * There is a whole lot about this article that needs major improvement, and to get all hopped up about such a minor point seems really, really unnecessary. --Ravpapa 06:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Very true. In fact, before we began the back and forth over the wording, I had tried to remove the sentence in question because it is tangential to the subject of the article. Egyegy seemed dead-set against that though, so I tried to find a compromise wording that we could both live with. That didn't go very well though, as you can see.  T i a m u t  10:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As another outside observer (in terms of this incident), I didn't entirely grok the reasons behind the two versions. Anyways, perhaps you could try giving reasons for your version, and request clarification of the reasons for the other version(s), on Talk rather than edit summaries. I'm not surprised you might want to take a principled stance on a (foot?)note, though no need to give the appearance of an edit war. Kol tuv. HG | Talk 11:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey HG. It was stupid of me not to engage in talk but also rather impossible given the vitriol in Egyegy's comments. I should have just called for an outside opinion on the matter rather than entering into that dynamic. I don't know if you noticed, but when another made the same edit  did, I left a message on his talk rather than continuing to revert. Anyway, live and learn.  T i a m u t  14:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo!
p.s. I just noticed the craziness above...you have helped us so much in such a fair and balanced way I don't know what their problem could be. If there's anything that can be done to help, please let me know...Aloha, --Laualoha 06:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Laualoha. I am glad that you found my intervention there helpful and hope to be back soon.  T i a m u t  10:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, I think it's wonderful that you two are going to meet in person as you indicated on the talk page. Both of you seem to be great people who hold passionate views on this issue but you both have shown the ability to engage in reasonable discussion despite your differences. It's very heartening. Mahalo!  T i a m u t  10:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request
{unblock|I was trying to avoid an edit-war with a user that it has been admittedly difficult for me to work with collaboratively. I definitely wouldn't have reported the editor if I thought that my own actions were grounds for a block. I did not violate 3RR. Indeed, after another editor made the same edit did, I asked him to engage in discussion instead of simply reverting. WP:3RR, from my understanding, is supposed to be a preventative remedy, not a punishment. I believe this decision was influenced by my history of blocks, all three of which were the result of reports filed by who was actively edit-warring with me at the time. He was never blocked once as a result of those reports; and in two cases, the first and the third, it was arguable as to whether I actually made four reverts. The first block was laid by SlimVirgin and many other editors complained at the time that it was a political block and that I was one of the only editors working toward compromise wording. The other two blocks, as you will notice, were lifted by the admins in question upon further review of the situation and the feedback of other editors. In other words, I feel like I've acquired a stigma as a result of initial stringent enforcements of 3RR against me. I honestly wasn't trying to edit war here. I do regret making the last edit I made to Arab diaspora after filing the report, since upon review, I realize that I inserted the same sentence which would have been my third like edit. While not technically 3RR, I can see why might think I deserve a block given my murky history and the back-and-forth accusations on the talk pages. It's in your hands for now. If you need diffs about the history and stuff to back this all up let me know. Please, I really love editing at Wikipedia. Check out my recent contributions (two DYKs and two barnstars in the last week and a half!). I feel that part of why I've been treated like a disruptive editor rather than a productive one is in large part due to the controversial nature of the area I edit in, and I think I do a pretty good job of not getting dragged into every petty fight. I made a mistake by filing the report against Egyegy. I should have just discussed it with him, but the incivility in our earlier exchanges seemed to rule that out. In the future, I'll just back off. One last thing ... Egyegy has made accusations of bias against Tariqabjotu because of earlier blocks he has laid against him, and Egyegy repeated those accusations after I filed the 3RR report against him. I don't think there's any merit to these accusations, but I do think that this inclined Tariqabjotu to block me along with Egyegy, when he might otherwise not have. Both blocked for five days originally, Tariqabjotu only extended the block to seven days against Egyegy after other editors pointed out his incivility and questioned the rationale behind the block against me (See above).}
 * OK, you were clearly edit-warring. Your block has nothing to do with the contentiousness of the subject matter - if anything, you should be more careful because of it. The story behind your previous blocks does not concern us here. The point is, do you understand what you should not have done, and will you stop doing it when unblocked? Sandstein 11:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that I should have been more careful and should not have reverted Egyegy's edits, but instead should have taken the matter of his incivility to WP:ANI or asked for a WP:RfC (and this in lieu of discussion on the talk only because at the time it had proved rather impossible). It was a lapse of judgment and I will not repeat it again.  T i a m u t  11:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stand by as I contact the blocking admin. Sandstein 12:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Please note that he has declined my request via email for an unblock and told me to request an unblock on my page if I was unsatisfied with his response.  T i a m u t  12:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've decided to go ahead with the unblock; Tariqabjotu is clearly off-line at the moment and once a block has served its purpose it should be removed. Let me say that I can see a distinct effort on your part not to break the WP:3RR in those edits: you were consistently proposing new ideas rather than reverting, which is good.  But after a certain point it does become edit warring.  Keep in mind there's no deadline for getting an article right: in a similar circumstance, just start a discussion on the talk page (that way, any interested editors can comment, not just the two of you in the conflict), and seek broader input via WP:3O or WP:RFC if that doesn't work.  Sometimes things just take a little time to work out.  Mango juice talk 14:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your investigation into the matter and the sage advice. It's very much appreciated.  T i a m u t  14:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you again Mangojuice, but it looks like I'm still blocked. If you can wave your magic wand again, that would be great.  T i a m u t  14:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's probably a server lag thing; try again in a little while. It takes some time for the unblock (registered at my local server) to propagate to yours.  If not, it might be an autoblock: if you post exactly what you see when you are blocked, we can check that.  Mango juice talk 15:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is an autoblock. It says:

You are unable to edit Wikipedia because someone using the same internet address (an 'IP address') or shared proxy server as you was blocked. Your ability to edit Wikipedia has been automatically suspended as a result.

Note that you have not been blocked from editing directly. The other user was blocked by Tariqabjotu for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Tiamut". The reason given for Tiamut's block is: "edit warring, again (at Arab diaspora)".

This block has been set to expire: 14:01, 8 September 2007.

If you do not understand the reason for this block, you are probably on a shared IP address. T i a m u t  16:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, it's an autoblock then. The page you see when you try to edit should have information about how to request the undoing of an autoblock: there should be something you can cut and paste.  If you post that I can help.  Or, you could just wait 24 hours, and the autoblock will expire on its own.  Mango juice talk 17:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was Autoblock#615731. I've unblocked that. See if it works. -- Avi 17:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing
I see that you’re back, so welcome. I hope you have learned from your past mistakes; and won't be involved in POV pushing and edit warring.

Please note that I have given a reason for deleting the word "Nation" already twice and it is inappropriate to change it without explanation. Only God can create things by wishing it so; we mortals need to bring scholarly sources to back up our understandings or misunderstandings. Itzse 18:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Itzse. It's nice to see that you haven't changed your assessment of my editing style. I would be very confused if you did not object to my edits. Indeed, I might have to ask myself what I am doing wrong. Despite your assertion that Palestinians are not a nation, there are a number of reliable sources cited throughout the article that contradict your belief. Indeed, the introduction itself discusses how Palestinians first widespread conception of themselves as a nation or people occurred prior to WWI, in other words, some 100 years ago. I realize that this may be difficult for you to accept, but these are the facts as recorded in the article. There is no contestation around this, as Nadav and others have pointed out to you on the talk page. Those who believe Palestinians are not a nation are few and far between and that unsourced fringe opinion shouldn't determine whether or not we can use the word in the lead. With respect.  T i a m u t  19:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I will discuss it on your page; stay tuned. Itzse 19:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the place for that discussion is the talk page. I have left you two messages there. Please respond there.  T i a m u t  19:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit conflict! You're asking a personal question so I'll answer it overhere then I'll hop over to the article talk page to discuss its content.


 * You ask if I didn't change my assessment of your editing style. When after you are given another chance, the first thing you do is undo my edits which I have clearly explained, without you bothering to explain; what am I to make of it?


 * The Encyclopedia Britannica, you would admit that it doesn't give fringe views; and they in their definition and explanation of Palestinians and how the term Palestinian people came into being, don't speak at all of a "nation". It’s quite a jump from a group to a people to finally a nation. If Nadav himself will put the word "nation" in the intro then I will yield, because he is known for not being a POV pusher; but if you put it back, I would consider it POV pushing and picking a fight. Itzse 19:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not bound not to put things in this encyclopedia simply because you have an extreme fringe POV that views me as a lesser being not entitled to nationhood or peoplehood (and maybe even personhood, since you are basically attacking my right to free expression). As for the rest of the discussion, I am waiting for you at the talk page.  T i a m u t  19:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't confuse "personhood" with "nationhood" and "peoplehood". It goes without saying that you have a right to "personhood", and it's not nice to accuse me of harboring such thoughts. Your entitlement to "nationhood" and "peoplehood" is another matter; and I don't think it is appropriate to discuss it on Wikipedia. I am not attacking your right to free expression; but I need to remind you that Wikipedia is not a place to express yourself; it is a place to express others.


 * I first wanted to address your personal accusations before I go to the article. Itzse 20:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Forgive me, but what a load of crap Itzse! As for the article, I've incorporated some of what added, restored some of what you deleted, and have held off on the word "nation" for now. Not because you are in any correct, but because you have indicated that you will edit-war me over it if I include it again. So, as per the last sentence of your comment above, I guess you have succeeded (for now) in making Wikipedia a place where I cannot express myself, but others can. Congratulations.  T i a m u t  20:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that I will edit war; please don't put words into my mouth; as a matter of fact let me declare clearly that I will NOT edit war. Again WP is not a place to express yourself; it is a place to express what OTHERS say. Itzse 20:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You are edit-warring Itzse. You made a blind revert of my last edits which incorporated some of your own and omitted the words nation in an attempt to work toward compromise on that issue. So spare me "I will NOT edit war" BS. It's exactly what you ARE doing.  T i a m u t  22:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, hi. I got your note and may try to respond later. Don't have much time for input, sorry. HG | Talk 12:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut and Itzse,

My input here is prompted by your various comments on my Talk page and then on Talk:Palestinian people. I'm rather honored and pleased that you're both interested in my opinion. I think both of you are motivated and working to make positive contributions. You're also both trying to stay calm and work collaboratively, and you're certainly welcome to rely on my Talk (and occasionally me) if that's helpful. That said, you've both gotten under each other's skin and lost your temper at times. So it's hard for somebody (like me) to sort out what's going on. Without further investigation, which I'm not inclined to do, here are a few comments:


 * 1) It seems like Tiamut realized that she thought it reasonable to add "nation" to the opening  paragraph. Tiamut added "nation" around Sept 5/6. (Or is it much earlier?)   Here's a relevant diff. Edit summary was helpful: "new material for introduction - after seeing the Armenian page, I realized the intro here needed some work - comments are welcome"
 * 2) Itzse objected to addition of "nation." I think you reverted w/edit summary "Nation" is POV". (Summaries are helpful, thank to both of you!) Sept 6th
 * 3) From then on, it looks like edit warring. Tiamut restores ("restoring "nation" and "endonymic" use") and Itzse again, etc. Sept 7th. Afterwards, note that you both try to communicate through the edit summaries.
 * 4) Also Sept 7th, Itzse posts "POV pushing" section on Tiamut's talk. Personally, I think User Talk pages can be helpful for ironing out inter-personal conduct issues.

Tiamut: You asked for my input, for better or worse. Well, you've done many things well in handling this situation. You try to stay on substance and you appeal to third parties (e.g., me and the RfC). Your initial comments on talk ("Reverting") were \ measured and substantive. You also tried to compromise, from what I can see in the edit summaries. I can empathize with your more heated reaction to Itzse, e.g. you say he's baiting you, though I believe that was unnecessary. More importantly, Tiamut, I'm surprised you didn't go to the Talk page earlier. You know introductions are touchy. Indeed, you had already struggled with the "people" language in the opening just recently. I myself tried to be helpful there. So, I wonder if part of this conflict could have been avoided, or w/less personally enmity, if you had proposed your idea on Talk first. In addition, why not stick to Talk once you saw that Itzse disagreed with the "nation" edit?

Itzse: You've been trying to maintain what you believe to be the right NPOV balance for the article. If you don't mind my saying so, though, you start the conversation with Tiamut on a very negative note, Itzse, with the "POV pushing" heading. Personally, I think Tiamut is fairly self-aware (maybe not perfectly, but who is?) of her POV and Tiamut makes a sincere effort to not impose her POV when editing the article(s). In any case, it's not helpful -- and a bad reflection on you -- to escalate with the POV pusher accusation. It's disruptive -- for instance, it has prompted me to spend more time on this than should be necessary. Plus, it throws your interlocutors off-balance, which isn't proper. Anyway, while I'm trying not to judge the substantive merits, you seem unnecessarily combative about "nation" given the content of the rest of the article. As written now, doesn't the article show both "pro-Palestinian" and "pro-Israel" sources accepting Palestinian nationalist identity? Even if you're correct, "nation" seems a plausible term for somebody to add to the intro. So why not just contest it in Talk? (Also, you were challenged by Nadav to cite sources to back up your disapproval of "people" in a Talk section last week. So you can assume that your concerns with "nation" also need to be reliably sourced. Right?)

Well, it's my hope that you both appreciate the effort I've made here. Please don't bite the messenger! If you feel I'm off base, just let me down gently. (I reserve the option of correcting my errors above.) Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 17:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a very diplomatic summary HG. You are correct in noting I could have gone to the talk page earlier. That does not change the fact however that nation to the refer to Palestinians is controversial only to those who reject what the sources in the article say, and what Wikipedia policy itself says on the matter; i.e. collectives are generally self-defined - a point you raised in the discussion page on the naming of the Israeli apartheid article. Nonetheless, your efforts and the criticisms you raised are duly noted and appreciated. Enjoy your part-time wikibreak.  T i a m u t  17:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

HG, It's really very difficult to let you down gently, because I find myself accused by you of edit warring which I totally reject. I understand that you might be doing it to pacify Tiamut but it’s unfair to do it at my expense. If I should speak softly then the above wrong image of me might stick in someone’s mind, which is unfair to me. This version that you are reading is a toned down version of the original. If I still hurt you (HG), then I apologize, as my intention is only to clear a wrong image of me in your mind and by extension in the mind of others.

I'm sorry to say, but you're totally off base. I'll take it that you haven't followed the sequence of events and are totally unaware of who edited what. If you would have checked out the exact sequence of events you couldn't have come to such conclusions and made such comments.

Frankly, I am very disappointed in you trying to equate us. While my reputation is unblemished and everyone who has followed me here knows that I'm here to add my knowledge on Jewish subjects for which I have barely scratched the surface, and although I am bold, I go out of my way to be fair and uphold the neutrality of Wikipedia. Tiamut on the other hand has one agenda, and one agenda only; to push a Palestinian POV. I'm sorry to say, but your trying to put her in a good light rings hollow. Please check out what many other editors have said about her and then tell me if you still think so. Sorry I cannot sit back and watch you trying to equate us. By equating us you are actually smearing my character and exonerating her which is really not fair. It seems to me that she cannot do any bad and I cannot do very much good; that's the impression I get from your comments.

Here are some things you say which I find incorrect or disturbing. The reason I am calm is because I have given up on her, given up on the mediators, and almost given up on Wikipedia. Only people who think that they can win or accomplish something are passionate in what they do. I'll talk straight and pull no punches. I made my comment on your page only to show you that Tiamut is lying, in the belief that maybe you’ll open your eyes. Tiamut hasn't gotten under my skin at all; I know what she is up to and want to stop it; but if you (not you necessarily) will try to stop me instead of her, then I'll bid all of you good bye and let you have what you deserve. I have no softer way of putting it, that I just can't take this crap that Tiamut thought it reasonable to add "nation" to the opening paragraph. No, she knows exactly what she is doing and such comments are what lets her get away with it. While Tiamut has lost her temper many times; I haven't lost my temper even once; disappointed, yes; lost temper, no. You say that you're surprised that Tiamut didn't go to the talk page earlier; I wonder why you're surprised; don't you see that she first tries to get away with whatever she can, then she'll engage in talk with no intention of compromising but to get part of her pushing accepted and put off the rest for another round. You say that I started my conversation with a negative touch by its heading of POV pushing. My purpose is not anymore to set her straight, which I have already given up. My purpose is to point out her POV pushing to all of you. Actually I think that I'm treating her with kid gloves compared to how administrators would have dealt with her, if they only wanted to. Lastly I completely object to your equating us both as edit warring. When one side explains, but the other side says one thing on the talk page and does something else on the article; then the explainer shouldn't be labeled an edit warier simply to be able to play the equation game. Please get it straight; I am an honest editor and she is a POV pusher, and the twain doesn't meet. She needs to be admonished not mediated; you cannot mediate with someone who will only play the game of mediation with no intention of good faith editing.

Her response to you is a game which allows her to do what she wants while she is engages in dilly-dallying and in false placation. Tiamut has learned to play a game with all of you. She pretends to engage in discussion but in reality does what she wants and then has the audacity to reverse the sequence of events to make it look as if she thought she was doing the right thing. Now watch her threaten that she will report me; that's also part of her game, and if she succeeds then Wikipedia doesn’t deserve any better.

It's time to call a spade a spade; because otherwise Wikipedia will lose its valuable editors and stay with the crap. I’m really fed up with Wikipedia, and ready to bid everyone farewell. Itzse 21:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I responded to Itzse's hyperbole and violation of WP:NPA on HG's talk page, for those interested in following this latest tragic spin-off episode to the Wikisraeli-Palestinian conflict. T i a m u t  15:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI I replied to your latest. HG | Talk 15:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, regarding the content dispute involved: For the RfC, why don't you very concisely quote a couple of authoritative, self-identifying sources (e.g., PLO) that use the word "nation" itself? HG | Talk 15:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The thing is HG the only person denying that the sources in the article establish that Palestinians are a nation is Itzse. I mean the titles alone put a rest to the issue; for example, James L. Gelvin's (2005). "From Nationalism in Palestine to Palestinian Nationalism". Palestinian nationalism is not possible if there is no Palestinian nation. It seems largely self-evident to me and others. As Itzse should be familiar with the article contents, having edited it for a while now, I don't see how pointing these out to him will help.  T i a m u t  15:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. sorry, I would like to express the same view which i expressed at the article. I feel that Palestinians are definitely a nationality, but not at all a nation. they have no official nation-state, and in fact have never claimed to have one, as they consider themselves in many ways to be still occupied by Israel. So I feel that the term "nationality" fits better. --Steve, Sm8900 15:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Steve. No problem. But I think you are confusing the definition of nation with that of nation-state. In fact, one could argue that nationality is less appropriate a term given that it is also citizenship, which implies there having to be a state. In any case, do you have a source that discusses this distinction that would support what you feel?  T i a m u t  15:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) ::See also Steve's latest comment about 'nationality' vs 'nation'. Anyway, this isn't about Itzse, but simply about verifying usage of "nation" as was demonstrable for "people" in the intro. If "people" is more common and less contested than "nation", then maybe the appellation 'nation' (nice alliteration?) should be discussed in the article content instead. Perhaps I need to copy my thoughts to the RfC, but there you have it. .... Unrelated but no less important, thanks for your kind Rosh Hashanah wishes and I extend the same to you and yours as you commemorate Ramadan. May they both usher in better times. HG | Talk 15:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, nationality does not imply citizenship, and I'm not sure why anyone might think that it does. Europe is filled with nationalities who are citizens of other countries, such as BAsques, Moors, etc etc.


 * No, I don't have a source. I just have the fact that currently there is no Palestinian state whatsoever. Are you saying that a Palestinian state currently exists? Actually, you made clear in your helpful reply that you do not actually claim that. The word nation in common usage clearly refers to a nation-state. Only in colloquial or poetic usage do people speak of non-political nations, such as "Nation of Islam" or "the Kurdish nation", the latter term being more poeticalk than anything else. --Steve, Sm8900 15:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Steve, are you reading the link to the word nation or not? It's pretty clear that it doesn't mean nation-state. The fact that it's wikilinked helps make that clearer to the reader. Plus the text throughout the article underlines that there is no Palestinian state.  T i a m u t  17:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, i appreciate your reply. However, sorry, but I still feel that using the word nation is still not the right usage, and does not help the article. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 18:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Improving the Egyptian article
I added it to the Arab world project, it needs to be fixed so we can clearly mention the non Arab minority in Egypt (the Copts) and the Arabized and Ethnic Arab muslims. The article is a mess now, plenty of Afrocentric and Anti-Arab trolling.--Skatewalk 04:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)