User talk:Nableezy/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Friendly advice

Hi Nableezy. I know it's a thin gray line, but characterizing someone's edits as "vandalism" or "tag bombing" isn't quite the same as outright calling someone a vandal or a tag bomber. Honest assessments by others who are trying to contribute in good faith, based on their perception (whether right or wrong), are not always personal attacks, and may not be meant that way. Please give such edit summaries the benefit of the doubt, and reduce your sensitivity to this.

If someone wants to call my actions vandalism (or even outright call me a rogue admin), I don't really care, they're entitled to their opinion, and I know the truth, which is all that matters. I don't need petty drama in my life, least of all on Wikipedia, so I take a deep breath and move on. Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism may help in setting the proper frame of mind. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It was the "disruptive" part of the edit-summary that pissed me off. Given that the user basically admitted that the tag was valid (by addressing the issue the tag raised), the addition of that tag cannot be called a "disruptive" edit. nableezy - 19:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The user in question also has a history of using edit summaries to make absurd accusations at other editors. See an earlier section of his talk page for that. nableezy - 20:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that too. I agree with you, it wasn't disruptive.

Some people just naturally piss off others, that's how they are, they won't change.

You do good work here; it struck me that such slights are unworthy of your attention. That's why I left my previous comment. If it were me, I would have let it go. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

First, thank you for the kind words. You are right, to a point, that some things just dont merit any attention at all. However, there are things that I just dont have it in me to ignore. One of those is the hypocrisy of certain people crying about the very same thing that they routinely do. More so when that occurs in an edit summary, something that cannot be removed (at least by me). nableezy - 23:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Any admin can remove edit summaries that are clearly and unabiguously personal attacks, just ask. Hypocrisy is irritating, yes, but the edit summary on its own seems more like an error of judgment, an editorial disagreement on the same level as characterizing content disputes as vandalism — which happens every minute of the day somewhere around here.

On the other hand, I can sympathize that someone who has been through the WP:AE grinder as often as you have (I recall defending you on a couple of those) may become sensitive to such things, because of the level of scrutiny you've received in the past. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

First, thanks for the kind words. Most insults wont bother me, but when they are both unfounded and hypocritical and further come from those who have sought to punish others for incivility or personal attacks, that does bother me. But this is not something that I look at it on its own, there is a pattern of behavior here that colors my perception of what this person does. But this really shouldnt be that big of a deal, if the user is willing to acknowledge that attacking others in deceptive and hypocritical edit summaries that would be the end of it. nableezy - 12:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

the Other, and related philosophy

You once said (here) that someone "may yet learn that the Other is not confined to the Palestinians".

From what I can remember, I then did some searches, and found that this related (I think) to a speech given by an Israeli in the USA.

But looking now, I can't find it.

Our article Other doesn't mention Israel or Palestine. (Perhaps it should?)

Can you give me any clues as to what I'm failing to find? (Or have I just imagined it?)

thanks again --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It wasnt related to anything. nableezy - 12:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

All right. Probably just as well that I can't rediscover whatever it was that I imagined, then. Thanks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Darwish

Thanks for weighing in on this article. It's so helpful to have your voice! hgilbert (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

AN3

• FYI, you're on WP:AN3 at the moment. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. nableezy - 13:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Al-Hamma, Tiberias

Thanks from me Victuallers (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Why thank you, but this is truly undeserved. nableezy - 15:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on Al-Hamma, Tiberias! Next project is Al Jalama, Tulkarm (which already checks out ok according to my DYK-check)..however, still a lot to add post-1948 from Benvenisti and Morris. Anything you could add would be appreciated, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You have a (new?) fan

See discussion on User talk:Timotheus Canens. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Time zones?

Sorry for that. My page shows the edit at 00:36, 18 October -- must be some weird time-zone related blip. (When I look at this comment in Edit, the time displayed is 18:35, but in My Contributions it shows as 19:35, and on your talk page as 7:35 pm) RolandR (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

My guess is you have your time zone set in your preferences (under Date and time) set to your actual time zone instead of the default UTC. Causes more confusion than its worth in my opinion, especially when doing things like adding unsigned templates. But no worries, nableezy - 18:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Quotes on your userpage

I need to ask you to remove the extensive quotes on your userpage. This is not a matter of censorship, Israel/Palestine disputes, or anything else on that level: it is simply that such extensive quotes are either copyright violations or examples of fair use, and our non-free content standards say that material claimed as fair use may only appear in articles, not on userpages. Again, if you were to present similarly-sized quotes taking the opposite position, or similarly-sized quotes that don't take a position in this question, I would likewise ask you to remove them, since I'm not acting from partiality on the Israel/Palestine question or from an objection to users taking firm positions on their userpages about controversial issues. Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, if you reply here, please leave me a talkback. Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Which ones exactly? nableezy - 02:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

At least the ones in the box, from "In summer 2004" to "innocent and peaceful population". I'll not pretend to understand Arabic, so I'll make no requests about the Arabic quotes. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The only one that I think you can reasonably request that I trim (not remove) is the one by Avnery. But the first is five sentences out of a 21 page journal article, and the last is four sentences out of a book that reaches nearly 500 pages. Both qualify as "short quotes" that WP:UP allows for. I'll bring the Avnery quote down to a couple of sentences, but beyond that I think these qualify under otherwise only a short quote can be used in WP:UP. nableezy - 03:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

They're not short quotes: they're blocks of multiple sentences, and the fact that they're small percentages of longer works is not relevant. Go to Wikipedia:Non-free content and read the context around

, short

being sure to type the comma beforehand — the reason that you can make short quotes from copyrighted texts is that short quotes are too short to be original and thus too short to attract copyright protection. A block of multiple sentences is definitely long enough for copyright protection. Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Nearly every single quote on any number of user pages, on any number of topics, is a block of multiple sentences. Exactly what is the maximum acceptable length of a non-free quote for it to be used on a user page? nableezy - 03:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Short enough to be unoriginal for copyright purposes. Copyright policy is firm that nonfree content may not appear on any non-article page, and our legal policies trump everything else because of their legal nature. By the way, I need to get to bed, so please don't be surprised if I don't make any more replies tonight. Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:UP says If you use text from another source on your userpage, it should still be credited to the author, whether or not it is in current copyright. which seems to imply that a user may use enough of a copyrighted work that it should be credited to the author. A quote needing to be credited is surely an "original" work. I cant honestly believe that a few sentences quoted from a published source (in one case freely distributed to a number of outlets) and fully attributed cant be included on a user page. nableezy - 04:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Infobox Israel municipality

Sorry, I have been away for a while and haven't been able to respond to requests or follow certain developments. While it is clear that someone completely re-made the template using the generic template, I am afraid I don't really understand the issue that you are referring to. Can you please clarify? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

OK it seems a bit complicated at first glance (haven't gone in-depth), so I will look at it on the weekend and get back to you as soon as possible. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yasir Qadhi Controversy Section

Tell me, how did you come to notice the controversy section on Yasir Qadhi's entry? Were you lurking on IA? Because it was up for a LONG time until someone posted it on IA and then you conveniently deleted it. You're a punk bitch for deleting it, just like all of YQ's insecure, image obssessed 'house negro' Muslim followers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.86.132.73 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 31 October 2011‎ (UTC)

I do not know what "IA" is. I cant honestly say I remember for certain how I got to that article, but I *think* it had been linked in an article I was involved in editing and I clicked the link. When I did so I noticed a large controversy section without any valid sources. I do not have an opinion Qadhi, his teachings, his methods, or anything else. What I do have an opinion on is the use of Wikipedia to defame living people. If that makes ma a punk bitch "house negro" (and really, if youre going to go that far you can skip the formality and just use the word "nigger") then so be it. nableezy - 17:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

On a point of correct usage, Nab, I think 'sandnigger' is the vox propria for the kind of vituperative obloquy your inventive correspondent is searching for here.Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I am pleased to be able to say you are wrong. The use of "house negro" by our friend above is not meant as a remark on my ethnic background, but rather on what our anonymous friend considers my apparent aim of mollifying a western audience (hah!). He sees this as evidence that I am a sell out to the "real" Muslims who, in an American slavery analogy, work the fields. He sees me as a sell out, willing to sacrifice my own kind (those left in the field) for some minor benefit of being able to work with the masters inside the house. Our friend obviously does not know me all that well, as I think this may be the first time I have been accused of paying too much attention to how a western audience would view anything at all. Ah well, cant satisfy everyone. nableezy - 17:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Allus willen' ta lurn, borss, I mean, bwana. I tracked you rapscallions to the page and supplied the two citations requested. I imagine this means I'll be up on A/I for stalking? Perhaps a suspension's what a chap like me needs, a month off so I can write Nuncle Nab and cash in on what looks like a fresh market for tabloid tell-all factoid fantasies in some communities over there?Nishidani (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't really imagine Nableezy saying, "What's the matter boss, we sick?" [1] -asad (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

2 left

Rechelim and Tel Rumeida are now the only articles in the Religious Israeli settlements cat missing the legality statement. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That's so sweet of you to leave them for me to do. Yippee! nableezy - 13:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's because it takes time to find the historical names of the West Bank according to Peru's indigenous Amerindian people and the Spanish Empire of the 16th century. Seems unfair not to mention them in the Alon Shvut article given that 90 B'nai Moshe people made the effort to move all the way there from Trujillo, Peru. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Emergency Committee for Israel

Please mind 1RR and self-revert. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My first revert was of an IP, the 1RR does not apply to that. nableezy - 20:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Right you are. Sorry. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries, good looking out. nableezy - 20:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Pictures?

You earlier offered your help on pictures...so here I am!

Schumachers writing on Tell el Mutesellim has come online. He also writes (a little) about the vicinity, including Lajjun, (he used workers from there). In his 1908 book there are two pictures relevant to Lajjun, on p.6 and p.186 (middle picture). The last one shows the old bridge; already a picture (drawing) of it in the article. (I finally understood that "Dschisr el-leddschön" is Jisr Al-Lajjun ...in German!

Anyway, I have tried to download both of them and copy them; but end up with a quality much worse than what is on archive.org. Can you mange better? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

What I do is download the whole set of jp2 files via the All Files: HTTP link on archive.org (e.g. tellelmutesellim01schuuoft_jp2.zip I guess in from here in this case) and use those. Not sure whether that will work well in this case because the images seem to have some linear artifacts. The relevant files are tellelmutesellim01schuuoft_0028.jp2 and tellelmutesellim01schuuoft_0208.jp2 and they are around 2500x3500px.Sean.hoyland - talk 18:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I dont think we'll be able to get a decent pic from that. The quality of the scan is the problem, not pulling it from that. I can do what I can (basically what Sean suggests), but not sure it will be much better than what you have. nableezy - 19:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Ok, I have just finished doing what Sean suggested (I think, thanks!) see here and here. Too bad no library in my country has a copy; then I would have borrowed the book and scanned it. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I downloaded them from commons, tried to reduce scanning artifacts a bit and re-uploaded. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks Sean; they do look better. Now we can only wait until someone takes a copy of the original book, and makes a nice, whole new scan ;), cheers, Huldra (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you take a look

at this discussion? Perhaps you know or can find the answer in zero time. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I dont know the answer there. nableezy - 14:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal Question about "Jewish Homeland"

I have NO IDEA if this is appropriate here, so if not, just ignore. I somehow stumbled into all the discussion pages concerning Golan Heights (and it's frustrating, the lack of civility therein, but I know it's contentious). I see you are fairly well spoken and I was reading the quotes on your main user page, which I generally agree with (I find it enraging and saddening that any peoples with such horrid persecution in their recent history could lift a mean finger against another)... so I was wondering if you could indulge me in answering a question regarding what I perceive as your objection to Jewish occupation of Palestinian land.

My question is regarding the concept of "homeland" I guess. It struck me when reading the quotes on your user page - they give the impression that Jewish people have come to a land and dominated its inhabitants. I don't disagree with this (I deeply object to the terrible things I think Israel perpetrates). But it seems like the quotes imply that Jews never lived in this area before, which of course is not true. I have no idea if there is any popular debate that tries to trace back as far as possible to see "who was there first", but that seems somewhat ridiculous, and I guess what I'm wondering is if the Jews do have a couple thousand year history in this area, can they not also be seen as having some legitimate ties here?

Moreover, should not any humans be welcome to settle anywhere they'd like to as long as they don't cause trouble? Of course, the "trouble" part is where Israel has gone terribly wrong, but it's probably also a lot more complex than that. If the Jews came in peace and were able to live more cooperatively with the Arabs in this area, would they be welcomed? (And certainly there must be a certain non-trivial portion of Jews who do have nothing but peaceful and friendly opinions about Arabs, as there are probably many Arabs with friendly, or cooperative, or suspicious, or prejudiced attitudes about Jews.... which must lend to the complexity of the situation).

Hmm, my question seems to have morphed and become rhetorical (sorry). I guess going back to the quotes on your user page, how do you see them contributing or not to the (misleading) idea that Jews have invaded a place that they never once belonged? Doesn't that contribute to black-and-white thinking that prevents progress toward peace?

As someone who finds Israel's actions deeply revolting (and who has a deep sympathy for the kinds of people being described in the quotes), I'm surprised to be asking you this question, but there you have it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.171.125.144 (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It'll take some time to answer this, give me a few days. nableezy - 14:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I had started to reply to this, was distracted by something, and lost my work in progress. But here goes.

You write that your perception of my objection is against the Jewish occupation of Palestinian land. A correction to that is necessary, it is an objection to Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory. But that does not even encompass my objections, I object to much more than that. I object to the theft of the natives land, way of life, and their very dignity. I object to the institutionalized racism that gives European invaders rights over the natives, the ones who were forced out and the ones who were able to remain. But, that is not what you asked me about, so on to the actual question.

You write that the quotes on the user page imply that Jews never lived in this area before. I dont see how that implication is made. There may be people who claim that there is no Jewish history in Palestine, but I am not one of them. I dont think that history allows for the displacement of the natives and the theft of their land, but I dont deny that history, and I dont think any of the quotes do either.

Should any human be welcome to settle anywhere? Are you asking me how I think the world should be? Because the we have countries with governments that, hopefully, represent their people, and these governments all have immigration policies that determine who may settle where and for what purpose. The question of whether large-scale Jewish immigration to Palestine was a question for the Palestinians to determine, not the British or the Americans or anybody else. And if they decided to allow for a massive influx of Jews then God bless, but that should have been their decision to make.

Finally, you ask if the quotes contribute to black-and-white thinking that prevents progress toward peace. Ill be honest, I dont have much hope for peace, and I have not seen any progress in that area. But peace requires justice, and the injustices that the quotes speak of must be remedied before any sustainable peace can be achieved. Nobody ever talks about what is just, only what "concessions" are needed from Israel and the Palestinians. Im not looking for peace, Im looking for justice. One of my favorite Gideon Levy columns is Demands of a thief. He wrote

Israel is not being asked "to give" anything to the Palestinians; it is only being asked to return - to return their stolen land and restore their trampled self-respect, along with their fundamental human rights and humanity. This is the primary core issue, the only one worthy of the title, and no one talks about it anymore.

He doesn't go as far as I think he should, for Levy the issue is the occupation of what the world calls the Palestinian territories. Justice for those driven out of the rest of Palestine is not even on the table. nableezy - 20:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries about delay. Thanks for the important clarifications distinguishing Jews from the state of Israel (and clarifications about objections, which I couldn't agree more with). Even if that particular *state* is driven in no small part by _Jewish_ religious beliefs/objectives, I think that's an important distinction. It's interesting that at the same time, you noted that governments ruling certain places would empower its people to make important decisions -- I'd be very hesitant to give them (governments) that much credit.

And, I guess, yes, I'm speaking from an idealist perspective that I think people *should* be free to travel and settle wherever they please, as long as this is done in a friendly and peaceful manner, of course - to me, this kind of freedom feels as fundamental as the need to return the stolen lands and freedoms and other atrocities that Israel has perpetrated. In my heart, I'd love to believe that people could get along with others or at least peacefully agree to disagree instead of turning to the terrible things that they do. Take away the money, power, weapons, greed, and maybe just maybe...

Regarding the quotes, I suppose quotes of the genre of oppressed people speaking their minds don't *specifically* claim anything such as if the oppressor has any valid claims in the situation, but I think they do in fact work to create a feeling of such deep moral indignation as to make people think that the oppressor comes from a foreign place solely to act the bully. And look at the first English quote you have - the old woman yelling that the land is Palestinian - that certainly is much closer to a clear implication that Jews never belonged there. In that sense, I think such quotes are harmful. Quotes like the third one are to me much more stunning (in a good way), in the same way that the article from Gideon Levy you linked to was (thanks, good read).

I suppose I don't have too much hope for peace, either, as tremendously sad as that makes me. So instead I turn to daydreams of "what if" we were miraculously treated to sudden agreement that the state of Israel (and all associated machinery) would be utterly and completely disbanded, Palestinians were given back all of what was theirs... wondering how/where/if Jewish settlers could find homes and make new lives in a land where they do in fact have ancestral history. Why, after facing such terrible genocide, did they have to do it this way? I guess this is the state of human life currently - only force and destruction get you what you want.

Anyway, thanks for the thoughts.Hon89 (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE

I regret to inform you that I have reported you here. I do not wish to do anything against you just when I looked at that template you asked about (and opened a talk page discussion there), but it seems that you edit-warred on the page Category:Israeli settlers and violated WP:3RR (and therefore also WP:1RR). Please respond on the WP:AE page. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I honestly had a much better impression of you before you decided to come to the aid of an abusive sock puppet. But I responded there. Bye. nableezy - 21:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Alon Shvut discussion at IPCOL

Hi Nableezy, just to let you know I asked for outside advice on disagreements over Alon Shvut that you're also party to. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Almon, Mateh Binyamin

You know, Nab, I think I try to explain myself and do things logically and in goodwill, but I know that like all humans everyone can make mistakes. In this case you're reasoning for moving the legal status section doesn't seem sensible. You say it's specific to the settlement but we both know it's not. It becomes relevant because of the land dispute but putting it before the land dispute is just bad composition and reeks of pushing an opinion in the reader's face at the expense of the quality of the article. I think we should try to work thing out but in all our discussions, I haven't felt an effort by you to understand or discuss the actual points being made. Again, maybe I'm not trying hard enough, but I'm wondering if you think you are. At any rate, we should try to avoid a blowout and I'm hoping you can try to be a little more amicable to the points I'm making. Or at least let me know that you understand what I'm saying and are giving it some consideration. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence of the section is, or was before your supposedly neutral partisan pal came to do his part, The international community considers all Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, including Almon, to violate the Fourth Geneva Convention's prohibition on the transfer of an occupying power's civilian population into occupied territory. How exactly is that not specifically about Almon's status under international law? Also, it is getting a bit tiring seeing your incessant whinging about others supposed distortions. I have not yet actually said what exactly I think about your twisting the WESTBANK guideline into saying things it plainly opposes, but the word distortion would have been mild if I were to actually speak my mind. nableezy - 03:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No need to hold back, Nableezy, I can take it. In the end everything said here is on record. When third parties who aren't involved eventually take a look at the exchanges, neither your claims nor mine will be enough to hold either side. The record will speak for itself. Which is more the reason to try showing some mutual understanding. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Maher Udda

Hi Nableezy, I removed the prod from Maher Udda. Al Jazeera reported that he was one of the founders of Hamas and I'd say that shows a longer relevance than just one event.--TM 21:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera didnt report that, they reported that the Israeli military described Udda as one of Hamas's founders. nableezy - 21:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

May be of interest

Hi Nableezy. I noticed you took strong exception to aspects of WGFinley's conduct at AE recently, as did Gatoclass. I posted a comment to Gatoclass' talk (permalink) that might help you better understand WGFinley's motivation. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I think that, given the diffs ([2] and [3]), WGFinley's statement, "I don't see what he did on Mount Hermon other than to point out there's a ski resort there and added a travel guide as source for information on that," is ridiculous. I also thought that it was a bit rich that WGFinley criticised Nableezy's tone, given his own, which comes across as condescending, self-regarding and self-opinionated to me. If WGFinley's intention is to reduce disruption in the I-P part of the project, I think that his methods will be self-defeating.     ←   ZScarpia   17:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That is what pissed me off. That he either had not even looked at the diffs or was purposely distorting their content. He has refused, repeatedly, to justify that comment, a comment that is plainly false, so much so that I think anybody who stands by that comment is incompetent and has no business coming near an encyclopedia, much less purporting to administer it. nableezy - 17:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Benny Morris IDF sources

It appears as if Benny Morris is using IDF sources here. Would I be correct? -asad (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if Nab has the book, I do. Morris, like the best historians, writes much of his histories from archival primary sources, and in these cases uses IDF archives. If there is some doubt as to the reliability of the IDF intelligence reports, one just adds 'according to an IDF report' etc., as I think is done lower down on that page. Nishidani (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I guess you can see where I am getting at, that it seems like an obvious thing for the IDF to say. My 86-year-old grandmother is from Qannir, she said she remembers seeing Jewish armies approaching the town at which point they were ordering them to leave. My grandmother is an old woman, but she doesn't embellish nor does she forget things. The other day I was pulling up pictures of Qannir from Palestine Remembered and she could see a 70-something-year-old picture and not only identify the person in the photo, but who they there were married to, who their children married, if they were living in Tulkarm or in Jordan, or even in "Ch"far rumman. Interestingly enough, none of the residents of Qannir fled to Lebanon. -asad (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Just on a point of syntax: 'they were ordering' could be interpreted,I think wrongly, as referring to some mukhtars (Morris's Arabs higher up), and not to 'the Jewish armies'(armed forces). Morris is scrupulous, and honest with his material, and his POV is something any historian is entitled to, but you don't need to be a genius to see where the overwhelming reliance on IDF and Israeli archives leads (him and the reader). I hope you have recorded and are recording in usable form all of your relatives' memories. The failure to comprehensively get all oral records into print, and studied by scholars, is one reason why the truth of the matter is buried under a heap of eminently good histories which, alas, tell basically one version of a multiple history. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking. I remember the Imperial War Museum had a project to do this in the UK for WWII. The father of someone I used work with apparently spent much of his war carpet bombing Germany and somehow managed to not get shot down/crash. He never said a word about it to his family. The IWM sent a young researcher to record an interview with him and it was the first (at last) time he spoke about it. He spoke for hours. It struck me as quite an important and worthwhile project. I'm curious whether anyone has done it for 1948 in Palestine. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be very interesting to have. Oh gosh how I could improve so many of the Palestinian town articles with the countless war stories I have heard from relatives and family friends. I think there is a better documentary record of the Palestinian who fled in 1967. I learned from my father a while back, that the residents of Anabta either fled to Jordan or, on my fathers situation, camped out under the olive trees in the hill-tops close to Deir Sharaf, probably the land which has now become Shavei Shomron. But of course, that doesn't meet the guidelines of WP:RS. -asad (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Asad, just get it down, filmed, digitalized, and tell everyone of your background to do the same. Aref al-Aref did a comprehensive, oral-narrative based book, on the nakba in the midlate 5Os. One of the ironies of this work in Arabic was that it radically lowered the figures given in Israeli and Western sources for the massacre at Deir Yassin, from 250 odd to 110-120, by making a tally of names mentioned in the accounts given to him by survivors, and Sharif Kan'ana in turn got it down to 107 by using the same technique. So people's memories, however dismissed by Morris, can prove superior to defective, if comprehensive sources (as I know. I have a mass murderer in our family's history, whose historical repute is untarnished by the facts we were told as children, as an admonition against violence, about his doings in the 1840s. Descendants of the survivors still feel uneasy in our company, even though we are willing to confirm their story, which historians have no documentary evidence of). Better still, in the pursuit of Palestinian truths, it redimensioned an act of infamy attributed to its enemy. Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The challenge is that the vast majority of English sources rely, almost exclusively, on Israeli archives. We can use Arabic sources, but finding them is much more difficult. But it is a fact that the sources we use are generally Israeli writers using Israeli records for the history of a people dispossessed of their land, possessions, and livelihood by Israelis. Which is one of the reasons I giggle every time one of these "editors" claims that Wikipedia is biased against Israel. nableezy - 20:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I must say, however, that Israeli historians have often done a better job than their Palestinian colleagues to contrast the Tacitean idea that history is written by the victors. It's just that their research hardly inflects the national myths of Zionism, which is the strong discourse Western impressions feed off. Therefore, the failure by the Arabic/Palestinian intelligentzia to make a concerted effort to get these archival, oral, historical details out in comprehensive book form is also responsible, though understandable given the chaos of diasporas, disruption of life, relative smaller numbers, lack of influential diaspora support groups to fund research programmes etc, they had/have to cope with. The Gypsies are treated like shit all over Europe also because they don't have a written culture, which could have recorded via family records what happened to them during their Gypsy Shoah. That nakba is so little known, that the historical measure of the genocide they suffered can vary from 200,000 to 1,500,000. The margins for error of a people that prize writing, like the Jewish people, is miniscule (5,200,000-6,000,000) by comparison. And nothing will be known because the survivors are dying out. Nishidani (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

In English they have certainly done a more comprehensive job, though I dont know if better is the word. Walid Khalidi is mentioned pretty much only on the articles of depopulated villages, and every once a while you'll see a cite to Nur Masalha or Sami Hadawi. But we dont use any Arabic sources. Part of that is due to the paucity of native speakers of Arabic and those who are familiar with the Arabic literature, and part of it is due to the fact that it is so much harder to locate a usable source on the web in Arabic as opposed to English or even Hebrew. The Arabs do have a written culture, and there are Arabic sources that can and should be used here. Compare the number of times an Israeli historian is cited on the 73 war article to how often an Arab historian is cited. And when a user even tries to use an Arabic source he gets put through the ringer, sometimes by the same users using Hebrew sources extensively. nableezy - 21:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, this book mentions the existence of at least 120 Palestinian village history books, written in Arabic of course. So at least something is being done. P.S. re Aref's book below, there are, as always, many possible transliterations, but it should end in al-Mafqud. Given the rudimentary level of my Arabic, I won't attempt to "correct" it on Aref's article. --NSH001 (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You're correct about "Al-Mafqud" as the right transliteration and proper grammar in Arabic. This source seems to have a more correct title of the book, which has Jerusalem instead of Palestine in the title. I haven't found a scan of the cover that would help clarify. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

ps. A favour. I just checked, before switching off, the Aref al-Aref page and think the reference to his major nakba book is poorly transliterated and should be Nakbat Filastin wa al-Firdaws Mafqud. If that's correct, could someone fix it. I made an inadvertent IR violation and am self-banned from article edits until early next month. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC) (ec):::Thanks NSHmath. What I wrote can be read as a putdown. It isn't that, as much as a bystander's frustration. A huge amount of history is lost because the right questions, in the right idiom, are not placed with the elderly, who might talk if only prompted the right way. I always think of Ogotemelli, 16 years of ethnography, tribe studied, and then pure chance, the right question and the anthropologists realized they knew nothing until then, and a massive amount of lore hitherto hidden from them came to light just out of one man being asked the right questions. As to Aref's books, yes, I copy-pasted without checking and 'al' is obviously missing, my bad. Nakbat Filastin wal-firdaws al-mafqud. In any case, that's something for an Arabic speaker. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As Michael's note shows, there are several ways it is referred to Al Nakba/Nakhbat/Nakbat etc. Our text is in error, whatever the case. Trivia? Perhaps. But we should at least record what we see as problems.Nishidani (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think that changing it to the new source is the best option so far because it seems like the most exact appearance of both Arabic and English transliteration. I'll do that and add the ref, if no one objects. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

A few more sources supporting this title and transliteration: [4], [5], [6], [7].

AE

The recent AE thread you opened against Cptnono has been closed. This is not an enforcement action, but the consensus was that you should be reminded to moderate your tone—I would parse that as meaning that it is better to let off your steam before you type comments than to let it off in heated comments and that you should be mindful that AE admins and the editors you disagree with are real people just as you are. Again, this is not an enforcement action, but you should consider this post to be the delivery of that reminder. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Nazareth AE

I'm going to close the AE complaint per this. Let me know if you want to make any further statement. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thats fine, but I think you should explicitly exempt vandalism. nableezy - 15:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism can be in the eye of the beholder in the I/P area. I'm reluctant to create an exemption. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Im talking about things like things where a user does a find and replace like s/Palestinian/Fakestinian. But it is up to you. nableezy - 16:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, I would like you to clarify something. The issue here was with the identification of a group of people as being part of a Palestinian people. What of edits such as this that remove things about the Palestinian territories? Is that also off-limits? nableezy - 16:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I notice that MastCell thinks that Ledenierhomme may have been socking at Palestinian Christians. I've semiprotected the article for three months. EdJohnston (talk) 06:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)