|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
- 1 Nomination of Hamas and the Taliban analogy for deletion
- 2 Invitation to contribute your opinion to a stalemated edit conflict
- 3 Should the Old City of Jerusalem and the Walls of Jerusalem be included in this template
- 4 Arabic names
- 5 Your knowledge
- 6 Revert in Human rights in Israel
- 7 Destroyed Palestinian villages
- 8 Notification
- 9 Racism in Israel
- 10 Thanks
- 11 Pure side comment on emotional attachment
- 12 Look what I found!
- 13 GFDL
Nomination of Hamas and the Taliban analogy for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Hamas and the Taliban analogy, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamas and the Taliban analogy until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. RolandR (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Invitation to contribute your opinion to a stalemated edit conflict
Since you have been an active editor on the Talk Page of the "Israel and the Apartheid Analogy" article, I would like to invite you to contribute your opinion regarding the current stalemated discussion under the "'Reverted Contribution' continued" section. I sought a "Third Opinion" on this, but the Third Opinion editor indicated that on pages like this where there is a lot of editor discussion, the views of other editors should be solicited. To clarify just what the current stalemate is about, you can read from Para. 1.1 on in the "'Reverted Contribution' continued" section, that is, from where a Third Opinion was requested. Thank you very much for your participation. Tempered (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Should the Old City of Jerusalem and the Walls of Jerusalem be included in this template
I saw on your user page that you have contributed a lot to the article Tourism in Israel. Therefore I would appriciate if you could share your knowledge on this matter here. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
In case you don't know, Israeli sources use Arabic spelling for Turkish names. For example, they use Hussein for Hüseyin. Hussein is incorrect since it violates Büyük Ünlü Uyumu . Turkish words use a,ı,o,u or e,i,ö,ü, but not in mixed form like u,e,i. There are exceptions like foreign loan words but these foreign words are generally transformed to a form in which they obey Turkish rules, like in the case of Hüseyin. So we use ü instead of u in Hüseyin. You can use IHH website for correct spelling of names if you are perplexed with Turkish rules. Kavas (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Huh? What language is that? Marokwitz (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Revert in Human rights in Israel
Your revert is done while the discussion is ongoing. This is against the wikirules. Pls revert your revert and let's discuss in talk page until we come to a consensus.-- Jim Fitzgerald post 18:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, this is not against any rule. You made a bold edit, I reverted it. Read WP:BRD. Marokwitz (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Destroyed Palestinian villages
Hi there. You have been adding "no footnotes" templates to destroyed Palestinian villages pages. I don't have a problem with that per se - however, at some pages, you have added material without in line citations yourself (as you did here for example). If you are going to request that article's include in line citations, you should probably add them when you add information as well, no? Tiamuttalk 18:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Noisetier (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Racism in Israel
Hi! You've just deleted several large sections from Racism in Israel, involving textbook forms of racism (unequal school segregation and racially exclusive land ownership). Whatever "narrower" definition of racism you have, it doesn't seem to be shared by the legal and scholarly world or by the widely adopted Convention against racism. Please explain on talk (I've opened a new discussion) or self-revert.--Carwil (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Pure side comment on emotional attachment
As an (US) American hearing this–"What I do object is to branding a country which has very strict laws against racism, as racist"—I am a bit dumbstruck. The United States since 1968 has had "strict laws against racism," and this has revealed in large part that: (1) you only have laws for things which actually exist; (2) laws do not erase attitudes over night, or even over four decades; (3) people with racist intentions deliberately remake their racism to be compatible with laws, and deliberately remake laws on "non-racist" grounds that maintain racial distinctions. In short, countries with laws against racism and countries with racism are two sets which overlap, almost by definition (one could imagine a country with no racial issues tagging along with the UN process).
Consider in parallel, rape. There is no country without rape. In history, many cultures have legitimized rape (allowing rapists to marry their victims as "compensation" for example) or deemed that some women (in most cultures, wives) had no right to not consent to sex with certain men. Now, if we have a page called Rape in country X, this is not about "branding the country," this is about attempting to understand the role of a widely occurring social phenomenon, with an effect on many people living in that country. In both cases, yes, there is a moral issue, and connection to moral judgment. However, that is no reason to put a lot of effort into minimizing that issue because you are attached to a given country. I would ask you to attempt a greater degree of emotional distance in reacting to this page. Thanks.--Carwil (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Don't selectively quote me, please. That's very annoying. What I said continues with the words: when the sources are actually not attributing the discrimination to racist motives. There is no emotion involved here, only proper adherence to rules of Wikipedia. This is a clear case of sources being distorted. Just read my comment #4 for one example. Marokwitz (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi! I'll talk about the rules of wikipedia on the article's talk page. Here I was making a personal appeal about how something you said seems to reveal an emotional interest in editing. I'm not anti-emotional investment, just noting that some discretion in where it leads is advisable.
- As far as selective quoting, I think I addressed the rest of the sentence on Talk:Racism in Israel. Here I was trying to connect with you (and your motivation) personally. If you find that annoying, I'm sorry. Let me know and I won't try it again.--Carwil (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have no problem with you trying to connect with me personally. I do have a problem when you - I assume inadvertently - distort what I've written and reach incorrect conclusions. I actually never intended to say what you quoted me as saying above, since you left out the most important words of the sentence. This could make an incorrect impression about me to other readers of my talk page. What I actually meant is that I strongly object to anyone (Living person, country, anyone) being branded as racist on Wikipedia when the cited sources are not attributing his or it's actions on the discussed incidents to racism. If someone is being accused of discriminatory practices with unspecified motives, then it is original research to say otherwise, and I find the distinction very important. Marokwitz (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Look what I found!
Hi Marokwitz, when you copy writing from one article to another, as you did here, could you please add to the edit summary where you took it from? It's a violation of the licence otherwise. Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)