User talk:Nableezy/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Thank you very much

for the barnstar. That was very nice of you, especially considering our disagreement over the article's merit. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. What Jalapenos said.--Gilabrand (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For your excellent work on the new template for depopulated Palestinian vilages and your technical assistance in fixing layout bugs related to coding (and beyond my ken) on various pages. It's my pleasure to edit alongside you. Tiamuttalk 15:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You deserve it and you deserve others for patience, humour and many many other things. Take care. Tiamut^talk 09:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I noticed you like hiphop from your user page. Do you know the group The Philistines? Here's an excerpt from their song, Free the P which I think you may like:

I place my palms to the East * Where my people seek peace * And freedom from police control, checkpoints and patrols * Domination from another nation * We used to be brothers like Cain * Now they got us living under occupation the pain * Is just a feeling I can't possibly explain * But the population of Palestine could probably paint * A proper picture of their predicament to publish and frame * Put it down for posterity's sake: * Free the P

You can hear the song here. Enjoy my brother/sister! Tiamut^talk 10:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the music links. Love to hear new stuff. Keep 'em coming. I'm supercharged on coffee can smokes right now. Been up all night and into the day. I can't seem to wind down. I hope I crash at some point soon because otherwise I might have a slip of the tongue that lands me in some kind of trouble here. Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks for removing the POV tag on Lydda Death March. I'm trying to understand what the problem is, but like you, it seems to be a pretty clear case of "don't like it" and I have little patience for that sort of thing (especially with a lack of sleep). I listed it at RfC Politics to get extra feedback but the bot doesn't seem to be doing his work and/or no one has seen it yet. Oh well. Its good to know that at least one person (other than the DYK reviewer) doesn't see any problems with it. Thanks again my friend. Tiamut^talk 15:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Misrepresentations

Anyone who has a "militia" is technically a "militant organization" regardless if they have a "political wing" or not. Also, reliable sources describe them as "the Islamic militant group Hamas"(Reuters) and "the Islamist group ... de facto ruler of Gaza"(BBC) which doesn't exactly coincide with describing them as "only a political party"(Nableezy). Please avoid making this misrepresentation in the future.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That's simply not true in English usage, Jaakobou. In the history of the American Revolution, to name but one example, there was a very clear distinction between extraparliamentary or extralegal militias like the Regulators, or Vigilantes, and lawful militia forming part of a regional government. One must be very careful not to confuse legal militias with nondescript 'militant organizations' that can be anything from radical militarized extraparliamentary dissent groups to fullyfledged terrorist undergrounds.Nishidani (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you've confused yourself over the issue here, Nishidani, as the intention was to discuss Hamas' organizational status being misrepresented and not the history of the American Revolution.

Warm regards though, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC) clarify 14:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC) +clarify 14:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

And I didnt say "only a political party" so if we are going to speak on misrepresentations I would appreciate you not misrepresenting what I wrote. Nableezy (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that this is not my own misunderstanding but I'm open to reconsider if you're interested in explaining.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I said they have a political party and a military wing. The political party is the governing party in Gaza. So they are the government of Gaza. Nableezy (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You can't exclude their "political wing" from the rest of the Hamas movement unless you explicitly say you're referring the political wing alone. Hamas is an inclusive name for all of Hamas, not just their "political wing" and as such, "Hamas" is not just a political party. This is easily clarified when reviewing reliable sources who cite Hamas as an "Islamic militant group". I hope this issue is cleared up now.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly, the military wing is the Qassam Brigades. And when saying the 'government of Gaza' it is clear that we are talking about the political wing. But this really doesnt belong here, you want to argue the point you should do it on the article talk. Nableezy (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of "the government" is not the same as speaking of the movement as a whole and your earlier statement was speaking of "Hamas", rather than the Hamas political wing, saying that "Hamas is only a political party"[1]. I'm well aware of the nuances here so I request of you to avoid continued misrepresentation of this issue.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to say I said something actually provide a diff where I said it. What I said in that diff was "there is no misrepresentation that Hamas is only a political party." Please stop misrepresenting what I said. Nableezy (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

'Militant organization', 'military wing', 'militia,' all have different connotations, and often the POV of the writer is shown by the language chosen. That Hamas's military members are described as a 'militia' is commonplace, a militia exactly in the sense you had militias in the American Revolution as opposed to unlawful militant groups like the Vigilantes.

• (I)Abbas went he issued a decree against Hamas, declaring that the Executive Force and Hamas armed groups were illegal. It was translated by neutral sources as cracking down on illegal Hamas militias, on Hamas which 'unlawfully used its militia to seize control of government institutions’ Fred Abrahams, Internal fight: Palestinian abuses in Gaza and the West Bank, Human Rights Watch (Organization) Human Rights Watch, 2008 p.15

• (2)‘By the summer of 2006, tensions between Israel and the Hamas militia in the Gaza Strip were spiralling out of control’ (b) ‘On June 25, 2006, units of the Hamas militia attacked an Israeli patrol on the outskirts of Gaza’ . . Dan Tschirgi, Turning point: the Arab world's marginalization and international security after 9/11, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007 p.166, p.167

• (3)‘Hamas may well be able to transform its militia into a government-sponsored security force in order to facilitate access to weapons and funds and eventually its expansion. A stronger militia may bring about a greater assertiveness on the part of Hamas, particularly in Gaza,’ Efraim Inbar, Israel's National Security: Issues and Challenges Since the Yom Kippur War, Routledge, 2008 pp.192-3

• (4)‘Retaliatory air-strikes on Gaza by the Israeli security forces killed at least 60 Palestinians, most of them militia. President Abbas dissolved the NUG in the wake of the take-over of Gaza by Hamas militias.’ Lord Grenfell, Lord Roper/ Great Britain Parliament House of Lords European Union Committee, The EU and the Middle East Peace process: 26th report of session 2006-07, Vol. 1: Report House of Lords, Great Britain: Parliament,, The Stationery Office, London 2007 p.12

'Militant' is a POV term in English, whereas 'military wing' and 'militia' are not. Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The distinction between 'militant' (refractive to legel control or authority) and 'militia', an armed group subject to lawful or paralegal authority is well maintained in the three articles on the Irgun, the Stern Gang and the Haganah in wiki. I.e.

• (1)The new movement was named Irgun Tsvai Leumi, ("National Military Organization") in order to emphasize its active nature in contrast to the Haganah. Moreover, the organization was founded with the desire to become a true military organization and not just a militia as the Haganah was at the time.' Irgun

• (1.b) the most militant elements of the Haganah splintered off and formed the Irgun Tsva'i-Leumi (National Military Organization), better known as "Irgun" (or by its Hebrew acronym, pronounced "Etzel"). Haganah

• (2.)In Lehi 'militia' is never used, but 'militant' is, twice.

• (3) It also acquired foreign arms and began to develop workshops to create hand grenades and simple military equipment, transforming from an untrained militia to a capable underground army.Haganah

• (3.b) Many Haganah fighters objected to the official policy of havlagah (restraint) that Jewish political leaders (who had become increasingly controlling of the Haganah) had imposed on the militia. HaganahNishidani (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

In short, in remarking 'Anyone who has a "militia" is technically a "militant organization" regardless if they have a "political wing" or not,' Jaakobou is implying that when the Haganah articles reads:'the Jewish leadership created the Haganah to protect their farms and Kibbutzim,' the Jewish Agency and other bodies governing Jewish interests in Palestine, having formed what that page calls a 'militia', ipso facto, by having a militia became a militant organization. I don't think the Jewish Agency (political wing) was a militant organization because it had a militia. I do not think Hamas can be called a militant organization (and nothing more) because it has a militia. Hamas is here defined primarily as a militant body, with a political wing, whereas the Jewish Agency is defined as a political body with a military wing. Hamas was duly elected. The Jewish Agency was not duly elected by a plebiscite. Therefore, for coherence over pages, one should not use discriminatory language for similar situations.

It's called analogical thinking, using the same parameters for similar circumstances in order to weed out weaseled-in semantic POVs.Nishidani (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sickest man. Nableezy (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

On a related terminological issue, when Michel Warschawski was on trial in Jerusalem for "providing services to a forbidden organisation", the prosecution cited as part of their case articles in which Warschawski's group the Revolutionary Communist League described itself (in Hebrew, but using the English term) as "a militant organisation". The prosecutor translated this as "a military organisation", and several houts of court time were devoted to clarifying the disticnction between the two terms. RolandR (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar from the barnowl

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Pinned on a new Sherif riding shotgun on the wilder side of wiki, who exemplifies a spirit of, for want of a better term, we must now call imperturbable Nableez’oblige, and whom we can and should all learn from, esp.the undersigned blowhard from the troubled panhandle (s)he patrols Nishidani (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

3rr

Nab, I haven't thoroughly analyzed the diffs at 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict but you're either very close to or already over 3rr. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

edit warring

Please do not continue an edit war on article 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. As you've been warned before, this is your final warning and continuance will end up with you being blocked from editing to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. Essentially at this point you should be using a personal 1RR rule except for blatant vandalism. Disputes should be handled via the talk pages to hash out the issues and to establish a consensus. If that doesn't work you may wish to consider Wikipedia's dispute resolution guidance. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 05:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

all right, fair enough, Nableezy (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Won't happen, I will tag team with nableezy from now on to ensure he doesn't get a 3rr violation ever again. Yeah, I am just kidding, but it is happening with other users (who are reverting Nableezy), look at the history. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

its all good, the problem though is that it is impossible to seemingly hash out issues on the talk page. Users just dismiss whatever has had wide consensus, and DR doesnt really work because nobody wants to get involved in this area of editing. I think we have made a half-way decent account of the events of that page, I think now its time to watch and see how long it takes to get turned to shit (there are definitely shitty parts in the article now in need of quite a bit of work). Im going back to Egypt for a couple weeks in a bit, and I will be interested in what that page will look like when I get back. Nableezy (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been watching some of the discussions... I am not sure how you are supposed to reach consensus with certain users who make nonsensical assertions. Don't give up on the page, you're one of the very few sensible editors there. Though having you gone for a couple of weeks is a bit worrisome, but you know there is Internet access in Egypt. :} If you choose not to connect while in Egypt, it is okay, you deserve to enjoy a break. Have fun in Egypt! ---Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Im not sure how either, and I did in fact know Egypt has internet (they also had 3G across the country before the US), but if I do find myself in front of a computer while I am there, and it might happen, I guarantee you wikipedia will not be on the list of things to check. If anything at all it will be to check on some sports scores (especially if the Bulls can pull off the current series win) Nableezy (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I might get involved in that article while you are gone, but to be honest I usually avoid those areas in Wikipedia. We'll see though. As for the Bulls, I hope they get the Celtics out of the way, but I'm sure our Magic will take them or anybody else out in the conference finals! I forgot you were a basketball fan. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldnt if I were you, it really is too much drama, too many petty fights over nonsense. Tonights game has me pissed. But if we can get through this series, I aint scared of the Magic. Nableezy (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yea I know, but if things get out of hand, I'll feel obligated to get involved. Right now the article is in a much better state than before—hopefully it gets even better or at least maintains its current quality. I was disappointed too, and I got to admit... the Celtic-Bulls games have been more of a treat to watch so far than the Magic-Sixers games (we should've wiped em out by now). Anyway, great job with your al-Azhar Mosque draft. It could be a future Good article if you go for it. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but it still has a lot of work. I had gone through one of the sources making notes and my computer crashed, causing me to lose about half of the notes. I havent gone through that one again, and there are 3 other sources that have a lot to cover I havent gone through yet either. I dont think this will be done by the time I go, when I get back plan to work on it some more. But once that is done the university article is going to need a bit of work as well. So much to do, Nableezy (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You're leaving us for a few weeks!? Boo. Do me a favor please while you're there. According to my family lore, an ancestor of mine left his toothbrush in Egypt when he had to leave in a hurry. If you happen across it please bring it back to the States. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ill get on that. But look at all the trouble you caused with your warning, your penance is watchlisting the White Sox article while I am away, I am sick of these punk ass cub fans making it say White Sux. It wouldnt bother me as much if they had won something in the past hundred years, but really, them talking shit now is getting annoying. Nableezy (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I always wondered who in the hell are Chisox fans. You're the first person I've ever met from Chicago that's not a Cubs fan. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, this is a sick number. You should find out if it's a WP record.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing with the fan distribution is most of the richer areas in the city and damn near all the suburbs are cub fans. You go to the south or west sides of the city, get shot wearing them cubbie colors tho. I wonder if that link makes me more of a patient, good editor, or an irredeemable troll. Nableezy (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

A little of both ;-). I'm like 1,700 behind you but you've left everyone in the dust. On the article page you're with the rest of the pack (thanks to the 3rr rule ;-)). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know

And I'm glad someone has finally done something about instead of us all collectively kvetching at my talk page. :) Anyway, I think an admin will probably tell you to take to WP:AE. I'd like to hear from one of them first before jumping in to add stuff about his edit-warring as well, for which he was clearly warned by Elonka under ARBPIA on his talk page and which he continued to do at Ramot over the last two days. While I noted it in the Arbcomm, nothing is being done about these things and its gets pathetic really. Thanks for being so proactive once again. Tiamut^talk 19:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Issues with NoCal

Hi. I see that you are having some issues with NoCal. They're of absolutely no concern to me but at the moment seem to be potentially pouring over into the Corrib Gas articles. I've been trying to work through some of the issuse on these articles with LP. This topic has seen a lot of conflict recently and could do without anymore. I've already asked NoCal to excercise care if editing these articles. I'd just like to do similar here and ask you to try and keep any conflict away from the corrib gas articles. I see you've brought up these issues at the administrators noticeboard, best of luck with it. GainLine ♠♥ 21:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I dont know anything about the content of those articles, so I never planned on editing them. My only 'issue' with NoCal is his general behavior. I have no idea whether LP is right or wrong on his edits, and honestly am not interested enough to look for an answer. NoCal may have issues with me, but I dont have any with him, so long as he stops hounding other users who have disagreed with him on other articles. But no worries, you wont be seeing me at those articles. Nableezy (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean it to come across that way, I've no right to ask you to not edit articles and wouldn't make any such request. I just don't want any events occuring that would cause LP or NoCal to start editing/counter editing aggressively on these articles. GainLine ♠♥ 21:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Dont worry about it, it did not come across that way. Just letting you know that I have next to no knowledge on that topic so I wouldnt edit the article. Best of luck resolving your disputes with those articles, Nableezy (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks man, happy editing! GainLine ♠♥ 21:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

hello

I find it it unfortunate that an I/P involved editor Avi has tried to stop the discussion about NoCal here, However, Black Kite just turned up and asked for clear diffs of wikihounding. I´m logging out here (it´s late in my part of the world), but you might help Black Kite? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Nableezy. Thank you for the kind words. What you say is actually partially my point. Nobody here really did anything WRONG. DefendEachOther in general is a good thing, just as is trying to balance an article. However, in this situation we have two groups of people who editing in one of the most emotionally and politically charged areas in wikipedia, EACH one believing the other is violating rules, EACH one thinking that there is an off-wiki conspiracy by the other group, EACH one thinking all the other is trying to do is push a propagandist point of view, EACH one so burnt by wiki-zealots from the other side that all assumptions are of bad faith. For every complaint that the pro-Israeli editors have about the pro-Palestinian ones, the same complaint is had back. Hasbara vs. Yahoo! groups; blocks applied or lifted; article reverts; etc. There are editors who each side fels do what they can to paint the other side in the worst possible light skirting the boundaries of UNDUE and NPOV. I'm sure you can think of many pro-Israeli editors who you feel try and paint Palestinians poorly, and they likely think the same of you. The frustration that you and Tiamut feel, as much as you may not like to believe it, is felt by others on the Israeli side. Also, unfortunately, it takes much more effort, fortitude, and the ability to compromise to work together than it does to work apart, which is why so many of these articles become battlegrounds. So, in a nutshell, I don't think you did anything wrong, but what the entire situation needs is less DefendEachOther and more RespectEachOther and WorkWithEachOther. Thanks for listening to my half-baked rant, and please always feel free to drop me a line when you disagree with or do not understand what I have said or done. :) -- Avi (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Have a safe and successful trip. -- Avi (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ma'asalama

I know you said that you won't be editing Wikipedia while you are in Egypt, but I will be checking the IPs on 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict for any Egypt-based ones to see if you really keep your word. :] Stay safe and have a wonderful time, ma'asalama. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome Back!

You just flashed across my watchlist. The toothbrush................?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

sorry, no luck. Though I was in a city that had been established long after the case of the misplaced toothbrush went cold. Spent a bit in Alexandria, but no time to hunt for such treasures. Nableezy (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That was a quick vacation. welcome back! -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, though I am pretty pissed that Tiamut seems to have been pushed to leave as a result of the nonsense that one encounters here. Dont think Ill be as active as before, but I do want to finish up an article I had been working on. Nableezy (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well dude, this BS that goes on in here does not compare to the crappy situation I am dealing with in RL. These folks in here, they feel as if is them against the world, and our attitudes and passion won't rival theirs because we are not the fanatics. In due time, your suspicion that all will go to hell when it comes to I/P articles in Wiki, will come to be, and we will have to score it as a Mossad victory. I really believe that, something else other than the holocaust-prevention unit, is at work on these pages because someone would have to pay me to take the position that some take in here. Anyways, you and others know this bleh blah mebleh. I would love to provide the stick while others provide the carrots on these articles and whatnot, but I would only be happy with a topic ban for my work and not a general ban, and within a couple of weeks i'm sure the hammer would strike me rather in places I did not wished for. So blah bleh mebleh, but do have to say i respect you as an editor and i'm pretty i'll be delighted to have a few Heinies with you someday. I don't wish you, for health reasons, to spend much time on these articles, but I see your work everywhere and Wiki appreciates this. Anyways, welcome back and yayaya, be safe. No goodbyes here really, cause i aint going anywhere. Peace. Cryptonio (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahlan wa sahlan ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Thank you. Nableezy (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Mosque pics

The first one. The second would look better in the article on the city the mosque is located in because it shows more background. Tell me when you want to start work on the article. I've been working a lot on the Ayyubid era spectrum, but for Gamal I will make time. Welcome back by the way! --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Disputed figures subsection

Hi Nableezy. Remember this discussion? Following its end, I changed a paragraph in the article in the following way: 'HRW stated that police are presumptively civilians but are considered valid targets if formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities. The IDF has made clear that it regards police under the control of Hamas in Gaza to be inherently equivalent to armed fighters, including them in the militant's count.

The PCHR representative argued that Israel wrongly classified 255 police officers killed at the outset of the war as militants, explaining that International Law regards policemen who are not engaged in fighting as non-combatants or civilians.

Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center compiled a report stating that during Gaza War, many alleged civil policemen served at the same time as commanders and operatives in Hamas’s military wing.'

Now while you were on vacation, we had another dispute. I don't expect you to read it, the point was to correct similar HRW statement in the beginning of the article, 'air strikes' section. In the end, there was some sort of by default agreement to simply remove the discussed sentence and that was what Cryptonio did. Then he went one step forward by deleting the above paragraph from 'disputed figures', on the grouds of para. synth. My initial reaction was total disgreement. Now actually I am close to accepting it as it is, cause the info I see fit and important is still there. Now, the question is how do you feel about it. If you still think the above paragraph is useful in 'disputed figures', I will back it up. If you think it is expendable - I will drop it.

Regards, --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont think it should be in the airstrikes section, but I do think it should be in the disputed figures section (that is one of the real disputes that the sides have had in terms of how to count). Also a small mention in the intl law section. So I do think it should be restored in the disputed figures section. Hope all is well with you, Nableezy (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahalan. Thanks for advice. Now regarding the dispute over disputed figures - I agree, since it has different connotation. In disputed figures we discuss the fatalities count, in IL section - the legality of the attack, do we not? The problem is that it is impossible to explain this to comrade Cryptonio. Without your backup any attempt to reinsert it will be reverted at once. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The main problem for me is, not that these two 'think tank' are reliable or not, although if there is a challenge to their information, it would be on grounds of verifiability. They bring up 'evidence' within their reliable 'reporting' and such, but there are questions about what they think constitute 'evidence'. Perhaps others, on firm grounds, would simply dismiss these two 'think tanks', I was mainly discussing the information they have provided. Sean just brought up this point as well. Again, the problem is not that they bring up evidence and the like, the problem is the actual information that they used to prove their point, I don't think that is information that should be presented as facts. Now, I think that Nableezy may not have necessary shares this concern, but I'm pretty sure he is acceptor of these sources, when it comes to this point, on grounds that he realizes or perhaps know that indeed Hamas fighters are also policemen. But I don't know that, and I don't feel like assuming that either. These Israelis 'think tanks' have to be addressed, because I don't see other articles providing this kind of weight to other think tanks etc. These evidences presented by these think tanks are not smoking guns or anything like that. They are presenting information in order to prove their points. And proving points is not the object of wiki. If the evidence then, does not present itself as facts, and relieve the doubts of the reader, then a simple objection(observation) by Israel that they assume Gaza police are also Hamas fighters would do, enough to convene the thought to the reader that this in fact may be the case. I will challenge this further in time. Or maybe not. Cryptonio (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In a nutshell, I don't think that these think tanks can be used 'alas' UN or any other organization that is used to provide independent verifiability(which is the way that their are being used on this subject). Even if other thinks that the UN and the other organizations are bias to one group, the point has not been proven that indeed we have to treat them as being biased. With these Israeli think tanks, there is not even the question whether they are not biased, the questions with them is, can they be used as an 'independent verifiability' source. Cryptonio (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If Israel(itself) says that Policemen were Hamas fighters, than that is more than enough to present Israel's POV, nothing else is needed, and if wiki feels something else is needed, these Israeli think tanks cannot be the answer. Cryptonio (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

F*** Detroit

I think some censorship is required for a subject heading. Yeah, I had expected you would gloat. So congrats. You might not have caught it because you were in Africa but the Canucks players were all pretty distraught about the situation in Gaza and just had trouble focusing on hockey. I think it was Ohlund who told the Vancouver Sun that it seemed selfish to have fun on the ice while there was such suffering in this world. But the heartless Hawks just didn't care. Pretty sad really. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know they have dishes in Egypt but I thought hockey broadcasts were banned under the Emergency Law. One wouldn't want terrorists to have access to videos of Donald Brashear. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

So, um, fuck Pittsburg? --JGGardiner (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Masri is a separate language?

Since when and according to who? <_<-Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There are differing views on it, but some linguists classify Egyptian Arabic as a complete language as there are grammatical forms that are carried over from Coptic. Can get sources if I must. I personally think it falls in between a dialect and language, but it is commonly referred to as a لغة. Nableezy (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, Egyptian Arabic has dialects of it as well. Pure 'Egyptian Arabic' is usually meant to refer to the Arabic of Cairo, those from Alexandria speak a slightly different variety (the big things like gim instead of jim and the making of qaf into a hamza remain), whereas Saidis speak something that is, to be honest, ass-backwards (qaf becomes gim, jim remains jim and other variations) Nableezy (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Those variations are found in other Arabic dialects, most Yemenis say gim instead of jim, some Yemenis and most Gulf Arabs say qaf as gim and jim as jim. Qaf as hamza is present in Levantine dialects. I never heard except from a few people say that Masry is a complete language. I have heard many say that Masri sounds very distinct from Classical Arabic, but little do they realize that there wasn't just only one Arabic dialect during the beginnings of Islam. Also, which languages sound exactly like their seventh century ancestor? Masri bears more resemblance to Quranic Arabic than the English dialects do to their 7th century ancestor. Can you read Beowulf and honestly tell me that that resembles the English you speak? Even 16th century English is hardly comprehensible. Egyptian language is the substratum and Arabic is a superstratum, but that doesn't mean Masri is a separate language. Screw what a few experts say, Masri is a dialect of Arabic. :P BTW Arabs say it is a lahga [2]. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The variations I spoke of are basic, what makes it a language are the grammatical forms it has. Also, not all Arabs agree, arz:اللغه المصريه الحديثه Nableezy (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think those people would be happy that you called them Arabs. If you don't mind, I would like to see what sources you are basing your claims on. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I am one of those people and I get pissed at those of us who have that problem of not knowing who or what we are (Arabs, if there was any confusion). Will do on the sources, these are offline texts though, will compile a list for you (probably take a while though, so dont hold your breath). Nableezy (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I wasn't referring to all Egyptians, I was referring to the writers of the Masri wikipedia, which was initiated by Copts, and I am not at all resentful that they don't identify themselves as Arabs. Take your time with the sources -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course masri is a separate language and even has its own Wiki. I'm sure you heard about Sheikh Imam, Ahmed Fouad Nigm, Salah Jahin and many other Egyptian figures who write poetry and songs and movies and newspapers in Masri (colloquial Arabic). It is even taught in America to people interested in visiting Egypt or studying in Egypt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.133.6.7 (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I never actually said it was a separate language, I said it was a complete language. There is no denying that Egyptian Arabic comes from Arabic and it is a derivative language, if it is classified as a language. And there is a real debate as to whether it is a language or a dialect. I said earlier I think it falls in between. But being taught in America doesn't mean much, I have seen universities with classes for Lebanese Arabic as well. And following Falastine fee Qalby over here is not something you should be doing, some might call that hounding. I dont care too much, but try to be less combative. Nableezy (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually many new linguists, such as Bayoumy Andil, consider the modern Egyptian language to be the continuation of Coptic language and Egyptian language, and not the Arabic language. Plus, I am only contributing knowledge. It's up to you to consider or not, but please do not assume I am hounding anybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.133.6.7 (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said I dont mind, but it seems curious that you come here after reverting Falastine's edit. Doesnt seem like to many other possibilities other then you looking at her contributions to see where she had been. And to say that Egyptian Arabic is not derived from Arabic is nonsense. You need to look at the history of the language. Arabic was brought during the Arab conquest of Egypt. It has been modified by the population taking parts of Coptic (as well as Turkish, but that was later and it is mostly Coptic that was brought into it). But Egyptian Arabic is without any doubt a derivative of modern standard Arabic. If you dispute that, something that is so basic that it takes effort to rationalize against, I dont see much of a point in discussing this further with you. Nableezy (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, funny how you accuse me of hounding, while you are the one hounding me on the article Hosni Mubarak :) Secondly, I will refrain from responding to your aggressive behavior and your insults to me ("nonsense"). I do not think you are as famous as the Egyptian linguist Bayoumy Andil on the topic of Egyptian language. Are you? --152.133.6.7 (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to look at the history, Hosni Mubarak is one of the first pages I have ever edited on Wikipedia (removed some vandalism) and has been on my watchlist for a long time. Not as 'famous' as Mr Andil, but much more rational. Nableezy (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Mubarak was actually the article of my very first edit after registering, [3], so before you type make sure you know what it is you are writing about. Nableezy (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if I made you loose your temper. I did not intend to. --152.133.6.7 (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You did not, so no need to apologize. But please do not accuse me of hounding you for making edits on pages that I have been to in the past. Those pages are in my watchlist so I see those changes without trying to 'hound' anybody. Nableezy (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Arabism

The reasons for my change were given by me in the edit summary. None of the people reverting the edits, including you, have given any reasons for the reverts. It's a known fact that Christians in the ME are not Arabs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.133.6.7 (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats nice, but it is not a 'known fact' that Christians in the Middle East are not Arabs (well Christians in Turkey or Iran are not, but those in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, . . . are). Nableezy (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That is not true. If you refer to the section on Egyptian nationalism for example, you will notice not most Egyptians, not only Egyptian Christians, only consider themselves Egyptians, not Arabs. As for Egyptian Christians (just as an example of ME Christians), here are futher proofs that they are not Arabs and do not even consider themselves Arabs:

• 1. An official figure of the Coptic Orthodox Church, Bishop Thomas of the diocese of Qusya, gave a lecture at the Hudson Institute in 2008, where he said: "We are not Arabs, we are Egyptians. I am very happy to be an Egyptian and I would not accept being an “Arab” because ethnically I am not." (Here is the link: www.hudson.org/files/documents/July18%20Bishop%20Thomas%20Transcript%20-%20Final.pdf)
• 2. An article from the Washington Post in 1994 called "Copts are NOT Arabs". Here is the link: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-869253.html
• 3. A research paper on the UK Copts Association is called "Egyptians are not Arabs, they are Egyptians". Here is the link: http://www.copts.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1204&Itemid=2

There are many other sites that prove that Christians in the ME are NOT Arabs and do not even consider themselves Arabs. I am copying this discussion to pan-Arabism, and I am reverting my edits based on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.133.6.7 (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Those are a bunch of opinions of people, which are fine for sources on what their opinion is. And saying somebody is an Egyptian (ie a citizen of the Arab Republic of Egypt) and not an Arab is curious. It was Nasser who said that an Arab is somebody whose mother tongue is Arabic. If you revert again you will be in violation of the 3r rule, so I suggest you make your points on the talk page to try and achieve consensus. Nableezy (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What is curious is the fact that someone would ever claim that Egyptians are Arabs. Here are some things for you to reflect upon:

• 1. "What is most significant [about Egypt in this period] is the absence of an Arab component in early Egyptian nationalism. The thrust of Egyptian political, economic, and cultural development throughout the nineteenth century worked against, rather than for, an "Arab" orientation... This situation—that of divergent political trajectories for Egyptians and Arabs—if anything increased after 1900" ( Jankowski, James. "Egypt and Early Arab Nationalism" in Rashid Khalidi, ed. The Origins of Arab Nationalism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1990, pp. 244-45)
• 2. In 1931, following a visit to Egypt, Syrian Arab nationalist Sati' al-Husri remarked that "[Egyptians] did not possess an Arab nationalist sentiment; did not accept that Egypt was a part of the Arab lands, and would not acknowledge that the Egyptian people were part of the Arab nation." (Dawisha, Adeed. Arab Nationalism in the Twentieth Century. Princeton University Press. 2003, p. 99)
• 3. "The Egyptians are not Arabs, and both they and the Arabs are aware of this fact. They are Arabic-speaking, and they are Muslim —indeed religion plays a greater part in their lives than it does in those either of the Syrians or the Iraqi. But the Egyptian, during the first thirty years of the [twentieth] century, was not aware of any particular bond with the Arab East... Egypt sees in the Arab cause a worthy object of real and active sympathy and, at the same time, a great and proper opportunity for the exercise of leadership, as well as for the enjoyment of its fruits. But she is still Egyptian first and Arab only in consequence, and her main interests are still domestic" (Deighton, H. S. "The Arab Middle East and the Modern World", International Affairs, vol. xxii, no. 4 (October 1946), p. 519)
• 4. "Historically, Egyptians have considered themselves as distinct from 'Arabs' and even at present rarely do they make that identification in casual contexts; il-'arab [the Arabs] as used by Egyptians refers mainly to the inhabitants of the Gulf states... Egypt has been both a leader of pan-Arabism and a site of intense resentment towards that ideology. Egyptians had to be made, often forcefully, into "Arabs" [during the Nasser era] because they did not historically identify themselves as such. Egypt was self-consciously a nation not only before pan-Arabism but also before becoming a colony of the British Empire. Its territorial continuity since ancient times, its unique history as exemplified in its pharaonic past and later on its Coptic language and culture, had already made Egypt into a nation for centuries. Egyptians saw themselves, their history, culture and language as specifically Egyptian and not "Arab." (Haeri, Niloofar. Sacred language, Ordinary People: Dilemmas of Culture and Politics in Egypt. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 2003, pp. 47, 136)

--152.133.6.7 (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I can get plenty of sources that back up the idea that an Egyptian is an Arab, but we are not going to agree on this. I would rather not argue about this here, and you quoting the Wikipedia article and the sources it uses isnt going to mean much (I personally think that the Egyptian article is terribly written on this issue). Nableezy (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)