User talk:Jaakobou/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Talk:2007–2008_Israel–Gaza_conflict#2008_Israel.E2.80.93Gaza_conflict_merge

It would seem to me that this is a snowball merge (the oppose was irrelevant and confused the articles, understandably so). Should I move ahead with the merge? I want to really fix this stuff, as you can see I am not very concerned with the debates of content but more about ledes, structure, WP:SUMMARY/WP:POVFORK, for me having the information neutrally presented in an well-structured, encyclopedic narrative is more important than gathering information, at this point. The older events (up to the first intifadah and probably Operation Grapes of Wrath) are relatively well done (some issues with titles etc but I can ignore it for now), but anything since 2002 or so is very disorganized (there is actually a general POVFORK on "Second Intifadah" that is ridiculous (don't get me started on the template), some articles are exactlly the same except one has one side's perspective and the other has the other side's - POVFORK Classic Edition) I percieve you have the same idea, so I would like to work with you to that end. Am I wrong?--Cerejota (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

My time is a tad limited these days but I would love to collaborate as much as possible. Maybe you should set up a temporary user space page for making the merger so that every content that gets removed/done can be pasted on the talk page and available for discussion if necessary so no one's past efforts get oblitherated without a second opinion. I'll try and follow the progress as much as possible... if you have other ideas on how to do this, I'm open to that as well - more than anything, this needs to be done. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Warning

You've edited the Lead significantly without discussing it on the LEAD talk page. I've reverted your edits, and opened a topic about them in the talk page. Please discuss first --Darwish07 (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been discussing the issue for a couple days now and have made a full explanation alongside another few editors to why the current phrasing is POV driven. Clearly there is no wide range consensus amoung editors not named 'Nishidani', 'Tiamut' (from East Jerusalem]]), 'Nablisi' (from Nablus) and Darwish to include a controveral allegatory title and either we put it in ful context in the lead or leave the full context for the body of the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Saying "aiming for self destruction" is not such a context and you know that well. There's nothing can be defined as "context" when you mention things like war names. Names are names on their own, with no context. --Darwish07 (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Jaakabou in your comments above you have implied ethnic references regarding the usernames of editors you disagree with, that is not acceptable. You have been cited and disciplined in the past for your behavior on pages related to Israel. Suggest you consider where your current disruptive editing on the lead of the 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict article might lead. RomaC (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Only thing that is disruptive is the "it's just a name" game being played. This is clearly against the purpose of Wikipedia and will not last long term. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I would like to request you to be a bit more constructive with your edits. As other editors here have mentioned, your last edito to the Israel-Gaza conflict page violated talk page consensus. Moreover, it was sourced using Youtube and a fairly unreliable extreme right wing site. I understand that you disagree with other editors on this issue, but surely disruptive editing of this kind will not achieve anything? best, Jacob2718 (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Jacob,

You got it wrong as there is no clear consensus for the "Massacre" phrasing and as such, there is a lot of room to move it to the talk page for discussion and moving it into the article when there is not even a semblance of consensus is disruptive on its own. Also, it is worth noting that amoung the sources was the BBC as well as the IDF website, which are considered wiki-reliable, certainly when the content is nothing controversial and has been reported on every single news outlet I've been watching the past two weeks, which includes 3 Israeli channels, BBC, Sky News, CNN, France 24 News, and Al-Jazeera. I'd urge any reasonable experianced wiki editor to review the WP:TE issue on the first paragraph of that article as well as the "lead" talk page, on which I've participated.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages

Please don't remove non-vandalism edits to discussion pages, however hyperbolic they may be. Thanks. yandman 15:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Would have been better for the discourse if these personal attacks would have been removed as the actual content issue could have been addressed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Michelangelo's grave

I just found your cleanups of that pic and your request for input. No.5 (not your work) is much too bright. The colour in No.4 is just a little too intense in the reds for a natural fresco colour, and elswhere, the contrast is also just a bit too intense. No. 3 strikes a pretty good balance between both the crop and the colouring.

Enhancement of pics of old artworks is often quite problematic, unless you are very familiar with the original. The ghastliest colour adjustments are the ones that people do using an automatic function on their windows program. Aaaaargh!

I have such happy memories of trailing around Florence, introducing people to all these wonderful things.

Amandajm (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Steward Elections, 2009

Please link from your meta userpage to your enwiki userpage, and vice versa, or your vote will be removed. Thanks! Prodego ^talk 00:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't need to do it because I have an SUL account WP:SUL. You will need to to prove you are the same as user Jaakobou on meta. Link to meta with the format [[m:User:Jaakobou]], and to enwiki with [[en:User:Jaakobou]] Prodego ^talk 02:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Avigdor Lieberman

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Avigdor Lieberman. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

JCDenton, welcoming regular editors to Wikipedia with a template is patronising. There is an essay about it, WP:DTTR. Further, why should the article lead list all the ways in which Lieberman's place on the spectrum has been described? Frankly, I agree that its unnecessary and confusing. Avruch^T 14:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin

Hi. I've reverted this edit of yours. I'd appreciate it if you could explain why you believe the sources are "confused". Cheers, Nudve (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Your note

The ban was logged Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, So i assumed the complaint about it being violated should go on the associated talk page. Where do you think it should go? NoCal100 (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Message recieved

I'll take a look Toddst1 (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:RfArb regarding West Bank vs. Judea and Samaria

I have started a Request for Arbitration regarding the use of northern/southern West Bank vs. Judea and Samaria. Since you have been involved in this debate, I have included you in the request.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 25.02.2009 09:33

Hi, this RFAR comes as a surprise to me. Would like to discuss it with you. Durova^Charge! 16:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Harun al-Rashid

I just noted you reply to me on Meteormaker's page. Sorry for the delay. I have never understood why the source you cited blames Harun al-Rashid for the yellow markings. The marking of Jewish clothes with a colour or badge in medieval Europe came from the copying by the Lateran Council (1215) of the decree by Caliph Omar, restorer of the Jews to Jerusalem, who imposed on Christians the duty to wear a blue belt, and on Jews to wear yellow ones. The Nazi decree was in turn taken from Christian canon law. I don't know in turn where Omar got this from, but any reader of Procopius will recognize that the marking of factions in Byzantine by blue or green was customary. These factions are thought to have influenced in turn the futuwwa groupings in Islamic society, though this is an open question. The Byzantine custom from the influence of Rome where partisans of chariot races in the hippodrome identified themselves with four colours, red, white, blue and green. Why 'yellow' was chosen for the Jews is not clear to me, since its connotation as a marker for heresy appears only much later. 'Green' was a marker for Islam. Perhaps you could look into this further.Nishidani (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I already know the origins of the anti-Jeudo-Christian decrees in Arabo-Islamic history (don't forget the added value of forced wearing of wooden shoe horns as well as bells and all the other decrees). I suggest a review on the grand-patriarch culture in the Arabian peninsula and it's usage of religion for political purpose and material gains outside Arabia. The story about Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr and Abd al-Malik, the Umayyad Calif is quite interesting as well as it's quite difficult to keep ranks when only one patriarch is allowed and certainly high-ranking people have an inclination to break ranks. Well, the best stories are not very well known because you only get the version the local patriarch allowed to prevail rather than a true-to-history version... heck, even the Jews of Mashhad blamed themselves through superstition for the Allahdad incident even though it were a result of a random blood libel. Btw, did you get around to watching that documentary I noted to you? Jewish history under Arab occupation is one of the least told stories in history and it's got some interesting side effects in today's Israeli culture as well. Pseudo-religious charms and saints (aka 'mekubalim') are idolized to the point of appearing in dream sequences and asking the faithful (read: indoctrinated and feeble minded) to make a political action based on said rank-bullshit. Anyways, let me know what you think of the documentary and if there's anything new there for you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not anti-Jewish/Christian decrees, and you ignore the extraordinary richness and complexity of Judaeo-Islamic interactions. To an outside observer both Judaism and Islam have more in common that either have with Christianity, and traditionally both were more tolerant of each other than Christianity was with either. As to magic, charms, dreams, your position represents a rather strict reading of Deuteronomy ch.18, but this is a point where Semitic culture has a common denominator: the Bible is full of figures like the nabi, hartummim, m'nahel, hozeh, ro'eh, hober haber with magical functions like divining the meaning of dreams. Folk Judaism, like most folk religion, is extremely rich in magical beliefs, faith in charms, and in charismatic figures like the rabbi. Does not Jacob Neusner tell us that 'charms and amulets were part of the setting of rabbinic Talmudism'? There are two games one can play, or be played by: spot the differences/ spot the similarities. The most intense form of the former occurs where, as anthropology teaches us, the similarities are very strong, and threaten one's independence of identity. Enmity, as the bible narratives of Cain and Abel/Esau and Jacob tell us, is more intense the closer the family affinities and resemblances. I don't watch documentaries: an hour to get the informational content of two tightly argued pages in a good book. But I am old, and stingy with my time.Nishidani (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well...

I'd be interested in how you would describe a decree that Jews must wear dunce caps and bells as "Not anti-Jewish/Christian decrees". As for the tolerance issue, you really only know what you've been exposed to so it's a shame that you're unwilling to re-explore your assumptions based on completely new information that you were previously unaware of. If you insist on books rather than the documentary -- where personal testimonies of Jews who lived amoung the Arabs and were ethnically cleansed from their 1000 year old communities are given -- then you can find a nice list to get you started with here at The American Sephardi Federation. Here's contact info for librerians there that could help guide you with proper materials. I still recommend the doco.
As for the charms issue, you must divide between Arabian peninsula inspired Judaism and culture and the European Jewish cultures. Here in israel, the basic denominations are 'Sefardim/Mizrachim' and 'Ashkenazim' but certainly, its much more complex than we can cover and it would be best if you just trust me when I give you information rather than argue with me with material based on some random website you've went over.

Warm pizza, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Name the decree, and where, and I will examine it. In my reading I have never come across mention of whole populations of Jews in Arab countries wearing dunce caps and bells. Anti- means 'hostile to'. Islamic law, as opposed to the mad decisions of upstart tinpot tyrants, accorded the Jews and Christians special status, and they were protected by law. 'Anti-Jewish' legislation usually means legislation that deprives Jews of the normal protections of law. As to 'ethnic cleansing', this never occurred between the two until 1948, when ethnic cleansing began in Palestine/then Israel. I'm quite familiar with Jewish magic, having read Joshua Trachtenberg's book on it (1939), and it was common among Ashkenazi and the Sephardim, though each community, of the many dozens, had its own beliefs, not unremarkably, since most religions have this feature. I don't read normally websites, for your information, except to read through a dozen newspapers early in the morning, or to download books. My information on magic in the bible comes from several such books. It was thoroughly explored in the 19th.century by scholars like Robertson Smith Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani,

Its getting real boring real fast when you repeat bogus claims with such tenacity. Your personal interpretation of "protected by law" is not the same as the one applied to the Jewish residents of Arab land. Also, ethnic cleansings were a norm long before the Balfour declartion or even the first Aliya of the 1880s. Please stop acting like you've been exposed to this part of history if you have not been - it only makes for a profoundly retarded level of discourse, or should I say, soliloquies. For example, in 1679 the Jews of Yemen were cast out to the Tihamah desert by the Imam "al-Mahdi" Ahmad I bin al-Hassan. The plauges and the heat (which reaches 50 deg Celsios) and the wild animals and sand storms wiped out 75% of the population before they were allowed back to the area they once lived in. They're property was taken without any returns. Amoung other activities, all the Jewish temples were closed down or destroyed during this genocide. As such, I respectfully request that you do not repeat again the propaganda that 'ethnic cleansing' only occurred from 1948 and forward or that Jews were "protected". As for bells related decrees, you can look them up here: Roumani, Maurice M. (Summer 2003). ""The Silent Refugees: Jews from Arab Countries"". Mediterranean Quarterly (Duke University Press) Volume 14 (Number 3): pp. 41–77. doi:10.1215/10474552-14-3-41 , and here's a note about some other clothing "protection" rules - In 1121, A letter from Baghdad describes decrees regulating Jewish clothes: "two yellow badges, one on the headgear and one on the neck. Furthermore, each Jew must hang round his neck a piece of lead with the word dhimmi on it. He also has to wear a belt round his waist. The women have to wear one red and one black shoe and have a small bell on their necks or shoes." (Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (1987), p.204).

I hope these are enough to make you stop spreading bogus slogans, it's quite offensive actually when you do that. It's borderline offensive as sayinjg that Jews had it good under German rule and to give Albert Einstein as example.

Warm regadrs, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I was trying to be helpful on a specific point that interests you, and on which months ago you asked me for input. And get dragged into what Salo Baron, one of the great historians of the last century, called the 'lachrymose view of Jewish history'. I know Irishman like that, always grieving at the genocide and injustice. I won't bore you with my own ancestors' history, several centuries of persecution. The Johnson quote from the genizah document should be pp.204f., and it is not a letter from Baghdad but a genizah document referring to a decree in Baghdad (I referred above to tinpot tyrants, thinking of people like al-Hakim). Johnson continues: 'the treatment of the Jews under Islam varied, from place to place and from time to time, it was always bad under Byzantine rule. .. As in Islam, the powers-that-be always favoured Jews, other things being equal'. I won't reply to your quaint hyperinflation of adjectival invective. Sorry my attempt to clarify a point you asked for help on only bored you. I won't do it again, though it would be easier if you did not ask me for information, and tempt me into helping out further Nishidani (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I figured we were both checking information as well as compliment it with further background. Certainly, when you make errorneous claims based on lack of information, or should I say misinformation, it is my place to give samples to the contrary (such as the Tihamah Ethnic cleansing, which I assume you were not aware of). It's quite easy to assert blame at crack-pot individuals, but it actually means that you don't respect the culture and people you're talking about. Such leaders are a mirror image of the society they rule over and certainly, non of the Arabs who stole the Jewish property in Sana'a ever thought of giving anything back. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I made no erroneous claims, but countered by responding to what seems to me a tone of harping on Arab malefaction. You cherrypick history, and one can do the same, with opposed assumptions, and create a fiction of total harmony. History is complex, not the simplistic grievance-thronged caricature you make it out to be.

Ethnic cleansing hits history with the Tanakh, with the purging of Canaan of its native inhabitants. All scions of that tradition, Jewish, Christian and Islamic, are heir to the idea therein that 'the Other' can be got rid of or dispossessed under divine sanction. You step on dangerous ground in saying crackpots mirror the society they rule. Hence all Russians have a Stalinist heart, all Cambodians are like Pol Pot, that Hitler mirrors Germans, al-Hakim the Arabs whom he ruled and murdered, or that, in a minor key, Ariel Sharon 'mirrors' such people as Tom Segev or Baruch Kimmerling, and a million other Israelis?Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The Tanakh based flash arguement about the history of the Hebrews --

which is far more complex than a single conquest would suggest -- is irrelevant and improper. The real issue is that you've decided that a plethora of Arab rulers are all singular crackpots and that the deeds performed by their people can bare no accountability. It would seem, to an outsider, that you don't respect the culture and people you're talking about and that, in your eyes, they are mindless barbarians. Instead, you should use the Library I noted you to and explore into the so-called "singular" events that you |so quickly dismiss. Just a day ago you said that it is impossible that antisemitism had middle-eastern origins.. then you find it impossible to believe that Jews were forced to wear bells, and shoe-horns, and dunce caps (at differnt locations and years) as well or any of the multitude of anti-Jewish decrees in the Islamic world and an impressive number of genocides and ethnic cleansings as well. These events and decrees were not 5000 years ago and not 50 years ago... they happened before the Zionist so-called "occupation" and throughout the past 1400 years of Arab occupation and expantionism. The treatment of the Jewish people was similar to mafia style "protection" and application of "protection law" was usually politically motivated and quite dependant of the street mood. If you want to validate your (mis)beliefs, it would only be proper to educate yourself about these historical events and study the structue of the society and it's code of conduct not only from those who embellish it and censor historical events but from those who were disenfranchised, humiliated and tortured, banished and disinheritanced. Use that contact info I gave you rather than insist on the sinularity of said ethnic cleansings and genocide.

p.s. to place Ariel Sharon right after Hitler and al-Hakim seems like a "brilliant" move on your part, the kind that gets you the superlatives you don't appreciate on recieving. I would suggest that a strike-through would be the best way to follow up that error.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a small point. It's, when not an abbreviation of 'it is', should be written 'its'. We're talking past each other, so let's drop it.Nishidani (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

RFAR

Jaakobou, suggesting you self-revert here. If someone else is being uncivil, there are better ways of responding. Durova^Charge! 23:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

RFAR is not a good place to be edit warring. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Would be nice if people stop edit warring on my Arbcom space. Doesn't Arbcom separate the users from one another for this very purpose? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Note

Please do not revert other user's edits at WP:RFAR. If you believe someone has edited your comment inappropriately, please flag down a clerk at WT:RFAR or WP:AC/CN. MBisanz ^talk 03:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Two admins have reverted my own comments so there seems to be a problem here. Anyways, I've decided to remove the entire thread from my Arbcom section as it's just content related and, best I'm aware, the Arbcom is opened to address conduct issues. I would like to add that it's a shame that Nishidani is not only allowed to make offensive comments, but that they are reinstated repeatedly into my own section. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up

Jaakobou, please contact me for advice if something like this starts up again. You have a point: threaded discussion isn't supposed to happen at RFAR. Some people aren't aware of that rule and do post out of section by mistake. The way to handle that is:

1. Don't respond at all and wait for the clerks to clean it up, or: 2. Respond only by asking the other person to move their comment to the poster's own section. 3. Leave a note at the clerks' noticeboard to ask for clerking.

It's best to take the high road. If you're not sure how to respond to an emerging problem, contact me or a clerk. Best, Durova^Charge! 02:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No need for apologies

Jaakobou. I don't think that, in this, you need apologize, though I appreciate the gesture. You made a judgement, and someone else disagreed. Though our differences are, as often our exchanges on broader themes underline, irreconcilable, we are both grown men. Were I to dwell at length on 'tone', 'innuendo', 'the etiquette of address', minor things that catch my attention in the flow of comments, and in turn harp on them by reference to WP:AGF, WP:Civil, WP:whatever. I could take exception to a huge range of things, and make heavy weather of them on various administrative sites. Many otherwise innocuous (for the editor) remarks by my interlocutors rub me up the wrong way, perhaps because of my training in literature. I try to keep these sensitivities offpage, and not interpret publicly exchanges as I would were one discussing a Henry James novel. Efficiency in editing requires this distinction, and those various rules are predominantly, I assume, for newbies coming of internet forums, rather than for experienced wiki editors. Otherwise the temptation is to consistently 'work the rules' as though they were instruments of a duel, rather than a means to facilitate the collective writing of a text. As to Sharon, I wrote, 'in a minor key'. My substantive point was, no population should be told it mirrors its leaders. I have a harsh view of him, and instanced him to underline that point. I could have said as well that Mohammad Amin al-Husayni or Saddam Hussein did not 'mirror' the people they claimed to represent. Warm hummus!Nishidani (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

p.s.I've just noted the problem you raised 'calling my notes flies in fly-bottles,'. Jaakobou, this was an allusion to Ludwig Wittgenstein's remark about the nature of philosophy, and had absolutely nothing to do with your remarks. Rather, I cited his remark because it reflected my opinion that, when there is a problem (Judea/Samaria vs. West Bank) that seems irresolvable, with arguments spinning like a merry-go-round, one must strive to get off the merry-go-round, or let the 'fly' (the bottled problem) out of its confinement. It was a reference to all the threads we have written on that issue, not to anything you said. Perhaps I should not make recondite allusions, since they may look, decontextualized, as if they were personal, and give rise to this sort of misprision. If you have any apprehensions that I am being obscure or personal in our exchanges, a brief note on my page is the way to go. I'll clarify there.Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What worth is there to such notes when they are repeatedly ignored? The point was made with Ariel Sharon who is replaceable with Mohammad Amin al-Husayni or Saddam Hussein just as easily as Ireland would be replaced with of Zimbabowe or Saudi-Arabia ... 'in a minor key', it can easily offend. Even with today's democratic leaders (unlike the 'clan' despot societies), Germany took responsibily for a fairly singular genocide. Under Arab rule there were multiple occassions of similar -- yet far less mothodological -- activity by the Arab world but all you hear is "Nakba" this and "corruption masterminding (Allah said so) Jews"[1] that. It would seem that one standard that not even the "enlightened world" has ever followed given to the only Jewish state and another, a much lower one, given to the 22 Arab states? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC) clarify 12:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou. Everything can offend, if one allows oneself to be so disposed. I could find the language used to describe most things I am fairly deeply informed about 'offensive'. I don't make it a way of life to talk about this, or allow it to influence me, since I aspire to be rational, and reason, contrary to David Hume and Shakespeare, is no longer rational when it panders to, or is a slave of, the passions. Passions are things like being x-centric, x being one's national, ethnic, sportive or sectarian identity above everything else, and anyone else's. It's as easy as a poop in bed to be x-centric: being civilized means accepting the simplest, most unpalatable truth around: the intensities of belief and values of my partisan upbringing are felt by most people, to the same degree, with a different partisan upbringing, and therefore, if I am going to live in the world, I must understand that I can't bring my overpowering partisan beliefs to bear on other people, but rather only what I share with them, an aspiration to rise above the fray of frayed passions, by the exercise of reason and a logic that assumes all parties to a dispute have an equal entitlement to dignity. The more certain one is of one's own beliefs, the more those of others are understood only by caricature. The more one sees in the 'other' some common ground, a mirror of one's tacit dimensions, the more one understands oneself. Martin Buber said much of this in 'I and Thou'. Please read it. Nishidani (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never felt you trule believe that equal entitlement to dignity thing you now preach. Certainly, when you minimise the raping of Jewish communities under Arab rule as "they had it good compared with Europe" or "oh common, communities were raped only a couple times". If you believe in dignity, you will stop disrespecting the nature of some of the most horrific attacks on minorities in history and you will also stop comparing Jewish/Israeli figures such as Ariel Sharon -- who is not Baruch Goldstein just yet -- with the likes of world leaders who forced non-Muslims to wear bells on their garments and forced women to wear shoes of two differnt colors.

I've given you contact to some people who can help you find reading material into this (you've refused to watch the documentary) and it would be honorable of you to give this topic a sincere look outside the scope of apologetic writers you've been reading thus far. -- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

p.s. I'd like an explanation to where you place the following text under "entitlement to dignity" and "protected by law" - As non-Muslims, the heads of Jewish households were slapped in the face when they paid their annual tax, a humiliation they endured for centuries. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: A comment by Nishidani was removed and the following response was posted to their page.

Your recent reply seems to be a disguistingly innapropriate jusitification of the humiliation and dehumanization of Jews and even their genocide thoughout 1400 years of abuse, with a couple videos of misguided Israeli soldiers in the Second Intifada (when Suicide Bombings were all the rage). Congrats for the immaculate incivility (some would just call it the A word), Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Latuff cartoon

Hi, I am just letting you know that one of your uploads in commons has been requested for deletion, see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg. Even Mike Godwin is in favour of removing it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Note regarding Arbcom evidence

Hi Jaakobou.

Among the many falsehoods you state here, "User:MeteorMaker then falsely claimed that their sanction was removed" was the one you could have avoided the easiest with basic fact checking. I give you two options: strike that accusation immediately, or add clarification where in the diff you provided you see that.

MeteorMaker (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Heyo MeteorMaker,

I'm thinking that the text doesn't require further clarification at this point in time. I'd offer some advice but I'm feeling that, presently, we're not on good enough terms that you'd consider my notes in good faith.

p.s. I've taken the liberty of rephrasing the thread's title as it seemed a bit counter-productive.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation that you have asserted the false information deliberately. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Avigdor Lieberman

I explained my changes on the talk page as you requested. Repeatedly blanket reverting a series of changes without contributing anything to the discussion is disruptive.

As for your assertion that the "virulent racist" quote violates BLP, it does not because the allegations are sourced and represent a majority view.

Factsontheground (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Factsontheground,

Sourcing of a commentary doesn't automatically mean that it's use in a biography doesn't violate WP:BLP. Many figures in history had someone say something ridiculous/cruel/incorrect about them but it doesn't mean that we're going to have these quotes in the lead. Please review the actual text of the BLP policy.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Pedrito

Hi, Jaakobou. You may not have known this, but Pedrito switched his username due to personal information release fears. Please see WP:ANI#WP:OUTING. Perhaps yo did not mean it, but in the future, it would be better to send such information to arbcom via e-mail as opposed to publicly on wiki. -- Avi (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea. Will avoid using his past username in the future.

p.s. there's a few dead links lying around, I'm not sure if something should be done about them.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for compromise

So… I had an idea (or rather, cribbed an idea from Nishidani). What if, instead of topic-banning some of the most useful, articulate, and involved editors in the IP area (on both sides) for a year, you all got together and worked on Judea, Samaria, and Judea and Samaria with the goal of promoting them into GA status in two months’ time? That way (and given the relatively public nature of the arb case), there would hopefully be wide-ranging and neutral community input – sort of an RfC on steroids. If you all did not succeed, it would be back to the arb case (which would be placed on hiatus pending the outcome). The arbs (some of them anyway) seem to be saying you all can’t work together. I don’t think that’s true, and I also think that to the extent it is true, the possibility of avoiding more unpleasantness in this arb case might lead to extra flexibility and reasonableness. In the interest of full disclosure: I don’t particularly care at all how the ultimate content issue falls out -- Judea, Samaria, West Bank, Elbonia, whatever: I’d just like to avoid a mass-banning that would have a seriously deleterious effect on IP articles. What say? (If you wish to reply, you may do so here) IronDuke 02:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

File:Yehoshua Hankin (1864-1945).jpg

Your Valued picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for valued picture status, Image:Yehoshua Hankin (1864-1945).jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 15:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator questions on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria/Workshop

Kirill has asked some questions here. You are invited to respond. --Tznkai (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to keep an eye on it and possibly add something if I feel I can move the discussion forward.

Thanks for the notice, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well done.

I'm impressed with the calmness and civility which you show in this discussion (wherever it was copied from?) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I beg your pardon

I shall promptly correctly myself on Eleland's Talk Page.
--NBahn (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Your Valued picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for valued picture status, File:DannyMagen.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 15:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

lead edit

I would ask that you discuss your changes and get consensus for edits made to the lead before you make them. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Nableezy,

There's lack of consensus about the addition of the "massacre" title which is in violation of NPOV (not to mention that it promotes a blood libel). My edit was an attempt at compromise, giving room to your preferred with-"massacre" text but allowing a note about the evoking antisemitic motifs. If you're interested, an intermediate version would be one which does not include either text, not the one that keeps only the material you felt was relevant. I'd like to note that using Twinkle in content disputes is frowned upon as are blind reverts and ignoring the perspectives and notes (as well as reliable sources) of fellow editors.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

didnt know about twinkle, next time just use undo. My point about getting consensus before is that the lead has in the past been at the heart of some heated edit wars, and i would prefer that we stay away from this. I obviously disagree with you, i said why on the article talk. So would you mind if I put in a sourced statement that 'cast lead' has produced charges of an inhumane ambivalence to the killings of over 1000 people? Nableezy (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

and saying one or the other is not going to cut it, we have had a stable lead for going on 3 months now. Nableezy (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Casualty figures and generic charges of notability should indeed be quickly and conservatively noted on the lead. The blood libel motifs should not stand alone though and we should discuss a consensus version without the hypocritical massacre charges sticking out, breaking any semblance of neutrality. Anyways, we'll resume this discussion tomorrow probably - on the article's talk page. Meantime, I urge you to review the source for the "part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" text which I've changed. The source was not saying that and my rephrase was (a) fixing the error, and (b) closer to the source content.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Help on reading if a RfC has consensus

I'm contacting yourself and some other uninvolved editors to see if you would be willng to read through an RfC at the Article Rescue Squad. It will be far from the most glamourous use of your time but it will help us see if we have reached a decision on this issue. I think the discussion has died down and concensus has been reached but another user has posited I'm misreading this. For the moment I've left my comments in the "Motion to close" and collapsed template in place but if others agree there is no consensus I'm fine removing or reworking them. The discussion itself isn't too brutal and the comments have stayed reasonably well organized so it shouldn't take long. Please read the RfC and discussion and offer your take in the "Motion to close" section. Thank you! -- Banjeboi 13:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a look-see. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

resolved?

nothing was resolved there, and I would appreciate you leaving that decision to somebody completely uninvolved. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It felt as though the discussion has taken it's course but if others felt like it hasn't then I have no objection to it being continued. Anyways, I'm not at all involved in the raised issue and I'm certainly less involved than some of the others who participated.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian revolving door policy

Hey Jaak, I noticed you did lots of work on terms, slogans, neologisms, etc. in the I-P area. I was wondering if you can take a look at the above-linked article. Thanks, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I worked on it some. Wasn't sure if it should have stayed as a stand-alone, but a review on the foreign interest in it convinced me that it probably should.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC) clarify 08:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks much better now. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 13:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

One thing I would like to do is to focus the article more towards the actual policy (why the PLO did that, the policy's ramifications, etc.) versus the terminology (its origination, usage, etc.). The sources in the footnotes don't really get delve into the policy. Maybe the sources listed at the article talkpage are better. I'll take a look later. Best, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Polarization intro

Hi. Your changes to the intro to the polarization article may need to be reverted. The previous version was careful to describe linear, circular, and elliptical polarization as characteristics of transverse waves. Your version implies that these types of polarization are general, which is not true. Not all EM waves are transverse. See the article's talk page for extended discussion on this issue.--Srleffler (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought the characteristic was a mathematical definition rather than a physical thing. If common opinion (and possibly sources) say otherwise than I certainly won't stand in the way of a revert. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you. Polarization is a physical thing, not a mathematical concept. In physics, we use mathematics to describe reality (or at least to describe our model of reality). EM waves in free space are always transverse, and can have circular, elliptical, and linear polarization. In certain media, however, EM waves are no longer purely transverse: they have longitudinal field components. Such waves still have polarization, but it cannot always be simply described as linear, circular, or elliptical. Light in an optical fiber is the most common example of this. The previous lead text for the article was a result of back and forth editing, trying to balance the need to be clear with the need to be technically correct. --Srleffler (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that these 'mathematical descriptions of real life occurances' are non-specific descriptions even if they describe a specific occurrence. Circularity or linearity (or elliptic behavior) describe the interaction between two "waves" (or sinusoidal activity) that work together in a certain pattern. That the 'real life', time-space EM waves usually follow these patterns doesn't mean that other waves, real or in the theoretical basis do not. That's why the pattern itself (the definition) should appear before any common real life examples that follow it. I hope my perspective on this is clear, I haven't checked if any literature outside the EM area mentions the effect.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we are looking at this in fundamentally incompatible ways. There are not, in general, two waves that work together as you suppose. That feature is particular to the polarization of transverse waves: the solutions can be separated into perpendicular linearly-polarized transverse waves. This is not true in the most general case. --Srleffler (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi. I picked up a glove and created a section for Hamas' psy-war, using Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center as the primary source. There is a controversy to is it a RS. It puzzles me personally how come Wiki regards mainstream media, who sometimes write complete rubbish, as RS and debates over this one, that presents authentic data from Arab sources. ICT fnally published its own report, http://www.ict.org.il/ResearchPublications/CastLeadCasualties/tabid/325/Default.aspx, based on PCHR figures. I am going to insert its headlines to 'disputed figures' subsection. What is more, I will try to insert this: http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e067.htm for evidence that at least some policemen are at the same time operatives of the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades. There is no broad consensus there, so I might use some help. עצמאות שמח! Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely a reliable source with accordance to Wikipedia policies. Let me know if anyone contests that and I'll explain the policy to them.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)