User talk:Nwe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Israel

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. HawkerTyphoon 19:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You have a history of making PoV edits to articles, and I do believe that the edit you've made to the Lebanon article is in bad faith. You're not adding anything new to the article, you're just throwing in vague statements about how Israel are to blame for the war. May I suggest you make your edit into a single paragraph, and read it, re-write it, then add it as a large chunk? Most of what you're adding is already mentioned in the article anyway. HawkerTyphoon 19:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! yandman 15:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop pushing pro-Fhizzballah propaganda into articles. That is not NPOV. Cerebral Warrior 11:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

CW, you are aware that Lebanon isn't Hezbollah, right? In the same way that Ireland isn't the IRA? yandman 12:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Strothra 14:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Please start behaving like a proper member of the wikipedia community.Nwe 14:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, this was the article he found too distateful and personally insulting to allow on his talk page. So far he has avoided any discussion whatsover on this topic, depsite several prompts and offers of compromise on my behalf.

"You're right it is rediculous that you think my edits are "clear POV". Why don't you come onto the talk page and discuss this like a man if you feel so strongly about it?"

Nwe 14:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, you were not give the warning for that, you were given the warning for your edit summary stating, "strothra is a political vandal who clearly can't back up his edits with even the most prosaic form of debate." But yes, the comment which you stated is also provoking. --Strothra 15:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You deny that you were avoiding any form of discussion with me over the article?Nwe 15:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lebanon

I have a problem with editors who violate 3RR in order to push a POV. I also have a problem with editors who use personal attacks agianst other editors. when you are ready to become civil and abide by WP policy, I'll discuss the contents of your edits with you. Isarig 15:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not pushing POV, I am sailing close to the wind on 3RR but in order to push NPOV, and I do not make personal attacks, I was making a comment on the fact that that editor was making repetitively reverts and refusing to justify his them in discussion.Nwe 15:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Calling naother editor a 'political vandal' is a personal attaack. It is sad that you do not realize this. An apology to Strotha is in order. Isarig 15:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Accusing someone of vandalism is not a personal attack, merely an observation on the pattern of his edits. I would apoligise to Strotha if he/she apoligised to me for deleting my messages, which was what prompted me to make the comment in the first place.Nwe 16:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Calling another editor a 'political vandal' is a personal attaack. It is sad that you do not realize this. An apology to Strotha is in order. You are having a content dispute with that editor - they way to resolve it is through discussion on the talk page, not through repeated reverts and personal attacks. Isarig 16:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely, tell that to him and observe my many attempts to engage in discussion with him and on the talk page. Please, also, do not pretend that your motivation here is upholding the standards of wikipedia, you seem to dedicate you entire time on this site defending Israel in some way or another.Nwe 16:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

And you seem to be intent on pushing pro-Moslem, anti-Israel propaganda onto Wikipedia. Anti-Semitism will not be tolerated here. Cerebral Warrior 16:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

CW please go and educate yousrself on the issues involved in the middle-east comflict, try to challenge your anti-Muslim bias and then come back and make a useful contribution to these discussions.Nwe 16:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In defense of Nwe, I do not see how his edits were pro-Muslim (not that there's anything wrong with being pro-Muslim, whatever that even means) and anti-semetic. I would say that his edits were POV in that it his edits paint Lebanon as an innocent victim. It's unfortunate that all sides seem to be denying resposibility when there's plenty of blame to be spread around - this culture of victimization where no one wants to assume any responsibility (on both sides) is sad and only promotes POV edits such as this one. --Strothra 16:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Strothra, where do my edits paint Lebanon as an innocent victim?Nwe 16:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget who the real victims are. Cerebral Warrior 15:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly the sort of polarization I'm speaking about. You would say that the lives of children and people killed (the deaths included many Christians) in Lebanon are worth less than those of individuals killed in Israel (who were actually mostly Muslim, not Jewish). Such polarization, on both sides, gets no one anywhere. Coming from an family who's had many people serve in the American Navy, I've never been sympathetic to Israel lest we forget the USS Liberty - I had an uncle who was wounded on that ship by the Israeli attack. Neither side in this conflict, and in other Arab-Israeli conflicts, are innocent. The only innocent people are the many non-comabatans who have been needlessly killed on both sides. --Strothra 17:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

So the innocent Jewish women and children whome the Islamofascists murder are not innocent? Cerebral Warrior 11:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Strothra, stop trying to portray yourself as moderate when you continue to insist on a PoV background to the July War.Nwe 17:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Both of the versions are POV, but replacing one with another is not helping anything or contributing to the project. Also, it was not a war eventhough certain individuals have called it so. A war is something that occurs between states, the Lebanese government did not engage in combat informally or formally. --Strothra 01:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Nwe, you can't compare Israel to Palestine. Israel is a democratic, free country which is recognised by the UN. Palestine is a non-existent state founded by a terrorist, and as such its illegitimate residents should consider themselves lucky to not have been annhiliated by Israel. As for Lebanon, any country whose residents vote for Moslem fanatics probably deserves to be bombed, in my opinion. Cerebral Warrior 11:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Errr... The USA was founded by "terrorists", as was Israel. yandman 12:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"illegitimate residents"...interesting because that's exactly what Hitler considered the Jews in Germany right before he started to annihilate them...your ideas are only a step away from that. It doesn't bother you that you think like him? Also, Haganah and Irgun were Israeli Zionist terrorist organizations which were instrumental in founding Israel. For instance, Haganah was run my Menecham Begin (who became Prime Minister) and blew up a British embassy in order to get the British to leave. They killed 17 people. The Israeli bombing of the USS Liberty in 1967 killed nearly 70 Naval servicemen yet Israel didn't apologize for sinking the ship and Congress made no formal demands from Israel. --Strothra 12:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[1] made on October 28, 2006 to 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. 

No matter how strongly you feel on this, please stay within 3RR and avoid personal attacks.

William M. Connolley 16:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Evading your block with IPs is a bad idea. Don't do it again or your block will be extended William M. Connolley 18:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah man no matter how true your edit is, you should comply with WP:3RR. Keep struggling! Nielswik_(talk) 17:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR again, I am afraid

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 48 hours. -- Avi 05:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please comment (the Cerebral Warrior issue)

User_talk:Cerebral_Warrior#A_Proposal_by_crazyeddie crazyeddie 15:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] East Jerusalem

I can live without the mention of Jerusalem day, though I still feel it is relevant. However, unless you can cite sources about the "difficulties" of East Jerusalem residents, they should not be included. --יהושועEric 21:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Your East Jerusalem source, which displays heavy bias and is written by a religious group, makes no reference to the "daily human rights violations" that you imply. Please find a neutral source to back this claim. Limiting building restrictions is in the fair rights of a municipality. In addition, the limiting of access by non-citizen Palestinians is also completely legal. All Palestinians living in Jerusalem were offered Israeli citizenship in 1967. Those who do not have citizenship choose not to take it. Israeli citizens (including all legal residents of the Arab sections of Jerusalem) are granted full access to Israeli schools, health care, welfare programs, and free movement in the country. This is as with almost all free countries in the world. Limiting access by illegal residents is also usual, as takes place in the United States, for example, in dealing with Mexican illegal immigration. A fair source that can backup this claim with factual evidence is a fair request. --יהושועEric 22:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the bias and is it inaccurate in the facts it states, and what's wrong with it being written by a religious group? I also never described "daily human rights violations", I believe the phrase to be accurate, but you used it, not me. Whether or not the Arabs of East Jerusalem are Israeli citizens has nothing to do with whether or not they experience hardship in their daily lives. Nor does the fact that the laws that cause this hardship are "in the fair rights of a municipality". You are forgetting that we are only discussing the accuracy of the claim that Arabs in East Jerusalem suffer as a result Israeli laws imposed on them, not the shoddy justification given for these laws? Nwe 22:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a new paragraph containing your addition plus sources describing Israeli actions specifically to aid Arab citizens, including those of eastern Jerusalem. --יהושועEric 22:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I did a bit of copyedit work and tried to balance out some of the wording, while still leaving in both the Arab and Israeli POV. I hope this one can be agreed upon. Please let me know what you think. --יהושועEric 23:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. --יהושועEric 23:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You have no clue what you are talking about - do you even live in Jerusalem? I do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eliyyahu (talk • contribs) 11:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

What an anti-Palestinian Israeli "thinks" is not relevant to the creation of an accurate, unbiased article. Do you deny that after both 1948 and 1967 Palestinians were forced out of their homes and new Jewish settlements set up in their place? That, to me, is theft. It's true that the boundaries are a bit arbitrary, but the point you seem to be missing is that the Arabs are entitled to a respectable proportion of the former British mandate of Palestine simply along the lines of equal rights, including part of Jerusalem, and the accidental borders created by history will have to do, in truth the whole of the West Bank and Gaza is the least they are entitled to considering there were more Arabs living in the area than Jews upon Israel's foundation. Masses of information and common sense back up my "inflammatory rhetoric"(give examples of this could you, certainly my version of the article, which is what my source backs up, could not be described thus). I'm really saying nothing new or, at that, anything that should be controversial to neutral ears. As I have said, what you "think", or what I think for that matter, is really irrelevent here. Far less funding will still be provided to Arab areas for health, education or infrastructure. Arabs have an infant mortality rate twice that of Jews. Human Rights Watch has found that "Government-run Arab schools are a world apart from government-run Jewish schools. In virtually every respect, Palestinian Arab children get an education inferior to that of Jewish children " Arabs who do receive good education often find it difficult to receive professional Jobs. Both Teddy Kollek and Ehud Olmert openly and proudly trumpeted their disdain for East Jerusalem's Arabs. And planning laws openly keep Arab residents under siege, leading to cramped living conditions. Meanwhile Palestinians who do have Israeli citizenship can't even legally marry their compatriots in the West Bank.As for my source, can a site a that calls for "a lasting peace...that provides justice and security for all peoples living in the region" be termed as "anti-Israel"? And can being run by a non-heirarchical religion that seeks world peace and inner sancity really by used against it? As for apartheid, in so far as "apartheid" implies racial segregation and discrimation, the term is quite accurate. By the by, don't you at all find the PA's position on Jerusalem so much more moderate than your own government. It recognises your right to exist, you guys won't even let Palestine exist, or accept Palestinian refugees' right to return to their stolen homes. And they only claim half of Jerusalem, whereas you INSIST on it all. But that's all probably beyond this discussion.Nwe 23:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Your info about infant mortality is nonsense - have you compared Palestian infant mortality to that of Arab contries? I can assure you it is far smaller, in fact, the reason why Arabs moved en masse to Palestine in the beginning of the 20th century was because of educated Jewish doctors that would treat them. Because of the terrorist war and kidnapping unleashed agaist Israel, Israelis (Jews and Arabs alike) are currently not allowed to travel to the PA areas, regardless whether they want to marry anyone - this is only reasonable, and is for their own safety. As for people being forced out of their houses during the 1948 War of Independence, it happened on both sides, for example Jews being expelled from Gaza and Hebron in 1929, or Jerusalem Old City and Gush Etzion in 1948.

If you want to talk about apartheid and discrimination, just look at the way Ottoman Turks for five hundred years were running the place before the British mandate - only Muslims got building permits and Jews and Christians were rarely allowed access to their holy cites. Or maybe you think Romans ran this country better? Or the Byzantines? Assyrians? Jewish rule is the most humane and the only one justifiable historically. Don't tell me the PA recognises Israel's right to exist because they openly say that they don't - Israel is here by historical right and if you have complaints, you should complain to the One who is in charge of history. The Jews and Christians are barred from living in Saudi Arabia, even though Khaybar, Medina etc were originally Jewish cities. On the contrary, Jerusalem is open to all religions, although if we went by the Bible, only Jews should be allowed here (I am not advocating that). The bottom line is that Muslim Arabs have 21 states in the regions - and are trying to take over the formely Christian Lebanon - this struggle is all about pride - they cannot be reconciled with the tiny industrial and progressive Israel in the midst of a backwater mediaeval region run by fanatical mullahs and dictators of the Assad/Saddam mould. Eliyyahu 14:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Israel Occupied Territories - Gaza

Please explain how Gaza is still considered occupied? All Israeli forces withdrew and all Jewish families were forcibly removed from the area. --יהושועEric 21:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You can see yourself on the actual article on Gaza itself, Israel still controls maritime access and airspace.Nwe 21:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)