User talk:Avraham
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Avi's wiki presence will be erratic and unreliable for the indefinite future. For edit or administrative actions that require a certain amount of alacrity, please use e-mail. Thank you. |
 Archives |
||
|---|---|---|
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
| Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
| Archive 7 | ||
Contents |
[edit] Withdrawal
Avi, I'm sorry to hear you've withdrawn your arbcom candidacy. You would have had my support. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Mine too, but it does take time. Fred Bauder 19:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'm sorry you've withdrawn. Good luck with your new job. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 22:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Same here. and Have a Great Day, Take Care, --FloNight 12:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bookmakers
I can see the logic of placing bookmakers as practicioners of outcomes of games of chance, as being appropriate in the context of actuaries' development as a profession. You seem to delete such references. Why? Many professions have evolved from different backgrounds, and the reference to mathematicians' involvement in chance outcomes seems to be proof that gambling practicioners preceeded the actuarial professionals. Tayana 03:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Responded on your talk page. -- Avi 14:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Your response does not refute comment in context, but introduces "statistics" . Please explain clearly why I should not revert? Tayana 00:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
--- The use of statistics is universal in most disciplines and is irrevelant to the current discussion. Here we are talking about chance outcomes; of life expectancy or winning an event. Bookmakers(directly) along with acturies(or their employers) have a finincial interest in the outcome of chance events. Accordingly the comparison is relevant. Tayana 00:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] You may be interested in...
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic extremist terrorism. KazakhPol 04:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Khalidi
I'm being disingenuous? Correct me if I'm wrong: It seems you're trying to insert a prominent accusation that Khalidi denies Israel's right to exist, based solely on a statement saying that one has to understand from the Palestinians' perspective that they've been under occupation since 1948. Then you're wanting to say he's an anti-Zionist, apparently based on no more information. Can you explain these accusations? I'm not being disingenuous; I don't think it's appropriate. The bias here, incidentally, is in the implication that Khalidi is entirely opposed to Israel's existance. Of course, that would turn Khalidi into an extremist. I'm no expert on Khalidi, but I don't think he is such an extremist, or that there is any justification for trying to label him as such, or even that his critics really suggest or have evidence that that's what he is. Mackan79 17:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Avi, re your comment on my page, I looked over each of the sources, and I don't see anything to support calling him an anti-zionist. Rather, he seems to pretty much avoid discussing what Israel should be altogether. Of course, he does seem to argue that the Palestinians deserve a homeland, but that is, of course a very different thing. To call him an anti-zionist, we'd simply have to equate the two, but that's not for us to do, and I don't see anyone who has argued that this is appropriate in his case.
- Also, you say Wikipedia can't have original synthesis, but that overstates anything I've seen in Wikipedia guidelines. No original research, yes, but you can't write a paragraph, encyclopedia or not, without synthesis. We can mask our own synthesis, and to a degree that's probably helfpul, but a factor is always going to be whether something makes basic sense, or else we'd have an encyclopedia of well-cited giberish. Mackan79 20:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
