User talk:A student of history

Timeline of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict

It seems to me that there this page is slightly skewed towards a "pro-Israel" POV. Certain actions are qualified, while others are not for example. I know this issue is particularly controversial, and so I'm expecting a lot of discussion over this particular page. I think this page is very important however, and I hope we can fill in a great deal of missing detail.

I find also that many Israeli actions are qualified and justified, however, Palestinian ones are not. This is a problem.

In particular, I would like to see some information on the Jewish immigration to Palestine. This is a detail which is seriously lacking, it should begin in 1882 I believe with the first Aliyah.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, A student of history, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I don't know why you chose me, but I'll take a look. It is best to use the respective article's talk page for discussing its content. Thanks and happy editing. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have misunderstood. Many of the things you have explained to me were not written by me, but simply reverted. Secondly, the government of Israel does not call the land occupied. 'Disputed' is an appropriate NPOV term. There are many things you are explaining to me that I agree with you, but for some reason you think I am trying to avoid it. I would like to keep the article as complete as possible. Everything I have written has basis and reason behind it, it is not just a POV. I hope we can work together to a achieve a complete article, as I believe we really do not have much to disagree over. Thank you. For now, I will revert the article but I would like you to ADD what you feel necessary, and not remove true and sourced statements. I appreciate it. Thanks and get back to me. --Shamir1 02:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

Sorry you felt that way. I did not mean to shed more information on Palestinian acts of terror against Israelis. I remember not writing additional info for Qibya, because there was tons of information on the events and background information that I thought it would be better for the reader to actually click the link and learn from there. In regards to the offer Arafat declined to accept, everything I had written was true, and before I edited it, that line was almost exactly the same except it said "over 95% of the West Bank" rather than "97% of the West Bank". I would also like to assure you, my knowledge of history is quite advanced, and I am currently studying history and political science in university. Also, rather than, "Jewish immigration begins" is fairly incorrect, as Jews have maintained a presence and have been immigrating to the Land of Israel even before the birth of Muhammad. However, I do see relevance to include the Aliyot (plural of Aliyah). I am glad we can come to terms and edit together. Keep in touch. Thanks. --Shamir1 22:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== timeline ==--Shamir1 05:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only included any 'justification' you mentioned if the main article does indeed say so. And as for that Gaza disengagement, those words are not mine, but were part of the article long before I got to it. I do appreciate the communication we are having, though. --Shamir1 05:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one will ever find a statement clearly unbiased. So while you may still have that feeling, I get messages thanking me for clean-up effort of POV. I also hear of complaints of people unable to add information to the Palestinian exodus article, which is unarguably POV to the max. (I, by the way, have yet to even touch the artice). So if you think some of the events have some bias, well, I cannot say any of it is not true. My stance is already controversial, as an Iranian-American who supports Israel. Believe me, I am trying to clean up the article to the best of my ability. Thanks. --Shamir1 05:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that you insist on removing any slightest possibility of sympathy for Israel, even when it is truth. That link is the 1st or 2nd resource when you Google Palestinian Refugees, and is thus very reliable. I have included aspects on both sides. I removed a statement that mentioned an attack was done in response to Deir Yassin. That is not true. It does not say that anywhere.

You cannot just remove something because you feel it is a "justification". I state what each groups motives were, and that information is written in the main article. Secondly it is not just Jewish Virtual Library but MANY MANY sources. and that is not the point. The point is that the Palestinians were encouraged to leave by their leaders, and their are quotes to support that on that page. Quotes are not written by the author you mentioned, and therefore bear no POV. I really do not see what you are doing anymore. You are removing key information. And as for the East Jer offer, it is a fact and not debated and I have read it many times before hand and I stress it was written in this timeline long before I touched it. So please, for both of our edits, let that date be. Thanks. --Shamir1 21:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are NOT getting it. All you keep saying is I am putting an Israeli excuse. I am not. I write that it is a claim, and ALL these claims are WRITTEN IN THE MAIN ARTICLE. Truth. I did not write any for Arab ones because they DID NOT EXIST, not because of POV. When it comes to Palestinian refugees, you do not just put a period. It is a serious and vital part of the history and its cause is just as important. That again is NOT a matter of opinion. There are numerous sources to show the reasons of their leaving, with many quotations of Arab leaders showing encouragement. So don't give me this baloney that I am making up my own opinion, because it is not my opinion, it is a historical fact. --Shamir1 01:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I have done is add motives and causes. Please stop arguing with the truth, none of any of those sources are fraud. It seems to me that you are pushing your own POV when removing sourced material. There are even quotes from Palestinians who acknowledge leaving for those reasons, and besides that, ALL REASONS ARE GIVEN SPACE. It states clearly that many left for avoidance of crossfire, anticipation of war, and expulsion. All claims were given consideration and all have evidence to back it up. For you to just dismiss these facts and say it's biased, it's biased, is RIDICULOUS. Do your research. It is known how much land was offered to Arafat ALL OVER THE INTERNET. IT IS NOT DISPUTED. THAT IS WHY, again, IT WAS WRITTEN HERE ON WIKIPEDIA BEFORE EITHER OF US TOUCHED IT. Listen, stop this nonsense about every damn source being biased. There are plenty of resources to show each claim. To say that all these very many quotes by Arab leader and Arab refugees themselves are all wrong, yeah, ok. I really have been nice and have taken all your edits into consideration. Facts are facts, whether you think they may support one side or not, a fact is a fact. STOP REMOVING SOURCED, RELEVANT, AND TRUE INFORMATION. --Shamir1 01:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All sources I have added are reliable. Secondly, the Camp David Summit is not a debate. Even in the main article the major debate is the reason why Arafat declined to accept the offer, FEEL FREE TO ADD IT. I do not see why we should disregard the basic and primary aspects of the offer. And as for the Palestinian refs, many sources say they had all been willing to leave, but I am not writing that. I am writing each reason, that takes in both sides. Some left because of this, some because of that. The big deal is not the language it is in, but that the fact is included. I can even find more sources if you want. If, after the reason for their leaving, you wish to include that their reasons are controversial, fine; but I do not like to disregard actual essential parts of history. Thanks.

you make me proud

Your last edits were great. Bravo. --Shamir1 19:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh please, i can easily say your sources are POV, but unlike you, I do not remove sourced and relevant material. Human Rights Watch has been known to have a strong anti-Israel bias, once even criticizing Israel for a massacre that never took place! I am keeping it, because it is a source and deserves a spot on the timeline. I am convinced that it is you who keeps pushing POV every chance you get, not me. You try to add your own little justifications as well, so shove it. --Shamir1 21:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what you think you can "see". It doesnt change the fact that I think you are wrong and misunderstand what information should be included. I think you should delete the fact that al-Qaeda attacked Americans in the WTC and Pentagon, it may evoke some pro-American sympathy. --Shamir1 21:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is one little problem pertaining to POV. When it comes to Camp David, that sovereignty thing is definitely POV. Nothing even close to it is mentioned. Now while I am sure you can find something on the Internet that will say something like that, obviously it was not enough of a 'biggy' to be in the timeline, nor the opinion of whether it would be sovereignty or not, nor the opinions of others (majority blame Arafat, even Clayton Swisher blames both). Luckily, I think we are close to the final status of our edits. =) --Shamir1 03:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated 3RR on the timeline article

You should self revert. Thank you. Amoruso 05:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have revereted 4 times in less than 24 H. Shamir didn't. It is a violation of WP:3RR . Amoruso 05:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your "false" reasoning is irrelevant. You're not allowed to violate 3RR no matter what. Amoruso 05:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the history, I reverted once, and partially reverted twice in the last 24 hours. And in doing this, I have removed blatantly false information, and obvious POV's that you insist on pushing. You are filling this timeline with garbage, and then when I remove it, you call it "vandalism" and cry foul. Enough of this talk, if you want to keep something which you claim is a "fact", then get a credible, non-partisan, primary source for it. Then we'll have no problems. Until then, I will continue to remove your POV's, which don't belong here. You are consistently violating WP:NPOV policy. A student of history 05:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partial rv's are also rv's . you reverted 4 times, one time was claimed to be partial but wasn't. Amoruso 05:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defamation

Hello, and thanks for your message. I'm sorry for the late response, but I've been as frustrated as you are by some of the relative newcomers to WP and their inability to grasp the notion of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. You will see some of this blatantly in today's edits of Palestinian exodus. Articles of Israel/Palestine are highly contentious, and when there is a dispute going on among individuals, the trend is for others tend to stay out of the way - because nobody really wants the headache. Having said that, I agree that the Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict page is out of hand, because you are trying to maintain it as a timeline (and correctly so) while another editor is trying to make sure it contains just enough defamation of Palestinians to suit his agenda on WP. Sometimes, staying away from such pages for a little while before reverting helps (and sometimes it doesn't). I'll try to help as much as I can, but the problem is numbers - when one group of POV-pushers outnumber the group trying to maintain NPOV, and when most other editors tend to step out of the way by default, the larger party gets its way. This is unfortunate, but since most editors of English WP (at least on middle eastern issues) tend to be North American, and since North Americans are the most misinformed people on earth about the middle east, you will continue to see the standard defamation of Palestinians by default, especially as most of the POV pushers won't even realize that its defamation since they've been so 'sterilized' to the notion of Palestinians being human beings too. Let me know if there is anything specific you'd like me to address. Thanks, and sorry again for the late response. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramallite, you're getting old. This comment wasn't funny enough :) it was serious and heavy (apart from being delusional as always ;) ).Amoruso 19:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amoruso, you're one of the ones on this page trying to push your POV, insisting that you don't need sources for your claims. A student of history 19:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lighten up. ll I've added acutally is notable terorrist attacks already cited in refs in the end of the page and the links. Amoruso 19:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad you guys are both full of it. I am here staying on top of it, providing neutral terms, relevant facts, stating my reasons, adding Israel's attacks (neither one of you has), and meanwhile we don't "grasp NPOV." Get over it. --Shamir1 02:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Look pal

What statement is not proven by a source?????????????????? Get tough all you want, leftist. I'm scared. --Shamir1 23:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm centre-left. --Shamir1 05:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Violation

You've violated 3RR again on Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Please take a break from editing this page, so I won't have to report you. Isarig 04:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your fine work

I am happy to see that you are trying to stand up to the resident Likudnik community that by and large controls the Wikipedia articles related to the conflict in the Middle East. I hope you will hang in there and not give up. I recommend you to try to make many smaller edits that nudge the articles towards something resembling balance and always carefully include multiple references. It's unfair that Likudniks can add extremists views with impunity, while those of us who wish to represent the broad international consensus face an uphill battle, but there you have it. Those are terms under which we operate. Best wishes, Ujalm 23:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israel-Palestine Timeline

Thank you for asking me (amongst others) to help with the timeline. Sorry I haven't replied and looked at it sooner, as I have been busy. It does seem (to me) that there are far too many opinions floating around Wikipedia, in the more controversial subject articles. Hopefully we can all neutralise this article and many others.

Regards Sigurd Dragon Slayer

Your Opinion

I could use your opinion on the Israeli Settlements page. I sensing a certain ugly influence on the page from a few of the editors. Even though the page is actually pretty decent as is I think you could add to the process. MarkB2 23:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input on the Israeli Settlements page. Although Palestinian authorities do control some of the West Bank their "control" is pretty academic when the IDF decides it wants to search or arrest suspects in that territory. MarkB2 03:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine Project Invitation

WikiProject Palestine is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of members at WikiProject Palestine. Ahlan wa Sahlan! (Welcome!)

--Abnn 01:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]