User talk:Nadav1/Archives/July 2007 - October 2007

This page 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.

Please don't consider this answer to your question WP:SYN. I recognize its a little complicated. Its important to recognise the determinative is placed so as to surround the name so you want to strip the determinative to get the name. After the basics from John Halloran (Sumerian) and John Heise (Akkadian) the focus shifts to when Jerusalem is written in this form. The answer to that would be in the Amarna letters, from c 1450- c 1350 BC

A. Uru by itself means city or settlement in Sumerian

B. KI by itself means earth or land and is the determinative for the goddess of the land.

C. The compound form URU___KI is a Sumerian determinative for place borrowed into Akkadian

D. URU Uru means the place of the city or settlement

E. URU Uru KI means the place of the city or settlement in the land

F. sumvcv Is one of John Hallorans Sumerian pages

uru(2)(ki), iri, rí; iri11: city, town, village, district [URU archaic frequency: 101;

concatenation of 5 sign variants; UNUG archaic frequency: 206; concatenates 3 sign variants].

G. Heise's Akkadian page This page shows the cuneiform

signs used

39 URU

phonetic: iri, eri, ere

phonetic, Bab. new:: rí, ré, ir4, er4

determinative: URU in front of city names (see examples)

logograms: URU URU älu `city'

38 URU

(before) cities, often in combination with KI after city names.

Cities are often indicated with their Sumerian names (Akkadian logograms)

meaning: Sum. uru `city', Akk. alu(m) `city'

examples: uru nun ki, Eridu, the city Eridu, home of the water god Ea

uru e .unug ki, Ur, the city Ur,

important port in South Mesopotamia

home of the moon god Sîn

for phonetic values and logograms, see sign list 2

The following either discuss or demonstrate the proper usage for writing the name of a place in Akkadian which itself borrows from the even earlier Sumerian.

Origins of the name Jerusalem See the photo of the cuneiform name of Jersualem in the Amarna letters and read URU Uru šalim KI

bsw [Ninhursag]

KI Cuneiform KI (Borger 2003 nr. 737; U+121A0 𒆠) is the sign for "earth", but also "place location". It is also read as GI5, GUNNI (=KI.NE) "hearth", KARAŠ (=KI.KAL.BAD) "encampment, army", KISLAḪ (=KI.UD) "threshing place" and SUR7 (=KI.GAG). In Akkadian orthography, it functions as a determiner for toponyms and has the syllabic values gi, ge, qi and qe.

Urušalim

[Akkad]

Akkad (Sumerian Agade), (Biblical Accad), was a city and its surrounding region (Sumerian URI.KI or KIURI) [Names of Jerusalem] Urušalim

Salem Biblical Hebrew שלם š-l-m "whole", "complete" in the idiomatic sense of "at peace" Akkadian Urušalim Assyrian Uršalimmu (Uru and Ur are really cognates of the Hebrew Ir ("city of") and should not be confused with the syllables Jeru- in the name Jerusalem.)

URU__KI is Akkadian for place, the second Uru (Jeru) means city Urušalim URUUrušalim KI literally gives determinative URU = place - Uru= a city - šalim = peace - Ki of the earth (it refers to the Akkadian goddess Ninhursag

The City of URU Amurru EA

Nadav1, why are you and most other people at the mentioned article resorting to the utilization of conclusions of archaeologists and historians (whichever side of the debate their arguments may support) in regards to the question of Cannanite descent of the Palestinians?

Instead, should not the verdict of that matter be established by the literature and conclusions of scientists and geneticists? I forward the motion that the question of Cannanite descent of the Palestinians should be discussed ONLY in the "DNA clues" section of the article, quoting ONLY scientific sources dealing with genetic findings related directly to the Cannanite descent of Palestinians, or related genetic studies dealing with other modern peoples said to be descendants of Canaanites (the various Jewish communities, or the Lebanese as descendants of the Phonecians; though a different nation, still historically one and the same population with the Canaanites) and that these be utilised as a means to either support an affirmative or negative position to the question. Furthermore, all positions should be covered.

Also, in regards to the problem with using the word "claim", I once again insist that the quoted source being utilized is first and foremost the conclusions of a HISTORIAN. A highly educated and respected historian, indeed, but nothing more that a historian nevertheless, incapable of ultimately passing verdict on the Palestinians descent from Canaanites, or the descent of any other modern population from ancient peoples. Secondly, the only thing which is said to be a "claim" is that the Canaanites were an Arab people. It is here, in his capacity as a historian, that he criticizes anything as revisionism. Asserting that the Palestinians are descendnats of Cannanite, mixed or otherwise, cannot by definition be called revisionism, because the topic it outside the scope of historical studies, but scientific (more specifically, genetic) studies, which as already mentioned, is yet to be established. The quote lends support that asserting the Canaanites were Arabs is revisionism because it is historical concensus that they were not. It is not historical concensus that the modern palestinians are descended from Canaanites, as this topic, as already stated, is outside the scope of historical analysis.

We all must keep out POVs out of this whole debate, and edit based on the reliable and RELEVANT (as already mentioned above) sources avaiable. Al-Andalus 06:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please trust me that I have no POV that I'm trying to push here; I'm only concerned about good science. If you examine the genetic studies, you will find nothing linking either Jews or anyone else in Palestine to Canaanites. The Lebanese-Phoenician study is not very relevant: first, because it talks about Lebanese and not Palestinians specifically, and second because not everyone agrees Phoenicians were Canaanites. The studies that linked Palestinians to Jews did not conclude that either are Canaanites. It would take a lot of original research to transform those into proof for the claim.

I recommend that further discussion take place on the article talk page. nadav (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nadav1, thank you for your edits in the Palestinian People article. I think you worked hard to bring consensus. I have done just minor edits to the last version you have left. Please have a look a these... I also added some discussions to the discussion page regarding Palestinian Folklore. I am not sure if there is a page about that or not, but I think we can use some of these references that talk about Palestinians preserving the names of the town and villages of their semitic ancesters, whether Arabians, or Herbews... This might as well include notable peasant dressing in Palestine that I am not sure if you know about it, or if there is any kind of page here dedicated to it. Thanks... You may continue the discussion on the Palestinian people page. Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 23:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the recent vandalism on my user page. --DieWeisseRose 01:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Userpages are semiprotected pretty liberally, so you can ask for that if the vandalism gets annoying. nadav (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, can we please keep the picture in and just reduce the size, it doesn't work with the legend without the photo. I got the template from the Hebrew Wikipedia, once it fills in with the articles it will make more sense. Yafo Road is a main road out of the Old City, however, the template can be removed from the Old City if nessasary though but remain everywhere else. Epson291 22:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's sensible. nadav (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont agree with you at all! Fair use states: if the photos, might reasonably be found... These photos cannot reasonably be found. --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 23:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You should contest the claim of replaceability with the the {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} tag as you've done on some of the images already. I suggest that centralized discussion on all these images take place at WP:FUR so that the discussion is kept together. nadav (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with these photos you do. As such, if I understand this, it is you that would go to WP:FUR and I would respond. Not the other way around. Correct? --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have responded. I dont actually see your point at all. I read all the policy here and these photos comply. I also know fair use law very well. From a legal point of view they comply. So from a wiki point of view as well as a legal point of view they comply. They do not fail as you suggest. --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why would you remove references that had been requested by another editor?

I wish I had known you were fluent in Hebrew earlier! I had some reason I needed to get in contact with someone fluent in Hebrew...but I can't remember now.  :\ Expect to hear from me soon (if I remember)! --Iamunknown 06:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. I like helping with translations and such. :) nadav (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

From the Jerusalem talk page

We'll wait till you find sources then. I don't think you are right when you say most of these experts do not accept the conquest of Jerusalem. There are indications outside the Bible of the fact that Jerusalem was conquered by the Hebrews. nadav (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I would love to hear about this. So far as I know there are no Hebrews or jews prior to Judah.

There are references to ibrw, 'apiru, habiru, in the Amarna letters. There is no reference I know of to Jerusalem being captured while its fortified and garrisoned by the Egyptians. There is Biblical reference to Jerusalems king having joined with others to resist the conquest and defeated but no claim to the city having been taken at that time that I know of.

There is speculation that during Egypts 18th dynasty, nomads such as the MAR TU, and mobs of miscreants and trouble makers such as the SA GAZ who have been defined as vagrants, bandits, unemployed laborers, and agricultural workers without any formal skills or organization; disrupted Canaan raiding villages and caravans and engaged in kidnapping, torture, murder, rape, pillage and plunder of the entire population in a way that matches the accounts of the Amarna letter and the period of the conquest as described in Joshuah and Judges.

There is more speculation as to exactly when Jerusalem became a city large enough to defend itself against such bandits with a wall and other defenses.

There is no claim I know of in the Bible that Jerusalem was taken by Hebrews although it was besigeiged by Sennacheib c 710 BC and changed hands several times before and during the crusades.

935 Civil War. jerusalem is not taken

910 Solomon's Temple is plundered (1 Kings 14:25-28, 2 Chronicles 12:1-11).

720 Ahaz king of Judah dismantles Solomon's bronze vessels and places private Syrian altar in the Temple (2 Kings 16:1-20, 2 Chronicles 29-31). He later stripped the gold to pay tribute to Sennacherib. You could make the case that Ahaz was a Hebrew plundering if not conqering Jerusalem

716 Assyrians attempt to capture Jerusalem. (2 Chronicles 32). Wells and springs stopped up.

606 Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of Judah. Jerusalem is taken (Daniel 2:36-38; 2 Kings 24:1; 2 Chronicles 36:5-6; Daniel 1:1-2; Luke 21:24). but not, so far as I know, by Hebrews

598 Jerusalem is plundered by Nebuchadnezzar for a second time.

586 9th of Av. Nebuchadnezzar burns the city, and destroys the Temple.(2 Kings 24-25, 2 Chronicles 36).

320 Jerusalem is captured by Ptolemy Soter.

314 The city is taken by Antiochus the Great.

301 Jerusalem is captured by Ptolemy Epiphanes.

170 Jerusalem is captured by Antiochus Epiphanes.

164 Jerusalem is besieged by Antiochus Eupator.

126 Jerusalem is besieged by Antiochus Soter.

65 Jerusalem is besieged by Aratus.

63 Jerusalem is captured by the Roman general Pompey.

40 Jerusalem is captured by the Parthians.

167-63 The Maccabean revolt and subsequent Hasmonean dynasty in Judea. A short time of Jewish independence. This is the little-help period of Daniel 11:34. (Josephus, Antiquities 12.6-14.4).

Is this when you are referring to?Rktect 15:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not dig through my history to post bogus disputes about images which disagree with your political ideology. Do not join in harassment campaigns against individual users. You do not have consensus on your own and you do not speak for Wikipedia. Your interpretation of policy is not policy. Period.

1. The contributing editor uploaded this content in a good-faith effort to comply with policy and further the goals of the English-language Wikipedia, recognizing that a non-free image can only be used in an article under strict circumstances. Once these basic requirements are met, the burden of proof is on those who dispute the validity of the content. If the use is a valid fair use and the rationale is a valid rationale, disputing the image is destructive and uncivil.
2. The contributing editor understands that image-tagging rules are necessarily complex, are sometimes subject to varying interpretation (which reasonable people can disagree about), and play an important role in safeguarding the project and avoiding ethical issues and potential legal exposure.
3. The contributing editor uploaded this content as an important, irreplaceable visual representation of a subject that contributes significantly to at least one article. There is no legitimate question that the image is perfectly appropriate.

Please cease stalking me now. Do not send me boilerplate excuses about how you are just enforcing policy, because they aren't true. Repeating the same distortions over and over changes nothing. Learn civility. Leave me in peace, as I intend positive contributions to Wikipedia. Mosquera 22:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Nadav1; Mosquera has posted this same message to multiple talk pages. I've responded to the one he left to me at [1]. --Durin 23:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. Now I get to deal with more like the above. Yay! -- But|seriously|folks  08:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nadav1, can u translate my name Syed Atif Nazir to Hebrew? Thanks ~atif - 16:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been away for a couple weeks. Would you like just a transliteration or an actual translation of the names (i.e. finding equivalent names in Hebrew or something like that)? A simple transliteration would be:

A more accurate transliteration could be done perhaps if I knew how you pronounce it in the original language (Arabic?). Best, nadav (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I need your help. As you're aware I renamed the page to "Palestinian Arabs" to remove an injustice. Those that are interested in keeping that POV reverted my change. I want to do this the correct way and I need your help. Thank you. Itzse 17:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Your recent formulation is helpful. Personally, I use 'myth' often, but in academic settings. Popular use of myth has a more negative connotation, i.e. untrue. We already have Khalidi talking about national consciousness and discourse, presumably others talk about the Palestinian narrative. Hopefully, a variety of serious, moderate sources can be brought into play. Meanwhile, let me run by the following suggestion I made to Tiamut about how to open/outline the section. This fits with your proposed separate article, but I'd like to hear more feedback before dropping it on the Talk page.

Maybe lead off with a claim about (1) Why ancestry feels/is important to Palestinians as a people/identity. Connection to land, continuity of diaspora people, XYZ*, whatever. Find solid apolitical source if possible. (2) Plus, ancestry is important for political-ideological purposes within a conflict, using a neutral source (Lewis?). (3) Not surprisingly, Palestinians experience a connection to the history of the land, going as far back as the Caananites. Mainstream Palestinian source (Khalidi?) (4) Canaanite thesis/debunk. A handful of scholars assert that the connection to the Canaanites may be demonstrated archaeologically etc. Brief quote. However, mainstream scientists... (Science quote). Here put proposed link to separate article. (5) Nevertheless, ancestry questions remain vital for Palestinians, who continue to explore the history of the land, its artifacts etc., and are drawn to recent efforts to trace their genealogy genetically to the region and its diverse populations. (Not sure if you need a source, this is the gist of the encyclopedic authors neutral understanding of the whole section.)

 N.B. XYZ* is where we add national myth/narrative

What do you think? Thanks for hearing me out. Kol tuv. HG | Talk 00:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Re your point on User talk:N: I was citing Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems because it collects relevant references from the Compendium of Office Practices, which has been made available online. The refs discuss whether any given work is copyrightable, not just "official" symbols. As for the default assumption that a logo is copyrighted, after discussions (some of which I took part in) me and another editor made now long-standing changes to the guideline. We tried to convey the fact that logos can (on a case by case basis) be decided through consensus to have a different copyright status (i.e. be free content or public domain). See the "U.S. trademark law" section of the guideline and also Template:Trademark. If you think the guideline is unclear then I would be glad to start discussion on clarifying it. Best, nadav (talk) 06:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What law suggests to you that the SNES logo isn't copyrighted? In any case, whether or not an assertion would eventually stand up in court, Nintendo would almost certainly try to claim it. Sadly we have to look out for who's willing to go to court and waste Foundation money, not just who's right. ←Ben^B4 06:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why you assume Nintendo would file such a frivolous lawsuit given that the copyright office has made itself clear about what it considers mere typography or trivial geometric combinations. I'm not a lawyer, but in this particular case it seems to unquestionably fall under the uncopyrightable examples pointed out in the Compendium, and the consensus reached in the deletion discussion backs up this opinion. I try to be very conservative on copyright interpretations, but at some point copyright paranoia becomes a hindrance to our project. nadav (talk) 06:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how treating the SNES logo the same way we treat almost all other logos could be a hindrance. In reviewing the Compendium, I believe you might be right, but in the absence of a legal opinion to be sure, I'm not going to be the one to take the chance. ←Ben^B4 06:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A big problem I have with the Compendium, is that it states, e.g., "Typeface is not copyrightable,"[2] which I know is not true. You know the distinction between raster and outline fonts, and there have been court decisions since 1984, when that version of the Compendium was written, which have held that typeface art is subject to copyright. ←Ben^B4 07:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct that claims of PD should be always be given careful scrutiny. I think the deletion discussion and Wikipedia:Village_pump (policy)#User_insists_that_logo_is_in_public_domain seem to to indicate a consensus that the logo itself is not copyrighted. I still have an academic question on whether SVG images have new copyright protection, though I don't think that matters here. In any case, typefaces in themselves are still not subject to copyright based on what I have read. It is only the creative work of programming new scalable fonts that can be copyrighted; that is, to breach the copyright on a font, someone would have to actually base his infringing font design on the contents of the font file (i.e. by opening it in a font design program) nadav (talk) 07:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I find your attitude to including the views of the British Government about this incident extremely puzzling. Judging by the reports of the Times "Diplomats suspected Entebbe hijacking was an Israeli plot to discredit the PLO" and the BBC "Israel hijack role 'was queried'", there were quite serious suspicion that Israel had helped a splinter group of the PLO (in order to discredit the main organisation) and their help had contributed in some fashion to the hi-jack.

I don't know whether it's true or not, and neither do you - but it's clearly a significant viewpoint, amply supported by two very good RS's. What's your objection to putting it in? PalestineRemembered 21:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

My objection is that there is no evidence that anyone believes or believed the theory besides this single unnamed contact of Colvin's. There are obviously plenty of reliable sources that reported how Colvin wrote down this contact's beliefs in his log, but no sources have actually shown that anyone else believes the theory. Thus it would be astounding undue weight to prominently display this anonymous person's claims as if they have any credence amongst historians. The minute I see evidence that the theory actually enjoys support among experts, I will be for mentioning it in the article. nadav (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have high regard for your dedication to policy, but I find this assertion from you puzzling. We cannot say who believed it - but the RS's certainly imply (one of them states in the headline) that there was fairly strong suspicion in the relevant parts of the British Government. Diplomats suspected Entebbe hijacking was an Israeli plot to discredit the PLO, The London [3] and "Israel hijack role 'was queried'" [4], the Times and BBC respectively. The logical understanding of these reports is that the Times and the BBC each spoke to one or more people in the relevant places and were told "Yes, we had a strong suspicion about this". Or even "Yes, we can prove what Israel did, it's just that we decided against having an international incident over it". I don't believe this was a "slow news day" (these papers are released in blocks to try and make sure the trivial stories are not picked up).

We have corroborative evidence from the period (Pro-Israel reports denounce British government for being mysteriously un-gracious towards Israel - I know I provided the standard excuse for this, but it expired in one week. Uganda was a relatively recent ex-colony and Britain considered carefully it's collaboration with the hi-jackers, rating it very serious - so we have no reason to think it's treatment of Israel received perfunctory attention and was somehow over-sighted. Palestinian society is/was? riven with collaborators).

When (some) RS's scream "No massacre" about Battle of Jenin, we accept what they say (against the sense of what we know and the cover-up behaviour very clearly on view, and despite allegations of war-crimes in the same articles). When two top RS's say "Suspicion" about this case, I think we should follow their lead.

(There are two problems going on with this RFC, we have an odd vandal who has been targeting this page for days and has now done the same to the RfC, and I cannot get it to show in the correct place, this partly explains why I'm putting this part of the discussion on your TalkPage). PalestineRemembered 07:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed many of the sources that covered this story (and I was the one who originally added the Times ref). Not one of them say that the theory was actually discussed further by the Brits beyond Colvin's writings (a longer excerpt of which is given in The Scotsman[5]. The original is at [6] if you want to pay £3.50 for the privilege.) Indeed, despite the sensational title used by the Times, it explicitly says later in the article that "There is no indication that the theory was taken further". So all we are left with is an entry in Colvin's writings detailing the claims made to him on the telephone, with no indication that this was taken any further. nadav (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am confused about why the RfC isn't appearing. I recommend we directly insert it into the central RfC list manually (unless this would somehow obstruct the bot's function?) I didn't notice the problem with the talkpage, but you've made me very curious so I'll check. As for the Battle of Jenin comparison, I haven't been following that article (I've had less time for Wikipedia in the last month) so I don't have anything to say about that. nadav (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought, and think, that the policy of the encyclopedia is to report 'major viewpoints', and this is one of them (even though we're unsure how major it is). Someone almost certainly spoke to the Times and the BBC and the Scotsman and said "You still can't publish the real story in this case, but it'll all come out one day, and in the meantime here's a portion you can report". Otherwise, we'd be implying that these 3 sources are prone to bad-mouthing Israel on flimsy evidence, and I'd be quite astonished if that was the case. (The BBC examined it's own bias, and found it was pro-Israel in April 2006. Same report in PDF here).

Alternatively, if your take on policy is correct, then I can see it having far-reaching effects on the use of Reliable Sources in all sorts of other articles. The only "oddity" of any kind here is that the original informant is anonymous - which I believe lends credibility, suggesting that Colvin thought this was an informant worth protecting. The Scotsman clip details the big possible (and likely accrued) benefits to Israel of encouraging the hijack, so neither Colvin nor the informant are fools. Arafat's PLO indeed came to dominate, and (I think) everyone now agrees did less than nothing for the Palestinians. So this claim is very different from eg a journalist saying un-named people alleged "lots of killings" (though we'd probably report the latter too). PalestineRemembered 09:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like the news sources were just looking for something interesting to report, and this extraordinary claim written in a government report is certainly interesting. I do think my interpretation of policy is correct; whenever there is a case of an unnamed source making an extraordinary claim with no indication that experts are taking it seriously, then I would be very hesitant about mentioning it in a main article. We are not a tabloid, so we are not duty-bound to report on every single conspiracy theory that pops up.

Also, I don't even see any proof that Colvin himself believed the theory. Indeed, after he explains the contact's reasoning that the operation was meant to weaken the PLO and prevent Israel from having to concede territory, Colvin writes his own opinion that "If the incident does lead to a re-appraisal of French Middle East policy (which seems unlikely), it is likely to lend weight to the arguments of those who call for an early resumption of moves leading to an overall peace settlement, including the creation of a Palestinian state on territory to be evacuated by Israel. Unless this is done, the indiscipline of the Palestinians will become more marked and incidents of this kind will become more frequent." His own analysis of the consequences of the plot thus contradicts those given by the contact: he thinks Entebbe will not have much influence on French policy, and if it does, it will only increase pressure on Israel to give up land. (By the way, notice the contact blames the Shin Beit, which is a domestic security force. We would expect Mossad to be the ones behind an international false-flag operation.) nadav (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Bringing you reluctantly round obviously wouldn't help me getting articles edited "to policy". And I'm not sure how or whether I may use analogies in "argument" in a case like this. But please spend a minute considering the following 2 examples:

1) The "Pat Tillman was murdered" allegations. News-Google "Tillman + Murder" and the first significant RS hit is the IHT 1st Aug 07 saying "decided ... not a murder even though ... report suggested ... might have been inflicted at close range.", and there are several more using the same words. I can find just one report (from the No.1 British anti-war paper!) which says "may have been murdered". Even Democracy Now (2nd Aug 07) doesn't mention it. Yet the word "murder" now appears twice in the WP article as "suspected" and "suggested". This article first references Forbes Magazine, surely far less significant than the Times and the BBC. And the article it references doesn't use the word "murder", it has only a single mention of "crime", under "investigate whether". The other direct reference used in the WP article is a bit more damning, Editor and Publisher headlines "Was Tillman Murdered?". But they're not quoting anyone, and they don't use the word murder in the article. They only once use the same "investigate crime". In Tillman's case we don't know who said "3 bullets in the forehead", their names are blacked out. We don't know whether either of the writers thinks it was murder (apparently not). Might you object that "Tillman murdered" is just too believable? I'd find that very hard to accept (US forces never previously accused of covering up a fragging, that I'm aware of). Whereas the Entebbe allegation is not particularly "surprising" - deliberate or reckless Israeli actions have killed Israelis and UN personnel and westerners, including Americans. Pro-Israeli sources tell us there are billions of people around the world only too eager to believe any old tat about Israel - so "Israel did it" is a "major viewpont" almost by definition. Remember - all I need is a good case (perhaps backed by an experienced editor like yourself) that it's a "major viewpoint", and then policy says it belongs in the article. The more I think about it, the more "Israeli involvement" looks like a "major viewpoint". (Just to make it clear, I thought Tillman had been murdered as soon as I read the first reports, but I never expected to see it in WP until it came from RS).

2) I'm struggling to fashion a similar (explosive but currently "far from proven") assertion for a story that has not yet broken and may never break. How about a report that a (frightened and) un-named structural engineer had claimed (say) that the 911 Towers were fundamentally defective, and would have fallen in any significant multi-story fire? (I'm casting around to think of an allegation as damaging to US interests as the Operation Entebbe allegations could be to Israel's interests, I'm not suggesting that the above is the case). I'm pretty sure allegations like that would belong in the encyclopedia, whether the RS or their source reporting them claimed to believe the claims or not. (In fact, something approaching this claim is in our 911 article already - "fireproofing ... was blown off by the initial impact ... stairwells were not adequately reinforced"!)

So - I've presented a way that would genuinely convince me these new "Operation Entebbe" details should be excluded/ignored from articles (despite the Times and the BBC refering to these claims). But the existing balance (in the two roughly similar cases I can think of) is very much in favour of publication. Please scratch your head for examples that would swing the other way (or suggest ways my examples don't fit!). PalestineRemembered 18:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Arguments by comparison to other articles can be treacherous—I am sure you are familiar with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nonetheless, I am still trying to understand the analogies you raise, though I am unfamiliar with the Pat Tillman events. I looked at the articles, and in both cases, the extraordinary claims are attributed to experts who are definitely in a position to know what they are talking about. In the case of 1), it cites the opinions of the army medical doctors who examined Tillman's body. Moreover, notice that only two lines are devoted to these experts' opinions, not a whole section as was the case with the Entebbe article. As for 2), I don't know about your hypothetical; I would probably be against including some random opinion. However, the parenthetical example you gave is definitely OK: it refers to an official engineering report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology! Recapitulating, arguing by example is not so useful on Wikipedia. Across the board, though, I feel that we should never give much space in main articles to fringe theories advanced by unknowns that have not been taken seriously by experts. In the particular case of Entebbe, perhaps I could be convinced that we should have one or two lines about the theory (just because it was widely reported), especially if you find a source indicating it's now widely believed in certain sectors. nadav (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I knew someone named Tamir Nadav while going to school, so I'm just wondering if that's you. - JNighthawk 13:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Lol, no that's not me. Nadav is a relatively common Hebrew name. nadav (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough :-) I saw you editing the Full Sail article and thought there was a chance. - JNighthawk 04:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain your objection as it related to specific pictures on the page? I've review the WP:FAR page and cannot see how it applies to the pictures currently used in the article. Thanks. Tiamat 15:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:FAR is the featured article review page, so I assume you meant to look at WP:NONFREE? I'll go into specifics about each image on the talk page of the article. Best, nadav (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant WP:FUR. I'll look at WP:NONFREE and wait for your comments at the talk page. Tiamat 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahalan Nadav! concerning your request i have a small matter to adress. it was my understanding that whatever is written in the user page is the reflection of the user's worldview and that as such it doesn't contradict Wikipedia's rule that all things written in the article zone must be NPOV, and that other things written outside the article area can contain personal POV. if i'm wrong here please correct me and i'll remove immediatley all things concerning my worldview from my user page.
Oren neu dag 02:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You understood correctly. Separately from that though, there is also a guideline for userpage content (WP:USER). It says that certain POV statements (what it calls "polemical statements") should be avoided on user pages. The reasoning for this is that user pages are there to make it easier to work with other editors in building the encyclopedia. nadav (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Mentor has been blocked - [7] I suppose you should start a thread on WP:AN and ask for advice on how to proceed. nadav (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have complied with your suggestion, I'm not quite sure why. The reason given for this block (sock of User:Dereks1x) makes no sense. The block has no effect on any relationship I have with this editor, who has not contacted me. (Though it would impact the purpose of this SPA, to help others).

Meanwhile, I can see the most outrageous silliness going on elsewhere, totally out of control, see Happy_Flowers_Fun_Time. (note - the editor who actually re-titled this section is not the one persistently behaving so badly).

I don't believe I'm using the project as a playground and/or participating in order to degrade it's reliability - but there would seem to be people doing so, and they sure look confident that they'll not touched for it.

PS - I'm not double-posting this back to my page, I'm leaving that to you if you care to respond, hope that's OK. PalestineRemembered 10:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I am reluctantly driven to think that the account in question is indeed a sock (why it should be for User:Dereksx1 I can't understand, but there appear to be significant indications coming to the notice of bodies above my pay-grade). I still fail to understand why there are other editors who can get away with quite outrageous mis-behaviour without any sanction against them. PalestineRemembered 20:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

May you be so benignant and interpret little info from the Hebrew Wikipedia? Irqirq 09:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will be glad to translate. It might take a couple days, though. When I'm done, I'll put it in talk or userspace and ask what people think. nadav (talk) 09:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Todah. Appreciate it Irqirq 09:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Nadav, I will try to get you something in the next few days - I have some personal photos I took, but I will have to search a bit to find them. In the meantime, you should check out the Smithsonian's Matson Collection [8] which is 100% in the public domain (we used a few of their photos in the exhibit). Trjames 01:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Whatever you can find would be great. nadav (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Look here Trjames 20:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again for the photo contribution. The photos will add a lot to the article, and to other language wikipedias too I'm sure. nadav (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've replied briefly to your question at my user talk. I don't have time to do a word-for-word translation, but I hope my answer will be helpful. Dekimasuよ! 08:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

From my admittedly limited knowledge, the term is controversial and is not widely accepted in either English or Hebrew. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

i've exhausted my patience.

opened a new AN/I here and i would appreciate you, being a person who seems to counsel this user on occasion (see the time you requested us to scale it back)^[9], mention that this is a case of failed mentorship. i'm not pushing for a total ban.. that is not my place to decide; but considering the number of blatant breaches after the sanctions noticeboard and after i've kept noting him that his activity is increasingly improper, i think a month seems like a good start (my first AN/I did not include a ban request, the second requested a 7 day ban but the WP:CN case was opened). the most important ingredient missing is a desire to change... in fact, as i see it, there's the opposite - a sincere desire to continue with this soapbox as long as he's allowed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I still think the solution is to match him up with a mentor as soon as possible. It's not his fault the mentorship decision wasn't implemented, and that no one checked up on the guy that came forward. We can't move up to a more stringent penalty if the current step has not even been tried. By the way, I myself would have volunteered for the job, but unfortunately, I do not expect to have regular internet access for the next two months. nadav (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Nadav for stepping in. I really was thinking about you but said let's wait and see people's reaction. So the idea is there. Well, I and Avi can do the job while you are away. I don't know. Something like that. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If you and Avi are willing to handle the extra weight until I move into my new university housing, then I of course would be glad to do the job at every moment I have internet access. Once I move in in October, I will be able to take over completely. In the mean time, I'll also activate my e-mail so I can be easily reached. Also, I should mention that there was one content disagreement between me and PR (you can see it on my talk page). If that's a problem, I can refrain from working on articles on which PR is working on at the same time. nadav (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted. I'll check w/ Avi and PR tomorrow then. If not, i'd check w/ some other admins and see what we can do. Good luck nadav in your move to the univ housing. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Continue reading the copyright notice from bioguide: "Unless otherwise noted, images of Representatives are provided by, and should be credited to Collection of U.S. House of Representatives. Images of Senators are provided by, and should be credited to the U.S. Senate Historical Office." Emphasis added.

So, in the instance of the picture you are trying to delete, there is no "otherwise noted" which means it is provided by the U.S. Senate Historical Office, which is a US Federal Gov entity. "Otherwise" noted looks like this where it puts the copyright info below the picture. Aboutmovies 15:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my mistake! Sorry to waste your time. nadav (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, some of the pictures on the bioguide are copyrighted by non-USGOV entities, and I'm sure some have been uploaded. Aboutmovies 17:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nadav I thought you might like to know that I've never edit-warred. Kiryat Gat doesn't need protection against me. PalestineRemembered 20:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That's why I wanted the article to not be protected anymore. It was originally protected on 30 July, but today protection was lifted.[10] I hope you were following the talk discussion; I'll add two sentences or so with links to Faluja and the article on the military operation. If you want to change the text, it would be a good idea I think to suggest your alternative text on the talk first to avoid any controversy. Best, nadav (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nadav1. Could you please add Battle of Jenin to your watchlist? A debate is currently occurring over coverage of this event. And please feel to free to take a look at the talk page at some point. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 17:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. The article is already on my watchlist, but unfortunately this month I don't think I will be on wikipedia often enough to be of much help in this. I'll look at the talk page and at least try to follow the debate. Best, nadav (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

By Itzse (talk · contribs). We are at another impasse regarding whether or not the word nation can be included in the introduction for the article on Palestinian people. He says he will not accept my reinsertion of the word, but would accept it if you thought it was alright. Given your earlier comments that very few people actually deny that Palestinians are a "nation" today, I was hoping that you would repeat that at the talk page there. Thanks. Tiamut 00:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I undid your merge proposal and the last action to the Structure (disambiguation) page. Maybe you could take a look at the talk page, were I explained my actions. - Mdd 19:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The "al" is just a definite article, no? A source I have calls the town just Faluja, and so does the Hebrew wikipedia. So I propose moving the article to Faluja (Israel) (as opposed to the Iraqi one). nadav (talk) 05:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I'd think this was a good change. Morris prefixes several village names with the "Al", but doesn't do it for Faluja. PalestineRemembered 15:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

PS - I see that Kiryat Gat now refers to Faluja as having been "abandoned" - I'll take your advice, but shouldn't it read "emptied"? PalestineRemembered 15:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Shalom, Nadav.
If you're interested in the matter (recognition of USA), I'll post some data in the article.
By the way, did you wrote the section Jews on the talk page of Republic of Dubrovnik? Greetings, Kubura 14:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to assign yourself tasks from the list of unassigned tasks at Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce. Arranging assignments is too much work for me to do by myself. We have a large backlog of unassigned tasks and there is probably something in there that will interest you. RJFJR 22:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)