User talk:Almaqdisi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Palestine, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Hello Almaqdisi! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! —Khoikhoi 02:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

Contents

[edit] Your message

Hi, I'm sorry I haven't been very active of late. Could you please clarify for me where the problem with Dome of the Rock and other articles lie? I don't think I can follow everything on the talk pages so any specific guidance from you would be appreciated. Thanks! Ramallite (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help in al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock

I am available to assist you. Siddiqui 04:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edits

Hi, I happened to notice that you have been marking all of your edits as "minor". I suspect you are just being "modest", but please see Help:Minor edit for when to check this box. Take care, Elizmr 19:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, I marked the "minor edit" box by mistake when I made the above edit to your talk page! Apologies, Elizmr 19:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Elizmr, I will make sure I am more careful with this. Sometimes after I upload some text, I forget to add a link or something. I did not know that later adding a link is not considered a minor edit. I appologise for my ignorance reagrding this. Thanks for providing me with this Help:Minor edit. Regards Almaqdisi 19:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Al-Asqa Mosque page

I didn't understand your "help" note on the "3rd holiest" deletion talk page. What are you objecting to? Elizmr 20:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern Elzimr. I am having difficutlies with adding relevant info to that page. Amoruso keeps reverting for no good reason. He disputes several things. For example, he does not want to believe that the Arabic term al-Masjid al-Aqsa from which the english al-Aqsa Mosque is derived, denotes the whole area of the noble sanctuary. I added citations that explain when these terms started to be used and what is denoted by each etc, but he insists that this is not neutral. Furthermore, he removes informaiton that al-Aqsa mosque compound's capacity is hundreds of thousands muslims. Instead he want only to use the number 5000 only to marginalize the place! Finally, he disproves the edits I made to the Dome of the Rock which is now blocked for this reason. There I have added the construction letter regarding the Dome in which it mentions that the muslim calpih commissioned the Dome as a mosque for muslims. Instead he insists this is not neutral and that the word mosque should be replaced with the word shrine arguing that the Dome was built by Jews and for Jews!

I cannot continue reverting his edits on these pages alone and this is why I need help from other people of knowledge. Certainly regarding this particular topic, he has agenda and is only interested in disputes and not authentic resources and is just not letting any information from Islamic accounts to stay there. This is why I asked the help and assistance from other users regarding this issue. I understand that many users may not be able to contribute conveniently to this article with legitimate resources, but I can do that and I have access to thousands of Academic Journals and Books and magazines. He argues that I may only have such edits on Arabic WikiPedia! I do not see why such information that is available in the Arabic language should not be available also in english, particularly given the fact that many of the old Arabic texts themselves have been recently translated to English and can also be conveniently cited and verified by english speakers. Have a good day. Almaqdisi 08:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes if the language is made more precise to convey a pov more exactly then the objections will go away but it doesn't sound like this is that kind of a case. Would it make sense to give two numbers of the occupancy with cites for each and say the capacity is disputed with some claiming x and some claiming y? Or two sets of sources and say that one set is the codified muslim source and the other is whatever it is and let both stand? It will be clear to Muslims reading that they should trust the Muslim source more, and others can get the range of what's out there and make their own conclusions. Is the problem with who built the dome about the site of the Jewish temples or is it something else? Anyway, I think you could probably reach a version that would be ok with both of you. Elizmr 23:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Elizmer's proposal here for a plurality of (reliable) sources as a way of mitigating this issue. Hang in there Almaqdisi, don't lose your cool. --Amerique dialectics 00:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear Amerique, and Dear Elzimr. Thank you both for your remarks. Indeed I am always sticking to reliable sources and authentic citations. The problem with al-Aqsa Mosque page and with the Dome of the Rock page is that Amoruso and Chesdovi do not want to understand. This is really the whole issue. Even if you bring what ever sources like I am doing at al-Aqsa Mosque page, they are just not interested to understand, and only love to revert edits that take really time to organise. It is not becoming fun and something should should be done about it. Elzimr, this is what Amoruso believes [1]. Also, have a look at his this reverted edits of him [2], [3], [4]. For this reason, Amoruso keeps removing any information that explains what is al-Aqsa mosque, and that the whole Noble Sanctuary is a prayer site, and that the Dome of the Rock is a muslims house of worhsip, etc... I do not think there is a possibility at all for neutrality here with just wrong information. You cannot be neutral with such simply false information. It is a pitty that this is just proving why CNN and BBC would not consider Wikipeda as a reliable source for their broadcast. Almaqdisi 02:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand what it is like to have hard work undone and dismissed and can understand your frustration at that. The good thing about Wikipedia is that the work is still there in a previous version so don't despair. I also know that is is kind of bizarre to look at a page on a topic you know everything about and see that the people editing the page don't know much and there are inaccuracies there. I have looked at pages in my professional field and have had that experience. At the same time when I've looked at those pages I have been struck by how hard the editors are trying and how much they care about editing the article and the topic. This makes me feel more fondly towards what they have done even though they have gotten some of it wrong. Anyway, I don't know much about the history of the dome of the rock, but will look at the link you sent which shows Amoruso's POV. Maybe there is a way to present all of the material in a way that you and the others will be able to accept. Maybe not. Elizmr 03:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Almaqdisi,

What do you think of the possibility of pursuing further discussion between all parties concerned with the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa articles through WP:Mediation? I can fill out the request form if all parties involved agree to it. Best,--Amerique dialectics 05:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to pursue trying to fix the Al-Aqsa thing further. Sorry. One of your co-religionists has decided to call me an "infidel" for my troubles. From a muslim to a jew I find this rude; I thought we were all people of the book with mutual respect between us. Thanks for being civil about all this. Elizmr 01:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
You seem determined to take offense for no reason - not only is infidel a perfectly proper word for non-Muslims, it's also used by the Catholic Church for some similar purpose (as I proved to somebody, I think it was you).
And you have no evidence whatsoever that I'm a Muslim, so your attempt to embarrass another Muslim by calling him "your co-relgionist" looks very much like an attempt to shut down a discussion where it's you that's been found intolerant and ill-informed.
All of which would be much more understandable, were it not that I earlier objected (strongly) to what appeared to be an attempt to inveigle me into a discussion with serious anti-semitic overtones.
PalestineRemembered 23:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I am fairly sure that the Catholic church does not use this word currently, although they certainly did historically. Most educated people currently realize that we live in a multicultural society and don't go around saying deliberately insulting stuff to people who are different from them in an inciting way. And with all due respect, I am not taking offense "for no reason". I have honestly said that I consider calling someone an "infidel "(ie--someone of no faith) is rude and have asked for an apology. I don't think it would be productive to reply to any of your points because it is clear to me that there is no hope for a reasonable dialog, but your whole reply above is very attacking--you accuse me of trying to get you into racist arguments, trying to embarass a Muslim, calling me intolerant, calling me ill-informed. Elizmr 00:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

None of this fuss could possibly contribute to the discussion on Third holiest site in Islam.
I played no part in editting this article. My offence is stating my opinion with reasons that the article is unfit to be in the encyclopedia (and would be unfit under almost any circumstances). It seems I'm with the majority of WP editors in this case. I hate to think what would happen if I ever tried to express a minority opinion.
PalestineRemembered 16:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Not really important who said this, I just wanted to let you know I was not going to look at this anymore because I had promised to do it a few days ago. I think the page will be deleted in all likelihood. I still against deleting because I think the deletion goes against core Wikipedia principles and feel we should have tried to get to a NPOV version that everyone could be comfortable with (including changing the provactive title), but appreciate the feelings of the side for deletion as well. Take care, Elizmr 00:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear User_talk:Almaqdisi. I cannot take a discussion about the use of the word "infidel" very seriously. The fuss made looks exactly like an attempt to make the discussion personal in order not to discuss the point I'd raised (Israel's gradual destruction of the Al-Aqsa mosque). It's not just an attempt to slur me, it's an attempt to re-define Arabic as a language of insults. The next step is to say "We've made calling someone a Muslim an insult, therefore we're going to bar you from using that word too". When I see Political Correctness of this kind being injected, I assume that the points I'm making are excellent, and the accuser knows it.
Now, I may have been wrong to use the word "infidel", but there isn't another I could have used, and my quick search of google suggests the word is sometimes used as insult, but more often is not. I will, however bear your words in mind and not use this particular word again.
(You will have noted the same people are making generalisations about the "The Jews" and demanding that I join that discussion. They're attempting to trick me into making some kind of similar racist generalisation, in order they can smear me as anti-semitic. This silly spat over the meaning of "infidel" comes from the same tool-box, the one labelled "ways to silence critics of Israel". But it comes from a different drawer, the one labelled "easy ways to make Arabic speakers feel bad and tie them in knots").
PalestineRemembered 16:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Almaqdisi and others have told you an alternate term you could be using instead of "infidel". Please try to assume good faith and stop trolling on Wikipedia. Elizmr 00:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
My apologies - I'd not appreciated there was an English word I could have used, that of "non-believer" instead of the Arabic "infidel". I can see I've fallen foul of the English-speaking mafia, who have an absolute right to re-define any and all Arabic words as being insulting and declare them not fit to be used in polite society.
Wouldn't it make more sense just to announce that "iggerant furriners are not welcome in the Wikipedia", and then the lowly ranks of people like myself would know we were not entitled to engage even in discussions on Talk pages, let alone edit an article?
PalestineRemembered 22:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Third holiest site in Islam

Could you put your comments on the new lead on this page? I wrote it to respond to the complaints you made on the AFD talk page and I think it does repond to some of them (except for the title). What do you think? Elizmr 13:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added a comment on the discussion board of the locked AfD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Third_holiest_site_in_Islam_%28second_nomination%29 Aboosh 00:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salam

I hope that you are Muslim. I am very impress from you comments on Third holiest site in Islam. If you need my help then please let me know. I usually do not have enough time but I will try. --- ابراهيم 14:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. I am also interested in emailing you for fast contact. So activate your email address. Have you seen this hadith.

[Sahih Bukhari: Volume 3, Book 29, Number 87]

Narrated Qaza'a, the slave of Ziyad: Abu Said (Radi Allah Anhu) who participated in twelve Ghazawat with the Prophet (sal-allahu- alleihi-wasallam ) said, I heard four things from Allah's Apostle (sal-allahu- alleihi-wasallam ) (or I narrate them from the Prophet ) which won my admiration and appreciation. They are:

1. No lady should travel without her husband or without a Dhu-Mahram for a two-days' journey.

2. No fasting is permissible on two days of 'Id-al-Fitr, and 'Id-al-Adha.

3. No prayer (may be offered) after two prayers: after the 'Asr prayer till the sun set and after the morning prayer till the sun rises.

4. Not to travel (for visiting) except for three mosques: Masjid-al-Haram (in Mecca), my Mosque (in Medina), and Masjid-al-Aqsa (in Jerusalem). --- ابراهيم 17:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

I'd like to send an email to you, why don't you set up an email address for your account? thestick 14:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Salaam! Thank you for contacting, I myself is too much burdened with my studies, I just saw a mess on Al-Aqsa Mosque, so I cleaned it, but definitely there is a lot to do. I wish I could help you, I have got headache from previous articles especially, Muhammad, Islam and slavery, and The relation between Islam and Science, and I think I'll wait for sometime before taking some pain more. But best of luck. Cheers and Allah Hafiz. TruthSpreaderTalk 10:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Salaam Almaqdisi! It is against WP:LEAD to put all this information in Lead section. Secondly, all these verses are differently interpreted by different scholars. We can't present in this article as these verses are related to Isra and Miraj by all scholars. Thirdly, we don't need to put arabic, as it is not arabic encyclopedia, fourthly, I also made some changes to the article, which are also being reverted. I hope that you'll understand. Cheers! TruthSpreaderTalk 02:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I've pondered over this issue of dream and physical journey, but the hadith in Bukhari also gives this impression very clearly as it uses word "wake" suddenly when prophet Muhammad was talking with prophet Moses. TruthSpreaderTalk 03:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
You are right, I checked Mawdudi's tafsir:[5] and he also takes the same meaning as yours. Cheers! TruthSpreaderTalk 04:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I've now added the verse from Surah Najm as well with a reference. TruthSpreaderTalk 04:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
You are right that our scholars have been taking this position that it was a physical journey but there is little or no strong evidence to show that Sahaba believed it this way as well. The general argument is that why the prophet would be ridiculed when he told about this journey. The people who believe that it was a dream say that it was a very important revelation from the God which told Muslims that now Juresalem is now going to be given to Muslims, and as the prophet lead the prayer in front of all the previous prophets, that showed that Muslims will rule this world. And this claim was ridiculed by the opponents of the prophet. The classical example of this understanding comes from Umar (ra). He believed in this so strongly that he didn't even care to bring army with him, but rather went alone with his servant to take the control of the city of Juraselum. And as the Qur'an promissed, the city fell into his hand.
I found this explanation a lot more closer to Quranic verses and hadith literature and thus more logical. But I still respect your opinion. TruthSpreaderTalk 07:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I've added the opinion of Mawdudi on dream/physical journey. Cheers! TruthSpreaderTalk 00:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compound article

Should be in the Temple Mount article as it treats the same place. You should have a muslim perspective section there. if that section gets too long it can also be created as a seperate article probably called Muslim beliefs concerning the Temple Mount probably. That's my opinion. Amoruso 07:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you should decide yourself what the word means first... like mentioned on that page if it really referrs to all the compound then you need to come to terms with who built the compound. If it referrs to something spiritual and not specific then indeed I think the mosque in the south/ the shrine of the dome marks that spot according to islamic law which will make sense. Amoruso 07:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
There is clearly a disagreement here. Suggest applying the WP:NPOV policy and allowing both views to appear simultaneously using neutral language. Elizmr 16:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet thing

Hi Almaqdisi, I wanted to let you know that the sockpuppet thing has finally been checked by an Admin. You are using a different IP address from one of the suspected sockpuppets and the same IP address as the other. I see by your userboxes that you share your wireless account with your neighbors, so this might be the innocent explanation. I going to assume good faith on this. I hope you are having a good Muslim Sabbath (not sure if that is the right term), take care, Elizmr 16:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hadith

Yeah Truthspreader going to other articles and taking out the hadith he doesnt like like the ones where Muhammad say kill all geckos.

I agree Hadith can be used. SHOULD be used youre right theyre very important source. But not with coming our own original interpretations. If Hadith say, 'Narrate Aisha: Prophet told me journey was physical journey not dream.' then we can say Hadith say that. Original research when were saying it 'suggest' something. That makes sense? Policy say we can use the primary sources BUT have to be really careful with them in this way.Opiner 06:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Almaqdisi. Im mainly angry at the Truthspreader he was going around saying using Hadith is original research even if we only repeat exactly what it say. Saying we need secondary source in all cases THEN I look through his contributing and see that! Not your fault at all!

For when we dont know if hadith reliable or not. And lets be honest we usually dont. Even the best Islamic scholars disagree on very many of these. In this case where we dont know we should be careful and say 'According the the hadith of Sahih Muslim' and tell exactly what it say. Thats a fair and honest using of the primary source. My opinion.Opiner 07:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. Please see also your talk page. Almaqdisi talk to me 07:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay maybe you can help. From translation of Sahih Muslim, Book 26 chapter thirty five called Desirability of Killing a Gecko. [6] All of them say Muhammad kill the gecko so I wrote 'According to the hadith of Sahih Muslim, Muhammad commanded to kill geckos' and gave the link. Where you finding the databases? That sounds really useful.Opiner 07:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You helped choose Islam as this week's WP:AID winner

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Islam was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

Dev920(Mind voting here?) 15:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third holiest and points

Hello, Almaqdisi. I understand you may be frustrated with the way some articles are being edited. I just had one of the articles I wrote deleted, so I can understand frustration. However, it helps to keep Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point in mind. The talk pages of the article is where the merits of the individual sources can be discussed, and I, among many other editors, will be happy to engage in constructive dialogue with you there. Thanks! -- Avi 05:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italians have far more claim to Palestine than do the Zionists

Hi Almaqdisi

I'm not sure whether the following is true or whether it can be verified. But I thought you should see it anyway:

The historical claim of the Zionists is almost unbelievably tenuous ..... a smallish portion of Israel was a Judean Kingdom, lasting 100 years between 145BC and 44BC (when the Romans occupied the Eastern Meditteranean).

The Italians ruled continuously until 626 AD (this comes to a total of 670 years).

The Persians took over. They were almost immediately converted to Islam, 637 AD, and the Muslims held the area until 1948 (this comes to a total of 1311 years. Though they lost a portion, briefly, to the Crusaders).

It would seem that, based on the length of occupation, Italians have a six times better claim to Israel than any American or Russian, and Muslims have 13 times as good a claim.

(You might wish to accept Biblical claims that there were two earlier periods of Palestinian independence, totalling 300 years. A kingdom of Israel between 1030-1020 BCE and 930 BCE-920 BCE, c.100 years. Then 200 years of two independent kingdoms, Israel and Judah. Destroyed by the Assyrians c. 720 BCE. But even if we accept the older, unproven claims, the Italians would still be 50% more entitled to the area and the Muslims three times as entitled to it).

Alternatively, if the claim is not based on length of occupation, then on what is it based? Not religious fundamentalism along with armed robbery, I trust?

PalestineRemembered 22:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR Violation

You have violated 3RR on Dome of the Rock. Please self revert or be reported. Thanks. Amoruso 11:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, calling a content dispute vandalism is not allowed on wikipedia. Take note of this or be reported as well. Amoruso 11:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC) It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!

Would you let me know how did I violate the 3RR rule. I cannot see that happening on the Dome's page. If you prove to me I will self revert. Almaqdisi talk to me 11:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You have made 4 reverts in 24Hrs to a previous version that didn't include the quote by Mark Twain. Amoruso 11:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and please stop these allegations of vandalism and hysterical edits. If you remember, we agreed to keep Twain at the time and we came to a consensus on this. It'll be bad to start warring again and locking another imporant article on a random version. Amoruso 12:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, I appologise again. Indeed, I was not staying cool this time. But I thought you are going wild too :). Almaqdisi talk to me 12:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

let's be friends again, i'm writing something about Twain in the talk article, maybe you'd be convinced. Amoruso 12:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
We will, we should work together :) Almaqdisi talk to me 12:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Palestine.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 04:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Bethlehem

Hi Almaqdisi,

Would you mind looking and commenting on the additions here? There seems to be a POV drive to mislead WP readers about the situation in Bethlehem using malicious sources and extremely selective usage of texts. Thanks, Ramallite (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Religious significance of Jerusalem, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.


[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Religious significance of Jerusalem.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 16:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Response to your talk message from jabeles

Hi Almaqdisi,

You know, I gave some thought to the changes you made this morning when you deleted my remarks on the etymology of "Palestinian" from the introductory paragraphs of the article on Palestinian People and actually, I came to the conclusion that I agree that the etymology should be removed from the introduction and placed further down in the article.

After all, many Palestinians who would read this Wikipedia page would like it to be a source of pride and it is perhaps unavoidable that mention of Israelis and Palestinian Jews would disturb them when it is unnecessary.

Instead I was thinking that the discussion on the adoption of the term "Palestinian" could be relocated to the section talking about the newspaper in 1911 called Filisteen (not sure I got the spelling right).

I had gone so far as to edit it that way and then I guess you restored the previous version (surprisingly to me). In addition, as you may see in my edit, I thought it important to mention that it was Yasir Arafat's adoption of the name Palestine Liberation Organization that essentially created the term "Palestinian" as a fait accompli, but that he was only able to do this because Jewish Palestinians had abandoned the term "Palestinian" in favor of "Israeli" after 1948. Regardless of the conflict, it seems to me these are valid facts that are enlightening to read in this context for one who may not have considered it before.

I am planning to quit editing this page because I don't want to cause any frustration to you or others but what I would suggest is a balanced emphasis on facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jabeles (talk • contribs) 20:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] WikiProject Palestine

Hi, How about putting together a WP Palestine? I found that there was already a project page, but with nothing much on it. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palestine Are you interested in bringing it to life? --Fjmustak 20:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3 revert rule

Hello. Please be aware of the three revert rule, which you are in danger of violating on the Palestinian people article. Why do you not want to get consensus? That's how we do things on Wikipedia. nadav (talk) 04:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Palestinian people

I understand what you are saying and I see that you have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. I think we have made some good progress on the talk page of the article in terms of deciding what to add. See the discussion with Tiamut especially, who has done a lot of work towards expanding the article and making it more readable. And I am sure more information will gradually be added. Feel free to suggest new directions for expansion on the talk page; the info about family sounds really useful. Best, nadav (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed by the uncompromising line you are taking with this article. The material you have been re-adding has been discredited repeatedly on the talk page. The policies of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE do not allow this emphasis on portrayals of the Palestinians as direct descendants of the Canaanites, which is what this material does. Extensive evidence has been provided on the talk page that almost all current experts do not accept this theory. The sources the text is based on, Finn and Frazer, are opinions of people who cannot in any way be considered experts in this field. (Have you read the discussion with Tiamut?) Your belief that the text has to remain and that all we can do is add sources that discredit Finn and Frazer specifically doesn't hold water: if a football player expresses an opinion on nuclear physics, do I have to find a scientist to prove to us that we cannot take the football player's word? Among other evidence, quotes from the Journal of Palestine Studies and from Science have been put forward that prove that the vast majority of experts—including Palestinian archaeologists—do not accept the claim. nadav (talk) 07:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Almaqdisi, Nadav is correct. We must remove that material, by policy. I've had to take it out again. Jayjg (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I have reliable sources that contradict most of the information you wrote. Specifically, Arabic was not the popular language in Palestine prior to the conquest: it was Aramaic in its various dialects (and you should not confuse it with Arabic). You will have to provide reliable, modern-day academic sources that support your beliefs. Elizabeth Finn's writings, for example, are not reliable for this assertion. You can discuss this further on the talk page of Palestinian people. nadav (talk) 05:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Eid Mubarak

Eid Mubarak!

I wish you and your family a blessed Eid.

Your friendly neighborhood Muslim.

If you object to the above message, please remove it, accept my apologies and notify me on my talk page.