User talk:Ravpapa/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Help with deletion nomination

I have nominated 2001 Israeli Nerve Gas Attacks for deletion. I wrote a detailed explanation of why this page should be deleted, and when I tried to include the page in the log (step 3 from WP:AfD) the entire (and rather lengthy) text was included on the log page.

Obviously I have done something wrong. What is it? Thanks. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say, for sure; if I had to guess, you might have been transcluding the article, rather than the AfD page regarding it. In any case, I've gone ahead and fixed things up. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Ofra_haza.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Ofra_haza.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee keepts deleting the name war of Independence at Wars of Israel

He keeps dleting the name "war of independence to 1948 Palestine War. For NPOV I included both names.

He also keeps deleting Siege of Jerusalem (1948), to some newlly invented name.

it is unaccpetble to delete history, just because you don't like it.

someboy must take care of it, or refer this to someone responsible.

thank you. --Shevashalosh (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

read my anser in Hebrew on my talk page. --Shevashalosh (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

hey buddy, did you read my hebrew message on my talk page ? --Shevashalosh (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Deir Yassin massacre#Changes need in article and title - u r invited

Ravpapa, you are invited to take a look at Talk:Deir Yassin massacre#Changes need in article and title

--Shevashalosh (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey buddy, I wrote you back on mail. When you reply, post a message on my talk page, so I can be aware that I need to check my mail (I don't always do that) --Shevashalosh (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your kind words, I appreciate them. I've been on wikipedia a while, although I did join after you. Now if you could just explain to me what you mean in Bava Basra daf lamed-gimel amud beis… -- Avi (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Schubert's last sonatas

Hi. I've requested peer review for this article, as I hope to make it a GA (not FA as yet). Any comments would be welcome. Thanks. Gidip (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Your work on BL at DY

Do you mind if I proceed to some modifications immediately in your text.
If you don't agree with some of them, you can of course revert them immediately.
I think it is interesting to move forward without maybe-a-little-bit-useless discussions.
Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I understand. It is very tiring.

But please, don't leave this topic. Let's collaborate all 3 (or more) and when we have a consensual version, let's suggest to modify the content.

Alone, it will not be possible.

1948 history is already fascinating but its historiography is even more.

Ceedjee (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a final draft on tlak page

take a look at my combination of your version with Shabazz's

and Another remark to you: It don't matter where Milstein posts his articles, what matters is that he is the most RS to what is written in his book. --Shevashalosh (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Viola & chamber music in Israel

Shalom rav! Just to introduce myself - I have a particular interest in these topics, but haven't contributed as much as I might, due to the multiplicity of my To-Do's in other fields (WP and RL). Perhaps we might collaborate? Let me know; meanwhile, keep up the good work! -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Your involvement is needed in Talk:Blood Libel at Deir Yassin

Hi ravapapa, I need your involvment at Talk:Blood Libel at Deir Yassin, I have crafted a "final draft", combined from Shabazz's (mostly) and your input chapter of "Conterversy" (I posted it on Talk:Blood Libel at Deir Yassin#Final Draft - see there).

user Asley came in and said that what he (Milstein) says sounds like a tone of complete truth, and crafted a "draft" of her own.

I tryed to explain her that this is her own input of what Milstein says, not the man's own words. In my "final draft", as I told her "these are the claims - and those are the answers, put it out there, if you think his arguments are weak then it will show".

the ref of "summary in english" (see article refs) - opens with the claim that deir yassin raid or what ever, is the basic founding myth of the paletinians, to fashion Israel as a terrorists state that has alegedlly never seased massacring arab. This is his main claim and how he opens his statement (see the ref "summary in English).

her opening statement is this is a book on Milstein blaming the Yishuv (Her input on what he says)

The rest about Ben Gurion silent, A whole chapter is there, and Meir Pail is at "conterversy" (on my "final draft" on talk page) - in the way you put it in the right context.

please get involved and post your opnion. Thank you. --Shevashalosh (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The problems with Ashley / Shabaz new Draft

Ravpapa, sory I thought the answer was Shabazz's answer - I didn't see that it was your signature.

since you have made a reaserch on the matters here are the problems (Shabaz latest draft is taken from what I have reffered as ashley's draft- so consider this as reffering to both):

1) one openining statement from Ashley:

She (or he) says this is a book about Milstein blaming the Yishuv. not true, this her own input of his own words. see ref "Milstein sumaary in English" [1]:

his words for opening ststement: The Deir Yassin episode, which began on April 9, 1948, is better known throughout the entire world than any other incident from the Israeli War of Independence. It became a basic founding myth in the Palestinian consciousness, and therefore in Palestinian culture...

According to the Palestinians, the Deir Yassin "massacre" was a "frozen incident" in the evolution of the State of Israel. In their eyes, it fashioned Israel as a terrorist state that has never ceased massacring Palestinians...

and thier is one line in the opening ststaement, in which he blames the "New Israeli Left" (hence, post zinists, new historians etc) - I would be glad to mention it !!! (not "the Yishuv" who existed before israel was established [hence- prioer to 1948] , but rather the "new left" of Post Zionism and New Historians [hence after 1948, in the 90th etc]),

This is how he represnts the problm, there is no mention of "Blaming the Yishuv".

2) his layout of the the claims list (1-5) for "massacre", are completely gone (only answer apear - how can one understand the answer if he does not know what the list claim are (1-5) ?

3) Ashely (or Shabaz's) opening ststememnt says where he contends that the raid at Deir Yassin in 1948 should not be described as a massacre. This he never said, it's an input of what you think he syays. his own words is that the massacre never occured (for many detalied reasons)

I will post these problems on talk page, you may post your answers there, better that everybody will see it.

thnk you. --Shevashalosh (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• your turn ? Ceedjee (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Schubert's last sonatas

Hi. Unfortunately only now did I notice your posting in the article talk. I didn't revert all your changes, just some of them. I actually waited a bit to see that you don't add further changes before doing my own. Schubert moved to the suburbs in Sept 1828, when his condition worsened. Actually one of my reversions of your changes was to make this more explicit (you deleted the phrase "at this stage"). Maybe you can rephrase this whole thing better. Please don't feel discouraged if I revert some of your changes. I think other people's revisions are very important and helping. But since I've written the original text here, and have read the references, I think it would be best that I make a final revision after other people, to make sure the correct meaning hasn't changed (I don't consider this ownership of the article, correct me if I'm wrong). If it suits you, I would prefer that you notify me when you have finished your revisions, and then I can go over it and correct or revert where necessary. But I can understand if you prefer not to.

About Schumann - my original phrasing was different. The 'guise' was someone else's revision. Maybe what he/she meant that he used a pseodonym in his writings? Gidip (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sound files

I noticed your editing on Schubert's last sonatas, and checked out your user page. Thankyou very much for uploading and adding sound files to Wikipedia, as you did on, among other articles, chamber music. There is a WikiProject devoted to free music files, Wikipedia:WikiProject Free music. There aren't many sound files of string quartets on Wikipedia, partly because a major source of free content classical music, Pandora Music, focusses so much on wind instruments.

I hadn't noticed the files you uploaded before because you didn't advertise them widely. I have added categories to all the files on Commons which I was sure about. I'm also planning to add them, with links to the full recordings, to the relevant composer/work articles. I tend to mention only the performing ensemble in the audio lists, like I did at Clarinet Concerto (Mozart). I didn't think of the idea of using footnotes to show the full performer information. I initially thought this was redundant, as the performer information is already in the description page, but I'll have to think about it.

Is there a reason why you use the format for images to display audio files? The normal way to display image files in music articles is with Template:Listenor the series of Template:Multi-listen start, Template:Multi-listen item and Template:Multi-listen end. I find the output of those templates easier to read with my screen reader than the image markup, and they give a consistent appearance to all the sound files in Wikipedia.

One more thing ... I hate to be the devil's advocate, but saying something to the effect of "this ensemble gave me permission to release this file under a free license" isn't strictly considered good enough for uploading to Wikimedia sites. There needs to be independent and verifiable proof that the file was freely licensed. To get that proof, you need to email evidence of permission to the permissions address of OTRS so it can be kept in Wikimedia's archives. There's no need to use the email templates with your friends .. what I did with the images in the white canes category on the Commons was just say to the person who made them "OK, we've talked about releasing them under a free license, I just need proof of that which I'll forward to OTRS", and it all worked out fine.

Regards, Graham87 14:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It will take a bit of work to get the required documentation together, but I will take care of it.

I looked at Template:Multi-listen start. The trouble with the multilisten template is that you have to put all the audio files together at the end of the article, and I wanted to interweave them in the text where they were discussed. As for Template:Listen, I couldn't find a way to make the text wrap around it, which made for a much less interesting page layout. I suppose I was being a bit of a toff, but that was the reason. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

OK fair enough. Rules are meant to be broken around here. ;) Wow the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum site is fascinating, I'd never known about it before. Graham87 14:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Politization of wiki

Hi Ravpapa,
Don't worry for that... We cannot prevent it ;-)
I have just this article that might interest you : [2]. It concerns the '48 war.
Cheers, Ceedjee (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Arghhh... What you wrote is not -at all- in the spirit of wp.

You are arguing for wp:forking, which has not a single chance to be accepted or applied.

Ceedjee (talk) 07:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think NPoV is just a question of editor education rather than a question of politization.

I think the "good solution" is in another direction :

• My mind is that even you "I don't agree with what X says", I can agree that "X says what he says". And on wikipedia, all (relevant) pov's have to be given.
• If you add that an editor of wp is not there to tell the truth but to report the different analysis, that also becomes easier to deal
• "forking" nevertheless is an editorial solution BUT inside articles and not from an article to the other. Eg, in Battle of Latroun (still not translated yet), I report in the "chronology of the events" only facts that are not challenged while in the section "historiography", there are 3 main sub-sections, each giving the Israeli, Jordanian and Palestinian way of seeing these events... And just after, I put a sub-section named "confrontation of the historiographies", just to underline their divergence. But no one could never say which is the version I share personnaly... :-)
• Concerning who can edit or not each section, I think you are 100% wrong. Pro-Israeli should only be allowed to edit... Palestinian-pov section and vice versa. That is the only way to find a long-term solution to disputes : see wp:writing for the enemy. There are numerous advantages : no risk to see the section becoming too long, writer becomes aware of the other side's pov, no apologetic style.

Ceedjee (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The ISG museum license

Unfortunately, according to their Podcast FAQ, their recordings are released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative license, which is unsuitable for Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Files and content on Wikimedia projects must be licensed for commercial use for mirrors and forks, and the files must be modifiable - I used this to advantage at Image:Gustav Holst - the planets, op. 32 - iv. jupiter, the bringer of jollity (excerpt).ogg and Image:Wagner Tristan opening (orchestral).ogg. So unless you can get permission from the museum to make an exception for these files (the museum owns the copyright on them because it recorded them), they should be deleted by adding something like {{speedydelete|I accidentally tagged them with the wrong license}} to them. The only other thing I can think of is that they changed their license since you uploaded them, which is illegal because Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. But they still had a non-commercial license in February 2008 according to the Internet Archive, so this is unlikely.

You certainly aren't the first person to confuse the commercial and non-commercial Creative Commons licenses. Wikipedia is a non-commercial site, but one of the great things about it is that its content can be used for commercial purposes, like Wikipedia books or DVDs.

And while I typed this I was listening to the ISG recording of the Trout Quintet ... the atmosphere in that recording is so alive. It's amazing to hear the spontaneity of a live performance like that. Graham87 13:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged the files for speedy deletion. They can be undeleted using the undeletion requests page at Commons if that is ever required. Graham87 08:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. After I replaced the references with links, I pretty much forgot about the whole thing. Bad housekeeper. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Vanqish

I'm surprised you made it that far into my room. No Problem...thanks for the correction.--Buster7 (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Pal music

Ravpapa, I hope you do not find my revert of the interim edits at Palestinian Music objectionable. The page needs considerable work, but the interim edits I reverted seem wholly pitched to political language (esp. saying Pal music's basic intention was to promote conflict with Israel). I did the revert because Tiamut does not seem to be very active these days. Of course, the article needs a lot of work, and restoring the earlier version does not indicate approval of everything in it. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 11:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I thought that Dance21c's edits were pretty scandalous. I didn't want to do the revert myself, but I'm glad you did it.

Incidentally, I think you should check the sentence "... as farmers or as nomads." I think only a very small portion of the inhabitants of Palestine at the beginning of the century were nomadic, almost all were settled farmers (even a sizable portion of the Bedouin, I believe). Nomads also were not included in censuses of the time. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Just caught this while tidying up. There are a lot of confusions over this, not least my own. From memory, pre 1917 texts refer to fellahin as 85-90% of the population, hardscrabble farmers as often as not, plus a bedouin/Arab population partially settled, but engaged even so often in transhumance patterns of herding. Transhumance . .don't think that would get through to clarify 'nomad' (three groups, Galilee, Judean area, and Negev). Nomad will have to stay I suppose until one can think of a 'beddawun', as the tragically bad WW2 soldier pun put it. Cheers Ravp, with Schoenberg's arrangement of a Straussian waltz quixotically floating to mind as I sigh(n) off. Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon

Avi's rearranged the jazz section on the Gilad Atzmon page. Ignoring the other extremely controversial stuff, I wondered, with him, whether you might not be the best person to cast a glance over that section and refresh it with your erudition, if you happen to have any hints as to how we might improve it. Sorry for asking, if this is a bother. No obligations. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I can't be of much help. I know very little about jazz, and would never have heard of Gilad Atzmon if it hadn't been for the flap over the Wikipedia article. I think that the Gilad Atzmon article proves my point that a little bit of controversy causes marginal articles to get blown way out of proportion (see my essay on this topic, The Politicazation of Wikipedia). --Ravpapa (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry then for troubling you on this. I'm glad I did, because your redirect to the politics article made me think I'm not alone. The only difference being that I, as a good Marxist, would subject the process, by dialectical logic, to the judgement of the market place, and allow that to sort out which of the two sides had done the better job.Nishidani (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Haydn_op20_Movement_2_Second_Variation.OGG

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Haydn_op20_Movement_2_Second_Variation.OGG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Haydn_op20_Movement_3.OGG

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Haydn_op20_Movement_3.OGG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The fair use images

Yes, the images you upload fail the non-free content criteria because a free recording could theoretically be made. The guidelines say nothing about how difficult a replacement would be; if it's possible to make a free recording of a work, because the work is in the public domain, then no fair use recordings of it are allowed. I think that's unfortunate, but that's the way it is. Either get (or make) your own recordings of illustrative passages released under a free license, or use MIDI. The only time non-free recordings are allowed for classical music in the public domain is for illustrating the distinctive styles of artists, like the recordings at Glenn Gould. Graham87 06:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose there's no point in arguing, then. The criteria say, 'As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?"' Do you really think that if I were to record it myself (assuming that I could get together four players willing to volunteer their time, and find a recording studio willing to make the recording for free), that a pickup recording would have the same effect? The whole point of the example is to show the emotional, dramatic content of a certain passage. Four amateurs playing without expression and out of tune - or, even worse, a midi recording beeping away - doesn't do it for me.

Ah, well, RIP. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Later: I raised this issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music/Compositions_task_force#Fair_use_issues. Would appreciate your input. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn)

On 10 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 06:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Your notes

Thanks for your notes. I like to keep people guessing. Regarding your essay, it's quite good overall. Oddly enough, the pro-Palestinian crowd really hates Muhammad al-Durrah, despite the fact that it is, as you say, "a fine article: it is clearly written, well-organized, comprehensive, copiously documented. It does not suffer from long apologetics and polemics, as do some other controversial articles." When I say "oddly enough", of course I'm being ironic, and really mean "rather predictably". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• In my evening surf through wiki, I landed on Jayjg s page and saw the reference to your essay, which I read with a great feeling of connection, and that wonderful sense of having written it myself... I agree strongly with your view about using lists for "depopulated villages" or "settlements" and outlawing the use of "massacre" for contemporary "conflicts". Your idea of 2 spaces could (maybe) work, but then, if you can't get sides to agree over one sentence or one paragraph, good luck! with the ultimate merge. (In fact, look at the brouhaha that emerged from the editing of Al-Durrah...there was blood on the ground [some of it mine, :)]) Still, it would be an interesting experiment. Why not post a link at the WP:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration? Please keep me in the loop if you do anything with this. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Categories in your sub-page

Hi Ravpapa! Could you please change the categories in your sub-page User:Ravpapa/Billroth to comments so that page doesn't appear unnecessarily in those categories? Regards, -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Smile friend!

Tiamut^talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

User:Mperel gave this to me. I gave one to User:Nishidani who's been having a rough day, and I'd like to give this one to you. Happy editing! Tiamut^talk 23:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Lucky you! I've only ever been to Sinai. Have been planning to get to Cairo, Luxor and Alexandria for ages, but something always comes up. Enjoy. And if you have a camera with you, try to take pictures. Maybe some will be good for posting here. Tiamut^talk 22:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

I think the three reliable sources Avi put up yesterday, and Wikidemon took down, should go back up first. I just proposed a compromise.Historicist (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Hummus

I'm afraid you just have to consume the picture I put on the page! Kind regards. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon

I wish you would rething withdrawing form the Rashid Khalidi discussion. Wikidemon is doing it deliberately, you know. His strategy appears to be to ask the same question and make the same points over and over until people get fed up and go away. He sometimes gets a little bit aggressive, but always stays within the boounds of formally polite idiocy. He signs on to consensus statements, then renegs. Repeatedly. He repeatedly removes consesnus statements from the article. He also posts things claiming that it as the consensus, but changes the language. Claims that he is leaving the discussion, but comes back. And fails to address responses, recurring instead to the same set of simplistic assertions that other editors have demonstrated to be fallacious. After playing his politely disingenuous game for a month, I began to call him on it. Every time I did, he backed off. Each time I did so, he backed off. Only to go back to his old tricks. Here are some of my posts calling him on these tactics:

• Thoughtful, honorable people like Ron Kampeas evaluate new evidence and sometimes change their opinion in the light of new evidence. In argument #4 under Sources, Wikidemon's analysis [[USER:Wikidemon]’s proposed wording makes it sound as though Kampeas changed his mind on a whim. It is this sort of illogic or, if you will, faux literal-mindedness, that makes me suspect that Wikidemon is actually an intelligent person, intelligent enough to understand that new evidence can exist and that it can change opinions. His pretense here that he believes Kampeas' opinion before examining the new evidence is to be weighed equally with his opinion after weighing the new evidence, as though the man inexplicably changed his mind, is simly so stupid that I refuse to credit Wikidemon with believing what he writes. If my hypothesis is correct, and Wikidemon is actually more intelligent than he lets on in the discussion with his doggedly simple-minded repetitive arguments, then he is, indeed, engaging in a tactic or strategy of endlessly prolonging the discussion instead of accepting the consensus. Historicist (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist

• [edit] Objecting endlessly

At the risk of violating the policy of assume good faith, I am driven to wonder whether all of the participants are acting in good faith. I am willing to be persuaded by evidence. In fact, for years I dismissed the idea that Khalidi ever actually spoke for the PLO. There were no sources. Then sources appeared, and I was persuaded. Attempting to edit this article has increased my conviction that he most certainly did so. Certainly no one in this argument has ever presented evidence to the contrary. Instead of evidence, users present objections. This discussion has now been going on for over a month. During that time copious sources have been brought and consensus has appeared to have been reached three times. Each time a user then violates the consensus by removing the agreed-upon material from the page. The strategy appears to be to keep objecting and objecting and objecting until those who disagree with him get tired and go away. Over the period during which I have followed this. USER:79.181.230.41 USER: Andjam USER:Jaakobou USER:Glen Twenty and USER:RonCram have argued for a few days, then (apparently,) given up and gone away. Now we are back to square one, except that we have accumulated numerous, extremely reliable sources of all types. I begin to suspect thst the only real objection is WP:IDONTLIKEITHistoricist (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Tell me then, am I acting in good faith or not? I thought we had reached a consensus and were in process of implementing it. If you think I am not acting in good faith, bring it up on AN/I and we can suspend this discussion while the administrators decide whether I am a legitimate editor who should be blocked or banned from this article, or not. I am not going to do this on two tracks, three now - trying to negotiate a consensus, trying deal with new BLP violations that were never mentioned in the consensus discussion, and trying to defend myself against accusations of bad faith. Wikidemon (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• (Note that he did not suspend the discussion or call in administrators. He fears having his behavior examined.)

• Although I assume that all of us are willing to consider well-founded objections, so far the objection raised amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an apparent tactic of dragging out the debate until proponents a proposal fold their tents and cede the field. When I raised this above under the heading Objecting Endlessly - without accusing any individual of such behavior (there seemed to me to be two or three discussants who fit this description) - USER:Wikidemon took umbrage and appeared to concede that his behavior fits this description. I repeat that WP:IDONTLIKEIT and endless, obstructionist repetition of the assertion that patently well-sourced material is not acceptable Wikipedia behavior.Historicist (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist

• I could add more, but you get the point. Wikidemon knows how to manipulate all the Wikipedia rules, and he uses them aggressively to bully bad material into articles and push valid material out.

• I think that it is important to keep the Khalidi material on Wikipedia. I hope that you will hang in there.Historicist (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Politicization

I read your article [[3]]. It clarifies much of what appalled me when I waded into the Khalidi article. I have seen it elsewhere on Wikipedia. The politicization of Poland is remarkable Hummus, however, may be the prize winner. Where I think you underestimate is in your notion that the word massacre can be applied objectively to historical incidents. Any national movement willing to go to war over chick peas will fail to concede the word massacre no matter how many centuries ago the killing happened:-)Historicist (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Thanks. There is indeed so much argument for argument's sake here. And I expect the level of useless rhetoric will go up with the unemployment rate. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The NYSun article you wanted

Will you do the proper edits. You are quite right about this.

Addressing an accusation that he had endorsed the killing of Israeli soldiers as legitimate "resistance" to occupation, he said: "Under international law, resistance to occupation is legitimate. I didn't endorse killing Israeli soldiers. These people will take anything out of context. Anyone who knows me knows the last thing I am is extreme. I've called suicide bombings a war crime. I'm a ferocious critic of Arafat." http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:X01euB_aMlYJ:www.campus-watch.org/article/id/6067+rashid+Khalidi+%22international+law%22+New+York+Sun+site:campus-watch.org&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Right of Resistance?

by New York Sun Staff Editorial New York Sun March 14, 2005

http://www.nysun.com/article/10510

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1740 Print Send RSS

One of the more positive developments related to the controversy over Middle Eastern studies at Columbia University is that professors who teach in the field no longer enjoy immunity from criticism. Without checks and balances or, as Columbia law school dean David Schizer put it, when controversial opinions are "encrusted as orthodoxy," professors are given license to misrepresent contested or weak ideas as undisputed fact. Such a state of affairs at Columbia helps to explain why the director of Columbia's Middle East Institute, Rashid Khalidi, has felt free to misstate international law as relates to the killing of Israeli soldiers.

On at least four occasions, Mr. Khalidi has publicly stated that Palestinians have the legal right under international law to resist Israel's occupation. In a June 7, 2002 speech he delivered before the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Mr. Khalidi said: "Killing civilians is a war crime. It's a violation of international law. They are not soldiers. They're civilians, they're unarmed. The ones who are armed, the ones who are soldiers, the ones who are in occupation, that's different. That's resistance." The following year he was quoted as saying, "Killing civilians is a war crime, whoever does it. But resistance to occupation is legitimate in international law."

Queried for an October 23, 2003, article in the Sun reporting that Israel's education minister had lodged a formal protest with Columbia over the Khalidi remarks, Mr. Khalidi responded by saying in an e-mail to the Sun that it is "disgraceful that a minister in a government that commits similar war crimes against civilians on a far greater scale - with complete impunity and without the slightest remorse - should have the gall to protest my reported comments on legitimate resistance to an unlawful and violent occupation now in its 37th year." To the New York Times, in an article that appeared on February 28, 2005, Mr. Khalidi said: "Under international law, resistance to occupation is legitimate."

The time is overdue to challenge Mr. Khalidi's statements in respect of international law. Going by his 2002 speech quoted above, Mr. Khalidi is arguing that Israeli soldiers serving in the West Bank are belligerent combatants and thus legitimate targets of violence. The key question that Mr. Khalidi omits is who is entitled to attack the soldiers under international law, or, in other words, under the Geneva and Hague conventions and the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions and binding treaties. Mr. Khalidi doesn't distinguish between Palestinian combatants and noncombatants, which suggests that in Mr. Khalidi's view all Palestinians have the right of "resistance."

According to the Geneva conventions, however, only lawful combatants are given permission to kill other combatants in the course of armed conflict. Or as Nicholas Kittrie, a university professor at American University law school, says, "If you are not a law belligerent, you are not given that license to kill anybody." Who is a lawful combatant? It turns out that in international law - we speak of Article IV of the Third Geneva Convention - the particulars are spelled out, including carrying arms openly and having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance. The "resistance" carried out by the Palestinians against Israeli soldiers flagrantly violates those conditions. A suicide bomber who blows up soldiers at a checkpoint does not qualify. Or, as Alan Baker, legal adviser to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, put it in a report from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, "There is no such right of resistance to occupation in international law."

If it weren't for a Columbia law professor, George Fletcher, who last month challenged Mr. Khalidi to a debate, one might have assumed that either everyone at Columbia either agreed with Mr. Khalidi or simply did not care that he was wrong. President Bollinger has rattled on about the fine points of First Amendment law, but his employee is running around misrepresenting the particulars of international law. It seems that if it concerns the murder of Israeli soldiers, Mr. Bollinger is not going to confront the head of his Middle East Institute. It is the great tragedy of the situation at Columbia, which has become a college at which the authorities seem indifferent to the substance of the arguments made by those who teach the students.

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1740 (the campus-watch archive is propably the best place to search for articles on academics speaking about the Middle East) Historicist (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Nearing consensus

I really think consensus is possible on the Khalidi page this time.Historicist (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have been lurking. I think you should simply accept Wikidemon's proposal, and argue about improvements later. As the article stands now, there is no mention of Khalidi's involvement in politics, and that is a straightforward distortion of the facts of his life (one of which I believe he would disapprove as much as anyone else). You can work out improvements later.

It's kind of mind-boggling that we have spilt so many thousands of words over the distinction between "spokesman" and "used by journalists as a source for official policy positions".

But that is just my opinion. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but wikipedia rules encourage interminable discussion. I will take your advice. However, it truly looks possible that we are on the verge of consensus.Historicist (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Told you so. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hope you like the refs for Khalidi...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Blood Libel

I am of several minds on Blood libel..

• Pure propaganda, self published, not noted in any academic establishment and as a book on its own quite worthless. AfD
• As a book that takes note on the subject of the left right split in Israeli politics it has a place in the genre of political polemics of the Israeli right. Keep
• As a method of showing Milstein's far right extremism. integrate under Uri Milstein

and I'm still not sure what is for the best. As I'm not sure I'd keep by default, as much as the title is propaganda all on its own...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Try not to guess. The author inaccurately uses "Battle of Deir Yassin" in an attempt at aggrandisement of Lehi and Irgun (as part of his propaganda method and should therefore not be acknowledged). Battles occur between armies and are not carried out by a small group of irregulars against a civil population. Actions is normally used, by propagandists in sympathy with the irregulars, to describe an irregular attack, but in this incident Uri decided not to use the term "action"....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand from your post that you have actually read the book. That you should devote the time to reading this tripe, all in the name of accuracy, is a reason for admiration.

You are right about not guessing. So I went back and read the English summary (the original Hebrew book is unavailable - where did you get a copy?), and there he uses neither raid nor action. He also makes none of the distinctions between battles, actions and raids that you so clearly (if somewhat arbitrarily) define. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ravpapa,
Even if I agree this book is a propaganda book, I don't agree that the article should be deleted. On the contrary. It is an important information to know that there is a propaganda struggle around all these topics. The introduction of the article is clear and the external links (eg to Neo-Zionism) is also clear.
But more, Uri Milstein is still considered as a wp:rs source on wikipedia. His other works are quoted by numerous authors from all sides (at least Morris, Gelber and Pappé) and so there is no reason not to have an article about his work.
I would add that on a very objective basis, the last book of Pappé, the Ethnic cleansing of Palestine is exactly in the same situation as Milstein one (self published, no official peer review, same topic, same controversy,...) and it is widely used as wp:rs source in several articles on wp. We must stick to neutrality and objectivity.
My mind is that none of these are reliable sources in the academic world and neither should be used on wikipedia but I am quite sure I cannot get a consensus around this :-) Ceedjee (talk) 09:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Ethnic cleansing has weaseled its way into the pantheon of reliable sources is no reason to keep Milstein's totally insignificant garbage in the encyclopedia. It is precisely this kind of pointless arm-wrestling that makes all the Middle East articles so consistently bad. "If they can use the word massacre, we can use it." It's like editing with a collection of four-year-olds.

Well, so be it. I am certainly not going to go to the barricades over this one. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• I haven't read the book, I've had bits and pieces translated, auto translated in the main...and there are synopsis available. I normally order my books as they rarely get onto the shelves...
• my differentiation on battles, raids, actions, are not arbitrary but comes from common military usage. Actions are at platoon/company/regiment level, battles are at full brigade to army level....raids have an entirely different meaning, raids are an attack with no intention of holding the ground...Dier Yassin was carried out with intent to hold therefore could never be a raid...and was too small for a battle...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

One world publication is not self published...[4]...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• If you haven't read the book, then how do you know that 'Uri decided not to use the term "action"'? Did you ask him? (I assume this is possible as you are on first-name basis with him).

• You are correct that One World Publications is not self published. But One World is not the publisher. It was published by "Alim" which is the in-house publishing company of Milstein's private think tank.

• "Common military usage" - that's interesting. Do you have a military lexicon you can refer me to? --Ravpapa (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

One world is in reference to Ilan Pappe (Ceedjee referred to Pappe self publishing Ethnic Ceasing)...Not about Uri's Blood Libel.."Common military usage" not a lexicon but a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), the British army have SOPs covering writing up incidents, it got issued with the report writing SOP...All the auto-translations I've done on various passages came up with 'battle' when referring to Deir Yassin....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Saminsky et al

Thanks for your note, sorry I didn't realise others were on the track.....Gnesin has been an itch for a while, and I found myself with a day more or less free and 1001 things I was supposed to do - so Wikipedia is always a useful displacement activity in such circumstances....I am delighted to leave you Engel!! -all best regards, and leshanah tovah for 2009 --Smerus (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

My Apostrophe S Edits

Hi. I'm wondering if you saw my earlier comments. As I indicated there, I'm new to Wikipedia as an editor and so I'm not sure about protocol. Given there now seems to be some agreement about the issue at hand, should I just go back and reinstate my edits at the aforementioned pages (Waits, Jones, Richards, Brahms, etc.)? Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysloop (talk • contribs) 16:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

hello Ravpapa - i'm hoping you can find the time to look in on the discussion here again - if you're no longer thinking of rewriting the MoS to "ban" the apostrophe-only form, it seems like the RFC is unnecessary and should be closed. so it would be helpful if you could clarify over there what your current stance is - thanks! Sssoul (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Music and Sderot

I'm not musical, wholly ignorant and tone-deaf is about accurate. Nevertheless, I just put a music section into Sderot with pages for a coupld of bands and performers who hadn's had pages before. Someone who knows Israeli music could probably find some socpe here. The Sderot music scene is a remarkable and positive phenomenon.Historicist (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to your post on Reconstructionism

Here. Thanks. --Toussaint (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Your response is not accurate. You are right that Reconstructionism is a religious movement, and that Ben-Gurion and Herzl were secular Jews. I am refering to the Zionist (political) philosophy expounded by Kaplan, which is rooted in his religious beliefs. Read his essay "The New Zionism" (Theodore Herzl Foundation, 1955). There he explains the relationship between Reconstructionist Judaism and his approach to Zionism. You can also look at this.

Kaplan's Zionist philosophy (which is also an extension of the approach of Ahad Haam) has become the predominant philosophy (explicitly or implicitly) of American Jewry, and also of European Jewry. Among people who study Zionist philosophy, this approach is sometimes called Reconstructionist Zionism. So you see why I think your use of the term is a source of confusion. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I suppose. So what is the better term for the branch of Religious Zionism that is consisting of folks like the "Re-Established Sanhedrin" and the Temple Mount Faithful that is going beyond just settlements? I mean yeah, what I wrote was original research, but I felt that it needed a separate summarizing article after someone questioned me appending the Religious Zionism template onto the article about modern Sanhedrin revival attempts and stated that the subject of that article was more of a religious Orthodox body rather than a political body.

I'm only surmizing that the above groups are religiopolitical in their nature because the Sanhedrin wants to be recognized as both the Supreme Court and the Upper house of parliament, and the TMF's goal also runs counter to the ambitions of the Muslims in Jerusalem and symbolizes a potential conflict with a billion folks over that piece of real estate. But if it isn't Zionism but is a religiopolitical manifestation that is mostly concerned with Israeli institutions, then what should I call it? Halakhism? --Toussaint (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: I didn't know about Kaplan's "New Zionism" until you just mentioned it. Thanks, and I'll go for a merge of the title with Reconstructionist Judaism. --Toussaint (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem you are trying to address is titanic, compelling, and virtually unresolvable, given the rules of engagement in Wikipedia debates. From our point of view (I mean the secular, enlightened, liberal), all these attempts to reestablish a 2000-year-old religio-political order are a form of subversion, a nascent Khomenei-style putsch. See the book (in Hebrew) The Messiah's Donkey, by Sefi Richlevsky. From their point of view, these are all legitimate debates, rooted in halakha and logical extensions of a fundamental acceptance of divine will.

The shades of opinion within the religious Zionist (and anti-Zionist) community are, for those engaged, matters of halakhic dispute, and not of political debate. So any attempt to inject political interpretations into articles on these topics will be met with fierce opposition. For example, if you were to quote an article suggesting that the new Sanhedrin was an attempt to undermine the authority of the Israeli Supreme Court or Knesset, you would get into a violent edit war, which, most likely, you would lose.

Your approach, of sneaking in the political implications in the guise of a new article, was well-intentioned, and, in a way, I wish it could have worked. But I fear we will just have to think of another approach. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL, funny you should mention that, since I just split a huge article-size chunk from here to here earlier. --Toussaint (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Rav papa would probably not approve :-)

Accusing fellow editors of doing anything "scurrilously" is a bit too strong, imo, and is not really in line with WP:AGF. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Of course, the problem is that people are so entrapped in their own points of view that they can't see. And that applies to both sides - this article (ז"ל) was certainly no worse than Israel and the apartheid analogy or any of the dozens of massacre articles. Ask any of these editors and they will tell you with honest, ingenuous amazement, "But it was a massacre!" Yes, it was, and it was also a bunch of antisemitic attacks, and it was also the name of the book, and yes, and yes and yes. Reading these articles is like looking at the world through a pinhole: what you see is really what's there, but it is such a tiny, distorted little piece of what's there that its description is irrelevant and absurd - and offensive.

So I guess scurrilous is the wrong word. If wiki-etiquette requires an apology, consider this it. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who claims to have Jewish blood coursing through their veins, or anyone with a basic grasp of Jewish history for that matter, would never minimize "a bunch of antisemitic attacks." The increase of antisemitic attacks have not exactly been the best news for Jews. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I should be offended by this insinuation about my ancestry, but I am of an equananimous temperament. However, it is this article, and not me, who is minimizing antisemitism. An article about a rise in antisemitic attacks associated with the Gaza war suggests there is something notable about this; that it is somehow unusual for antisemites to link their attacks to an Israeli action. Otherwise, there would be an article about antisemitic attacks following house demolitions, or speeches in the UN, or assassination of terrorists. There would be hundreds, if not thousands of articles titled "Antisemitic attacks following ..."

You see, there is always an increase in antisemitism when Israel gets into the news. So there is nothing notable about this particular increase. It becomes notable only when seen through the pinhole of someone like you (and like me) who lives with the knowledge that there are people out there who hate us, who want us dead.

But as editors of the Wikipedia, we have to step away from our pinholes. We have to look at bigger pictures, at issues that have true cultural and intellectual significance. And that goes for both sides in this battle over Wikipedia's middle eastern soul. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like your argument evolved into a lack of notability argument. That's fine, but it's not what you said at the deleting admins talkpage it's not supported by the multitude of reliable sources covering the attacks. Indeed, an increase of attacks against a certain religious/ethnic group is always notable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Symphony No. 1 (Rachmaninoff)

I have done some copyediting as well as adding four audio samples as you suggest. Respect scores I am not sure, but Alton can help. The problem is that I don't know how fair use applies in that kind of works. Cheers OboeCrack (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You can certainly scan sections of the score and upload it into the English Wikipedia. The trouble is that most Wikipedia readers can't read scores, and orchestral scores especially. You really need to edit them with a picture editor like Photoshop so people can understand. Take a look at File:Haydn20-4.jpg to see what I mean. If you need help doing this, email me the score using the "Contact this user" function on the left menu, and I will edit the file for you. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A land without a people

The Muir article intrigues me. This is why. Type the phrase in each of its variants into books google , Historical Newspapers, and similar search engines limiting the field to pre-1918 or pre-1948 . You get Zangwill and a couple of his followers only; until the post WWII period. Type in some of the other Zionist slogans, and you can find lots of hits. This also works in German and Yiddish (the only languages I tried it with.) What you do get are scores of hits in missionary and Christian Restorationist literture. They used it a lot. Then after Balfour, you get hists from anti-Zionists. One thing no one can deny about Zionists is that they wrote incessantly. The fact that you don't find Zionists using it proves that it was not a Zionist slogan, as Dowty and Muir state. Since you don't find usage, it wasn't a Zionist slogan. So, why shoehorn Zionist attitudes into an article on a Christian slogan?Historicist (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Because Zionist attitudes are what the article is really about. The slogan itself is a figleaf. Is this what the Zionists thought or not? That is the real issue that you and the article are trying to deal with.

Look at the section on Zangwill. It presents Zangwill's view of the relation of indigenous Arabs to Palestine. It is not about the slogan.

Look at the section on "Use of the phrase by Christian proponents..." It is a discussion of Evangelistic attitudes toward indigenous Arabs.

Look at the section on "Use of the phrase by opponents of Zionism". While ostensibly refering to the slogan, all the complaints of anti-Zionists are about the attitude, not about the slogan itself.

Look at the section on "Interpretation of the phrase by scholars". This whole section is essentially about scholars' statements about Zionist attitudes toward the indigenous population.

The slogan is a figleaf. The article has a hidden agenda. Which is not so hidden. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix

My spelling and language skills in general have never been strong. I like to think it's caused by savant syndrome.... Sean.hoyland - talk 16:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

On Rav Papa

I doubt he could have been a member of the Sanhedrin, since he was active in Babylonia, while the Sanhedrin were in the Galilee. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The Knesset HaGdolah, of the Babylonian exile, is also refered to as the Sanhedrin. See http://www.thesanhedrin.org/en/index.php/Historical_Overview#Babylonian_Exile. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The Knesset HaGdolah, consisting of returnees from the first Babylonian exile, was a temporary institution which ceased to be called that hundreds of years before Rav Papa. As you will find later on in the article you cite, the Sanhedrin were located in the Galilee during the period of the Amoraim, before eventually dissolving in that period. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Parallel pages

In most of these issues, people have used parallel articles as a means of fighting it out (we call them POV forks), and hilarity has ensued. I don't think it's a good solution, tbh. It's perfectly possible to write neutral articles about Israel/Palestine (the presentations you gave are quite biased, and are not the only alternatives). But it's not going to happen. The reason is simple: the pro-Zionist side not only outnumbers the pro-Palestinian side, but it represents the orthodox view of the American commentariat, so that it not only has the power, but most Americans can't even see the other point of view as valid. In most content disputes, there's a similar lack of balance of numbers and commitment, which makes neutrality impossible, simply because the more powerful side has no incentive to make concessions. While Jayjg has the numbers, he can shamelessly claim that the West Bank is widely known as "Judea-Samaria" until he's blue in the face.

Worse is "pseudoscience", where articles are not even close to neutral. Wikipedia's policies are rigged so that they never can be. They have, at best, a kind of neutral tone, which apes modernist works of reference like Britannica. I think ultimately this was Jimbo's aim: not an encyclopaedia that fairly represented all views or even one that didn't take a stance on the "facts", but simply one that did not seem to do so. In any case, he only cares that the fighting is unseemly, not what is being fought over. He'd probably support Sarah's proposal if he thought it would be widely popular. Grace Note (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I misinterpreted your position. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Freegolan

Wise decision, thanks for the info. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Sean.hoyland

From where are you getting that information about PD status in Israel? Neither our nor Commons's templates say that. J Milburn (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Am I misreading the template? "If owned by the State, and there is no special agreement between the State and the photographer — 50 years after the creation of the photograph (paragraphs 36 and 42 in the 2007 statute)"

In fact, this applies to all works owned by the state, not just photographs. Section 18 of the Copyright act of 1911: "18. Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown, where any work has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, been prepared or published by or under the direction or control of His Majesty or any Government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to His Majesty, and in such case shall continue for a period of fifty years from the date of the first publication of the work."

The poster was published by the Keren Hayesod, a prestate governmental institution which in 1948 became a government institution. Therefore, this clause applies.

My original statement to Sean was indeed too broad - works of art (not photographs) have a copyright of 50 years after the death of the author. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Is Keren Hayesod a government institution ? I can't figure it out from here. [5] I hope so or else it's 70 years and I'll have to revert to fair-use, abandon my plans to improve Wiki content with superb old posters and do something rash like join Hamas. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC) That's a joke by the way. The evidence for causal links between copyright law and militant group membership is tenuous at best. If you know anything about Palestinian copyright law it would be handy too. I read a masters doctorate about it which didn't help much. It seems to be in a bit of a mess. It came up a few months ago when someone took a photo of a poster in the West Bank and added it to wiki. The photo's gone now but it would be good to know whether old Palestinian posters are okay. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Keren Hayesod is what is called a "government corporation" - that is, an incorporation that is wholly owned by the government. It is like the Israel Lands Authority. As such, it is a government institution, and copyright rules government government publications would apply.

Palestinian posters printed prior to 1911 are governed by Ottoman copyright law, which requires payment of a bribe to the vizier of 500 piastres. After 1911, the copyright goes to the one with the biggest nabut. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. I'll update the licence info to be more specific.

Oddly enough, the masters thesis on current Palestinian copyright law pretty much came to the same conclusion that Ottoman civil codes still apply in the main. I think the aim is eventually comply with WTO standards any decade soon. Fascinating reading if you ever get trapped in an elevator or something... Sean.hoyland - talk 02:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)