User talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

• Archive of Previous Username 23 October 2005- 31 January 2006
• Archive 1 6 November 2005- 16 March 2006
• Archive 2 18 March 2006- 15 April 2006
• Archive 3 15 April 2006- 3 May 2006
• Archive 4 3 May 2006- 29 May 2006
• Archive 5 29 May 2006- 3 June 2006
• Archive 6 3 June 2006- 12 July 2006
• Archive 7 14 July 2006- 5 November 2006

I'm first!

Yes, go for it, by all means. Actually, I originally objected to the whole article on the grounds that there was no evidence given that it's used as a term in political science. There seem to be a couple of citations now but I can't access all of them. It's still not great. In any case, a list would almost certainly be regularly filled up with states different editors objected to for nationalistic or ideological views, which even if they were able to find citations for it - as might well be the case - still wouldn't make a good article.

And anyway, is there such a thing as a non-artificial state? Aren't all states human creations anyway? How can you really say that France is more "natural" than Iraq? (And while I'm ranting, is there any reason for terming Robert Fisk a "geopolitical critic", whatever that is, other than the obvoius one of making him sound like a respectable source for an article about a type of state?) Palmiro | Talk 18:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, all those are interesting points, but is this article a valid and useful framework in which to discuss them? The articles on state, nationalism and related topics might be more the place for them. I've put in a 'weak delete' vote on the AFD - after all we do have a lot of articles on ideas at least as vague as this and on various terms of political abuse, so purely on the grounds of consistency I can see why people would argue to keep it. I'd encourage you to have your say there too, either way.

I would say in an off-the-top-of-my-head response to your remarks about nationalism, that nationalism is a force that can certainly result in the creation of states, and that can be used to strengthen existing states. But states existed before nationalism, and indeed the concept of an artificial state as it appears in some of the examples given seems like it may amount largely to a failure to recognise that nationalism is not the unique and natural basis for the establishment of states. No doubt we could discuss this at length, but unfortunately I have a pressing deadline - which of course is why I'm spending time on Wikipedia. When it's time to procrastinate, nothing beats the internet! Palmiro | Talk 00:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the article in the first place last winter one night. It is a difficult topic and poorly defined even in the literature, that is why I left it in that horrible state with all the tags. --Deodar 18:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artificial state

Time to go I think. I couldn't make it into a proper article anyways, and I put in a good effort. I also let the article sit for almost a year in a bad state and no one really was able to fix it either. --Deodar 20:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Response: [1]. I'll stay out of it now, you guys can do what you want. --Deodar 02:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Askjolene

AFD is not a vote, so the raw numbers don't guarantee a given outcome. There really weren't any arguments that showed the site actually met WP:WEB's criteria of multiple non-trivial published works. Alexa rank doesn't at all mean we'll have reliable sources to use in writing an article. --W.marsh 19:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please join us ...

You are invited to join WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build and maintain an extensive and neutral database of Israel related articles on Wikipedia. To join, simply add your name to the members section of WikiProject Israel.

--GHcool 07:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Accusation"/ "The reality" format

I respect your opinion, Moshe, but do not agree that it is a format that is counterproductive. When I use it, I try my best to back up "The Reality" with evidence either with links to other relevent Wikipedia articles or from outside sources. Also, I never use this format on a legitimate opinion or to challenge a true fact (and if I have unknowingly, I appologize). I try my best to only use the format on gross exagerations or outright lies (such as "the Zionist regime [massacred] Palestinians by the thousand [sic]") or purposeful attempts to delegitimize the State of Israel and apply a double standard on its government, its media, and its citizens (such as "I believe the integrity of the encyclopedia is severely compromised by references to Israeli government web-sites"). I admit that the format is, in a way, obnoxious, but I'm sure we can agree that reckless disreguard for the truth is much more dishonorable than being obnoxious (especially in the context of editing an "encyclopedia"). The format also seems to work. Rather than acting defensive, they usually backpeddle just enough so that they can try to save face without looking too foolish. If after reading what I said above you still disagree with this method of argument, I'm happy to listen to ideas as to how I can improve the style so that all of the things about it that work still work, but maybe sounds less obnoxious. --GHcool 03:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

New Antisemitism

Please join discussion. --Aminz 11:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrongly convicted

I'm trying to get some feedback on the meaning of this term at Talk:Miscarriage of justice and at Category:Wrongful convictions. My understanding has always been that wrongful convictions are matters of fact, not just of opinion. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, OK, maybe fact isn't the right word; after all, they call judicial rulings "opinions" too. But it seems to be that the judicial opinion is the one that counts. We can't let the mobile vulgar decide who is and who is not guilty or who has been wrongly convicted versus who has been wrongly not convicted; Leo Frank's lynching is clearly the end result of such a sloppy idea of justice. IANAL, and I haven't heard anything back on my queries. I'm going to give it some time and either limit the scope of Category:Wrongful convictions myself, or do an RfC on it; there should probably be a Category:Miscarriage of justice with wrongful convictions as a sub-category and not the other way around. Most convicts I have known say they were wrongly convicted, that doesn't make it encyclopedic. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Even Kenneth Lay got his conviction vacated after he died. But Leo Frank, unlike Randall Dale Adams, exhausted all his appeals, and first the Georgia Supreme Court and then the US Supreme Court upheld his conviction. Somewhere in a dusty court basement in Georgia there is a file folder with his name on it that reads "convicted murderer." I'd be perfectly happy if the Governor of Georgia woke up tomorrow, got out a bic pen, and took thirty seconds to grant him a full posthumous pardon, were such a thing possible. It's a miscarriage of justice; look at conviction. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Antisemitism

You just reverted my edit to this article citing OR.[2] I find that very interesting considering that the version you reverted to contains even more OR. At least the good thing about my version was that it did not contain any controversial statements? The wording also seems better, but that's just my opinion. Taxico 09:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well you never know :) Personally I think it's okay to replace an original research with a better one. But as a matter of courtesy I let you keep this older version until I do some research. See you around :) Taxico 10:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, just so you know, there is a re-evaluation of the references which (claim to) back up the statement in Jews for Jesus that "no Jewish organizations or denominations therefore consider it possible to profess Judaism and also believe in the divinity of Jesus.". That re-evaluation is why the 'fact' tags were added. DJ Clayworth 17:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus

Moshe, the facts and dubious tags are not disruptive. They are constructive. I want debate on the issue. So far a WP:3 has concluded as I - that the statement I dispute in JfJ, does in fact need a qualifier. See Talk:Jews for Jesus in the "3O:Reply" section. Please don't revert legitimate tags that are in use by the Wikipedia community at large to resolve a legitimate dispute. Come, lets work together to improve articles. Let's not ignore problems. inigmatus 06:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Scram cannon

Reguarding your edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scram_cannon&curid=1557819&diff=90864248&oldid=79238445

Ram accelerators (the basis for the SCRAM cannon), railguns, and light gas guns (and of course rockets) have all been built and tested; while they may not be viable weapons systems with current technology, they certainly do exist and have been shown to be capable of velocities in excess of firearms, which are limited by the speed of compression waves in the propellant gas. I consider this beyond the definition of "hypothetical", as I consider that to be the stage before a proof of concept model, which all these systems have reached or exceeded. I'm going to revert the edit for now; if you disagree with my change, ping me on Talk:Scram cannon and we can try to come to a compromise. scot 16:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus Arbitration

There is a Request for Arbitration for the Jews for Jesus article. Please provide your inputs.ParadoxTom 03:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Fostering Anti-semitism

Can you come up with a more appropriate heading? Otherwise it looks as if there was a direct nazi link to St. Chrysostom.Yukirat 09:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The way it reads, it sounds like he was directly involved in "fostering" anti-semitism as his works were used as per the paragraph. He lived centuries before, can you help with another heading?Yukirat 09:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I came to that article with fresh eyes, and the heading makes it seems as if St. Chrysotom was invovled in "fostering" anti-semitism as per and included with the machinations of those that used his writing for their purposes. There is no real link, he was not involved in their fostering, he lived over 1500 years before. Do you see my point? Let's come up with a better heading, that's all.Yukirat 09:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Very thoughtful of you, Moshe

Yes, I was aware that was the third reversion. BYT 23:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Taba Summit

--Timeshifter 06:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC). I am copying my replies to your comment on my user talk page. Your comment is first, followed by my replies:

Hello Timeshifter, I'm just letting you know that you are in danger of violating the WP:3RR policy on Taba summit. If you revert one more time you could be blocked from editing wikipedia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not revert. Your edit comment after deleting a whole section of a wikipedia page was "rv OR [original research], we can not add controversial and unsourced material because you seem to think it is 'common knowledge')". By the way that section was written by several people, not just me. I first deleted the more controversial material since it was already covered by another wikipedia page. I added "citation needed" tags. You didn't like that and insisted on deleting the remaining part of that section. So I added the reference links you requested. I added quotes, too. So I don't see how you can claim original research now. See the revision difference between when you requested sourced material, and my addition of it. You then deleted the requested sourced material that you asked for. You just blanked that whole section in violation of the wikipedia policy on vandalism: WP:VANDAL. See talk page at Taba summit before blanking again. --Timeshifter 06:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your later edit comment was: "removing pov, your sources do not support your conclusion so this is still OR." There was no conclusion made after I added the sourced material. The section then consisted only of quotes with sources. But to further clarify I just added this sentence to the top of that section: "The issue of who ended the negotiations is disputed. There is no consensus. Here are some perspectives:" Feel free to add more perspectives. --Timeshifter 07:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding citation requested tags does not give a green light to add original research. Furthermore, the references you added did not support the larger argument of the section, when you use references to prove a novel conclusion it is considered original research. It is a difficult policy to understand, I also had a lot of trouble with it when I first began editing wikipedia. Also, please do not accuse others of vandalism when it is obvious that it is not the case.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you make your case on the talk page first next time before deleting a whole section of a wikipedia page. Waiting at least a day or 2 after posting on the talk page will solve a lot of problems. There was no conclusion made after I deleted all the previous info in that section, and then only put quotes with references for them. Show me the conclusions in my last revision. BlueDome also asked the same thing on the talk page: "The section starts with 'The issue of who ended the negotiations is disputed. There is no consensus. Here are some perspectives:' I do not see other conclusions, what are you referring to?"

Here is a revision difference showing the revised section "Who ended the peace negotiations?" I had deleted all that was there previously. So there was nothing there from when you first deleted the whole section. You did not delete the revised section. Thanks. But Amoruso did. 3 times in 24 hours. --Timeshifter 22:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Safiyya

Hi, i need your help on the Safiyya bint Huayayy article in wikipedia. She was a Jewish girl from the banu naddir tribe. Banu naddir where killed by mohammad and the women where taken as concubines. An editor there is making war about me including the word concubine in. Plz read the talk page, karl is neatral, and wants more editors to be involved. Thanks

FrummerThanThou 14:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus

It has been agreed by those who have come in from a request for comment that it does indeed constitute unacceptable editorializing to present as fact that JfJ is not a Jewish organization (or of course that they are). Given this, I am attempting to properly frame the debate. I would ask that if you revert, you would at least be courteous enough to provide an explanation on the article's talk page or my own. Thank you. Seraphimblade 10:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Actually, please note that it is you who are in danger of violating the 3RR-the initial change does not count as a "revert", it is simply an edit. However, you may wish to check the talk page yourself-an RfC has been filed, and has come to rough consensus that mention of the "incompatibility" as fact rather than opinion is unacceptable editorializing. I will discuss this specific edit there as well. Alternatively, perhaps the section could go under the "criticism" header, to make clear that this is, while a majority opinion, an opinion? Seraphimblade 16:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)