User talk:Uriyan

I tried to combine the two versions of Hebrew language, and added unicode for some letters. It is important to remember that articles are written in the Neutral Point of View. I'm not sure why you want to have an unusual transliteration of Hebrew to Roman letters, but I left your work in the page while rescuing the paragraphs that you accidently deleted. It will be interesting to see where you go with this article.

---

Well, I deleted them intentionally (most of the material being moved into Hebrew language/Phonology). As to the transliteration, I wanted it to be as simple as possilbe (and if a reader won't know whether a /t[?]/ is a tet or a tav - so let it be). uriyan.

---

Hmm. I personally am frustrated when I read a transliteration that I can't convert back to the original form. So it would bug me if you can't tell if a 't' when written is a tet or a tav. by the way, the linguistic traditions I understand, is that /t[?]/ refers to the sound of the t, not the written form. The way you phrased the above, I think you wanted the character 't', not the sound /t[?]/.

---

Well, I actually meant a sound /t[?]/. For example, the /t[?]/ in "mishtara" or the /t[?]/ in "torem" is a phoneme, not a letter (the former being written with tet, the latter with tav). I thought about marking a tet with theta (θ) and/or a tav with a thorn (fl), but then it would be not fully correct (and after all it's the same sound). I will be immensly grateful to hear about any suggestions, though. Also, perhaps it won't do too much harm to mark a het with an "x". What do you think about it? Uriyan.

---

The Dimona / Israeli Nuclear Weapons Program Discussion - Uriyan vs. SJK

Uriyan: You changed article to say "purpose of Dimona is assumed by many to be the manufacturing of nuclear weapons" -- does anyone deny this? The Israeli government may refuse to admit it, but they do not deny it either. Can you produce anyone who seriously argues that Dimona is not used for this purpose? -- SJK

Exactly as you have said, the Israeli government does not admit that Dimona is used to make nukes. Although it does not deny it either, it is not equivalent to total acceptance of the fact that Dimona is used to make nukes. In other words, the statement is false by default and can only be proved by either through solid and ample evidence (which was never presented), or by statement on behalf of the Israeli government (which did not take place). --Uriyan

No, I'm saying does anyone believe it to be false or unlikely? Is there anyone who believes (whatever they may say in public) that Dimona does not produce nukes, or that it is unlikely that it does so? As far as I can tell, everyone knows that it makes nukes. The Israeli government may refuse to publicly admit it, but that it is a policy choice -- and this refusal of the Israeli government to take a position on the issue is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Dimona is used for nukes.

And in any case, even if a few people deny its used to make nukes (and you still haven't produced anyone who does), the general opinion of defence and nuclear experts is that it is. -- SJK

As I've already said, the Israeli government does not confirm that "nukes are made in Dimona", which put this statement at the same level as as "nukes are made in Canberra" (which the Australian government never bothered to confirm or deny, either). And by the way, defence and nuclear experts are exactly what falls under the category "some people", although "most people" would also suit me; however it would not qualify for an absolute truth (stating so would be an Appeal to Common Practice logical fallacy).

As to the question of whether Dimona does manufacture nukes, there are lots of people (including myself), who, while thinking that chances are that Israel does have a nuclear potential, have a reasonable degree of doubt originating in uncertainty. So again, writing that nuke production takes place in Dimona would be a generalization to which I object. --Uriyan

Yes, but no one has ever suggested that the Australian government makes nukes in Canberra. I'm sure if it was seriously being alleged, the Australian government would give some form of response (most likely denial). So your analogy is invalid.

I'd prefer "most defence and nuclear experts" to even "most people", since what experts say regarding their field is more trustworthy than the opinions of the average person on the same issue.

Okay, so you are uncertain -- but would you agree that it is likely that they do have a nuclear capability? If Israel doesn't have a nuclear capability, why don't they just say that? If there is nothing to hide in Dimona, why not allow IAEA inspectors? If there is no nuclear program, how do you explain Vanunu's allegations -- did he invent them? And if they are not true, why did the Israeli government kidnap him and try him for espionage and treason? I have trouble seeing how anyone could doubt that Israel has a program for the production of nuclear weapons at Dimona. -- SJK

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that nukes are made in Dimona; the fact that many people say so indicates nothing. The only evidence that exists is by Vaanunu. It is limited, unclear and has little external supporting evidence. The same way, I could at this moment claim that Canberra is the site of big-scale nuke production that Australia is meticulously hiding, fabricate a couple of photographs and you wouldn't have a way to disprove me.

As to the "nothing to hide" principle, it is generally fallacious since you know as well as me that no country would, if an alternative existed, allow the access of outsiders to issues as intricate as nuclear potential. This is particularly true in the Middle East, where Israel is protected not by the alleged arms, but by the very lack of knowledge about their presence and nature.

As to Vaanunu's claims, it doesn't matter whether they were true or false. The very fact that he tried to give some knowledge (even false one!) to enemy states was already very damaging in its own right and qualifying Vaanunu as a traitor. By the way, from the publications about him, he appears to me a mentally unstable person, so his claims are of little weight anyway. --Uriyan

---

Well, if nuclear weapons are not being made in Dimona, what else does Dimona do? What other purpose does it serve? Why else is it a secret?

"No country would, if an alternative existed, allow the access of outsiders to issues as intricate as nuclear potential"? Thats not true. Most countries in the world allow international inspections of their nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency to verify that they are not being used for the purposes of making nuclear weapons. Most countries in the world have signed a legally binding agreement, stating that they will not develop nuclear weapons (the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT). Israel, however refuses to do this. Most countries have nothing to hide, and are more than willing to let the rest of the world see that.

Israel refuses to say whether it has something to hide or not. Most countries quite openly say "we do not have nuclear weapons". Israel refuses to allow inspections of its nuclear facilities. Most countries quite openly say "if you don't believe us, come here and look". Most countries have signed the NPT to say they will not acquire nuclear weapons. Israel refuses to do so.

Vanunu revealed knowledge to enemy states? The London Sunday Times is an enemy state? And anyway, the Israeli government has insisted on trying him in secret, and keeping him in solitary confinement for over 18 years, on the grounds that he might reveal state secrets. What secrets are those then? If not secrets about Israeli nuclear weapons, then what? (Or maybe its just what many experts say -- he knows nothing that the rest of the world doesn't know already, but the Israeli government wanted to silence him, to avoid embarassment to the United States and Europe.)

Finally, nothing I have read indicates he is insane or mentally unstable. On the contrary, the opinion I have gathered is that he is saner than most people. -- SJK

You still misunderstand me. Israel's power is in the Arab lack of knowledge whether Israel does possess a nuclear bomb or not, and if it does - what are Israeli capabilities. Israel will retain that advantage (no matter what the real state of affairs is) so long as no knowledge (be it true or false) leaks to the Arab nations.

As to "nothing to hide" arguments. Expanding it, I could further claim that your appartment should be subject to arbitrary checks by the police? Why should you object? After all, you don't have anything to hide. It's not like you're living in a neighborhood of bullies who are just dying to know what sort of a gun you're hiding there. And I don't think it takes too much effort to see that most countries are not overly content to share their secrets with others.

Surely by speaking to London Times, Vaanunu is giving information to enemy states. Even if Syrians are not subscribed to London Times, they could just as well grab a copy especially fo the occasion. Anyway, Vaanunu seemed to me (personally) a deranged man, since he experienced a sudden personality change in the early 1980s, changing all his beliefs at once. This is not normal, and this indicates, at least to my opinion that he's got some profound psychological problem. --Uriyan

How is lack of Arab knowledge an advantage? If Israel has nuclear weapons, it is in Israel's advantage to make this as clear as possible to the Arabs, to deter them from attacking. Of course, I suppose if Israel has no nuclear weapons, then Arab knowledge of its nuclear capabilties would be a disadvantage (it would serve as a deterent for Arabs to believe that Israel has nuclear weapons even if Israel doesn't). But in that case, it would have no problem with Vananu saying that they did, since Vananu has done a pretty good job of convincing most of the world that it in fact has.

The only explanation I've heard that made any sense is this: when the US found out that the Israeli nuclear weapons program had been successful (apparently around about the 1967 war), it made an "understanding" with Israel -- we won't pressure you to get rid of them if you don't publicly admit you have them. (If Israel made a public admission, the U.S. would either have to start pressuring Israel to dispose of them, or else it would appear partial on the issue of nuclear non-proliferation.) That's why the Israeli government will neither confirm or deny it -- it doesn't want to deny it, because it wants the Arabs to believe that it has nuclear weapons; but it can't confirm it, because that would cause a difficult situation for the United States.

What "secret" do you think Israel has at Dimona, a nuclear reactor and related facilities? What possible secret could be located at a nuclear reactor complex other than nuclear weapons? If Israel has something to hide at Dimona, what could it be possibly be other than a nuclear weapons program? What else do you hide at nuclear reactors?

As I said, most countries will let the rest of the world see what their up to, except where they are doing something they feel needs to be kept secret. Most countries, if they have nothing to hide, will let the world in to look. Of course, all countries have facilities that they won't let other countries or international inspectors investigate. But those facilities are facilities they actually have something to hide in. So if Israel won't let international inspectors inside Dimona, the only obvious conclusion is that Israel is doing something at Dimona it doesn't want the rest of the world to know about. And since Dimona is a nuclear reactor, I can't see what else they would be doing there that they would want to keep secret other than making nuclear weapons.

Finally, its not unknown for people to have radical changes in the focus of their life, their beliefs, and so on. Of course, it does not happen everyday, or to everyone, but it does happen. (I know or know of several people to whom exactly that has happened.) And I don't think its necessarily a sign of insanity. And Vanunu probably didn't just wake up one morning with a totally different perspective on life from the one he had the day before -- more likely he slowly was changing his beliefs inside, but it took a while for him to build up the courage to express them, so it appeared that he was changing all his beliefs at once. SJK7

You could be right, but other explainations are possible; and unlike you I'm not denying the possibility of what you are saying. Imagine for a second that Israel does not have any nuclear weapons and that the reactor is a mock-up. Would we have any real way to know if it were so? No. But of course it defers Arab nations from making the wrong moves near Israel. In other words, Israel's asset is not the bomb (the applicability of which is dubious at best, as it appears to me), but the total lack of Arab knowledge about it. Not arresting Vaanunu would be a really dumb thing anyway because (a) he's a traitor even if his information is false to this extent or other -- and -- (b) it wouldn't be what Israel would do if it didn't have a bomb.

So what I wanted to tell you is: Israel could have nukes, or it could not, and we won't be able to know. The general assumption (and mine as well) is that it does; but there's little reliable evidence to any of the sides. Finally, it depends on how one defines "normality". To me, Vaanunu's eventual rejection of all his environment is to me a sign of psychological abnormality. --Uriyan

Okay, I agree that the following is possible -- Israel doesn't have nuclear weapons, but is doing everything possible to convince the rest of the world that it does, including operating a secret nuclear facility, at which it doesn't actually produce nuclear weapons, it just tries to make it appear to the rest of the world it does. But then, I wonder, if this is true, why not just publicly announce "we have nukes" even if its not true. I suppose though that something like the explanation I gave above (avoid U.S. pressure to get rid of the nukes) would still apply even if the nuclear weapons didn't exist, and also that if Israel claimed it had nuclear weapons but that claim was then proven false, Israel would look very stupid. And maybe there's an agreement between Israel and the US to the effect that "we, the US, are not going you to have nukes... we will though let you make it look like you have them". I do not think its likely, but I am willing to admit its a possibility. I have a question -- do you consider both "Israel has nukes" or "Israel does not have nukes" equally probable, or is one in your mind more likely than the other? How do you think most Israelis would judge the likelihood of each possibility?

The main thing that might settle this would be an examination of Vanunu's claims in detail... I'll admit all I've personally seen is secondary sources, not the original Sunday Times article, so I should look that up. And also consideration of what defence and nuclear experts say Israel has, based on analysis of Vanunu's claims and whatever other data they have.

At the very least, we want to find a copy of the Vanunu article from the Sunday Times and link to it from the Mordechai Vanunu page. Someone should also find some of the analysis that experts have done (in publications like Jane's Defense Weekly) and summarise the main arguments/conclusions. Maybe we need an article like Israeli nuclear capability[?], to deal with the whole does Israel have nuclear weapons issue (which really doesn't belong on the Dimona page)? -- SJK

First of all, I'd like to state that all my information is based on public sources. I consider it quite likely (say, 75%) that Israel does have some sort of a nuclear capability (although I may only wonder how far it goes). The other 25% are for other explanations (Israel never possessing nuclear weapons or possessing them and later-on disposing of them at United States' request).

No specific information ever got out on this question. I didn't see the Sunday Times either, but I've seen the reprints of photographs allegedly made by Vaanunu, which are extremely unclear. So this doesn't add a lot of information, particularly considering the fact that Vaanunu's mental health is often under question. It's not too hard to spot that Israel gains a strategic advantage because of the Arabs' lack of knowledge regarding the subject, but that's just about the only obvious thing.

I fully agree with you that this issue does not belong to the Dimona page. As to Israeli nuclear capability[?], it is generally a good idea. However, I believe that a superficial analysis (such as the one we have just made) would not have any material to base on, and only a scholarly investigation could really lead to a conslusion. Unfortunately, I personally do not have the time and the means to compile such a review. --Uriyan

---

SJK and Uriyan, this is not a worthwhile argument. If we exclude Uriyan from the census I don't think you'll find any Wikipedian who would disagree that Israel has nuclear weapons. Therefore Uriyan - leave it, either you know you are arguing from a position of falsehood or you are nuttier than Vanunu.

A. Says who? Obviously trying to censor me anonimously is a bad attitude.

B. I am also the sole Israeli; the fact that I'm outnumbered does not make me more or less right.

C. I'm not arguing that nukes aren't made in Dimona; I'm arguing that there's no evidence that make it an absolute truth. Even the most undisputed political issues can't be answered by either "yes" or "no". This is a very complicated issue, so that saying just "yes" is not enough. Do not attribute to me what I'm not saying.

D. So Vaanunu is "nutty" after all? --Uriyan

A. 62.253.64.xxx. I would'nt say anonymity has any effect, nor am I trying to censor you - the article is untouched.
B. But it increases the possibilty of pro-nation pride leading you to argue moot points.
C. It is as close enough to the truth to be stated as such, just because the government won't say means nothing. For years the British government would neither confirm or deny the existence of its intelligence services, but they certainly existed.<br> D. No, but if a certain set of circumstances were true, I would regard you as further along the 'nutty' spectrum than Vanunu in regard of certain specific matters, all other things being equal.
E. You should reduce the amount of fancy graphics on your web-site, it takes ages to load.

A. What's in a name?

B. Well, what we have is SJK who is very negative about Israel. So it's like we're even (although it's not the way I'd want it to be, but rather the way SJK wants it)

C. I'm merely trying to put your attention to the fact that Israel's possession of nuclear weapons does not have real objective proof. Yes, Israel could have them. Or we could be decieving the whole world. I don't know, and neither do you.

D. Well, you say

E. I designed it like when I was 13 (which was 4 years ago), and haven't updated it since :-)

---

Hi Uriyan, forgive me my curiosity, but i am wondering what they teach in Israel about history of Poland? I mean, once up to 45% of Jewish world population lived in Poland and they did so for thousand year, hasidism was born there iirc? I few articles which appear from time to time in Polish media one can guess that they don't teach nothing, since i've read that in polls made between Israeli youths who went to march of living, most of them had no idea about single fact from Polish history...

anyway, just curious. Forgive i ask i took your time to read this 8-) b-) szopen

The Israel school program is usually built like this: in Junior High we study several chapters world history up until the 19th century (e.g. in my case the emphasis was on the Golden Age of the Arab culture - c. 1000 A.D., the Middle Ages in Europe and the French Revolution). Since it's in Junior High, we do not have state exams (Bagrut), the grade that we receive affects only our report card. Essentially these studies do not receive great emphasis (and neither does most of the stuff we learn at Junior Hight).

In High School, we study a chapter of ancient Jewish history (Judea as either a Babylonian/Persian and Greek or Greek and Roman province), and a chapter about 19th century history (in my case, Germany, but the teacher can choose among several major powers of that time). We then learn another chapter in the history of the Holocaust (some of which took part in Poland). All this material is checked by state exams, so it is studied with a bit more attention.

As you could see, the little we do learn about Poland is in the context of the Holocaust. In general, our studies are extremely limited, and we do not cover material which is in my personal understanding paramount. How can one learn history without World War II, American independence, or even Israel's own wars? This grieves me much since I'm personally very fond of history. --Uriyan

Ah, i understand. It is similar to what is now happening to teaching history in Poland, my firend is history teacher and when he show me history books i thought he was joking...

Anyway, no chance then about entries about Jewish authonomy? I was about to write something on that, but i am hesitating since: a) i have only two books on topic, and they are just sets of articles from conferences b) i could be biased and add too much "Jews had it good in Poland compared to other states" sentences, which could be untrue and certainly could be controversial. I hoped Israeli would be more fit to this task :( szopen

Well, I do not know enough about these issues to be able to write an encyclopedia article about them. You're certainly welcome to write an article. If you feel like you don't have enough information, there must be lots of it all over the Internet.

Although, as far as I do know, relationship between Jews and Christians in Poland has often been difficult (Anti-Semitism being abundant in all periods and particularly during the Holocaust), there have surely been better chapters in the history of Jews in Poland. Perhaps I will know more after I return from my trip to Poland this March.--Uriyan

March of living, or private trip? Anyway, your impression will vastly dependend on where you'll go, and to whom (if) you will talk. You are welcome to Poznan, BTW :) although you must be prepared to sleep on the floor, since rooms in assistant hotel are really small. szopen

The former (in Israel they're called a "roots voyage"). From what I've heard so far, it seems that the journey will be concentrated solely on Jewish history without any touch to modern Poland. I find it unfortunate, as I understand that I'll miss Poland itself. As to Poznan, thank your for your invitation, but I don't think the route will take me there :-(

============================================================================

Uri-

I just wanted to thank you outside of the context of the Palestinian/Israeli issues, for your open mind, and willingness to see anothers viewpoint.

It takes courage to meet someone half way in issues such as these, that are anything but dispassionate. If only people could talk to each other rather than at them, most conflicts would resolve themselves. After all most people all want the same thing, to live a good life, and raise their children well.

Joseph E. Saad

---

Thanks for additional info on Ramallah. Ed Poor

---

i m user arab not anoymous as u like to call it, i m logged in and why dont we come to a compromise and divide the page into 2? arab view n israeli view ..deal?

I guessed you're Arab. You're not logged in, though, because your name does not show up in the changes page. I'm generally for compromise (as you could see on this page and others), but I do not agree in this case. The reason: all statements in Wikipedia must be objectively true (read NPOV if you don't believe me). You are pushing a version that is not only anti-Semitic and extremely unilateral but also false. Most of your allegations lack any basis at all. We could discuss how you could change your style to reflect the standards that are used in Wikipedia - but I will not allow fallacy and my words be combined on a single page. --Uriyan

Then prove to me that Palestinian terrorism is a major component of the terrorism against Israel. as far as u or i can be certain, the organisations that fight against israel are fighting for independence .. (as a side note, the palestinians are not even half as bloody or inhuman as the stern gang or others!) .. which makes them freedom fighters not terrorists. futhermore, palestinians do not make it a policy to have any state organisation go out and kill ppl who voice their distaste for israels methods of killing palestinians... look i want a compromise on the page and as i m the only one of the two of us who even suggested it and i suggest we go with it.

what is it with u? u following me around to see what i m writing up and changing a word here and there and voila .. the whole thing means something different .. i m a simple man and i say simple things .. leave my pages alone!

---

Response: First of all, I disagree with your perception of "compromise". Compromise, for me, is acceptible only so long as both sides agree on a set of rules. In our case, you have abused your power as the Wikipedia narrator to pass judgement on the state of Israel. I may not agree to that, and we don't have a common grounds to argue about. That is also the reason I, as well as other people, have modified what you had written. You have the right to say some of the things you had (those that are true). You don't have any right at all to say them the way you did. These are not "your pages". Note that the reason does not lie in politics, but rather in the nature of Wikipedia.

As to the political question: what you fail to understand is that terrorism is a means, while statehood is a goal. Most people believe that not all means are good for achieving a goal. Does this hold true with you? Who are you to deny that more than 300 civilian, peace-loving Israelis were brutally murdered, that days here are perilous, that nights are dangerous? If this is not terrorism what is it? Since 1993, Palestinians were well on their path for statehood. Because of what distress would they have to murder more than 300 civilian people? Just a couple of points for you to think about. --Uriyan

---

Thanks for combining the master boot record pages. How did you do that?

Well, first Wikipedia is case-sensitive (so [[Master boot record]] is not the same thing as [[Master Boot Record]]). What I did is add the command #REDIRECT [[Master Boot Record]] at the "Master boot record page", and move the rest of the content appropriately. I chose the capitalized version, since it's the one used in most formal docs.. By the way I noticed you prefer to use HTML tags, but the general trend in Wikipedia is to use the generic Wikipedia markup (you can find full details at How does one edit a page). --Uriyan

---

Since you created the Partition (IBM PC) entry, I consider you to have volunteered to integrate all the partition-related content into one article. Have fun. :)

Yeah, well, I guess I did :-) I'd eaten my share of problems related to bad partitioning, so if someone reads this and is assisted, I guess I'll feel better about the times that I'd spoiled the disk. It may take me a couple of days, though. --Uriyan

---

From talk:Israel Defence Forces

Well, I was writing in a hurry and I rather meant eradicating terrorism as a phenomenon threatening U.S. and Israel. But, to me, the very concept of terrorism is so morally repulsive (no matter who carries it out), that I do not see a moral problem in killing an active terrorist. I think that war is war, and until it ends, I will not feel compassion for the soldiers of the other side. This does not hold true for non-combatant civilians - but terrorists do not belong to them. Perhaps many of those who read this would disagree with me - but there are no daily attempts on the lives of most of them. --Uriyan

I find it very sad to hear there is any human being you feel no compassion for as your brother human. But even if that is the case, please don't compare human beings to animals. It is this sort of dehumanizing rhetoric that allows good people to carry out despicable acts. In peace and hope, DanKeshet

I feel compassion for my brethren humans - so long as they do not rise up to kill me. At that point I stop feeling compassion for them, and start figuring out how I defend myself and counter-attack them. War is tragedgy; but I do not mourn at all the death of those who assail me. If theat's the way people treat animals - well, then I do treat terrorists like animals. As to peace and hope, I'm afraid these have to be earnt, as they are not excessively abundant in this region. --Uriyan

---

Uri,

Let's cooperate on the redirection and (possible) renaming of Middle-earth related pages. I would like orc to be the article, rather than the cumbersome Orc/Middle-Earth or Orc (Middle-Earth]] formulation.

1. It's easier to type
2. There is no ambiguity

Ed Poor, Friday, June 21, 2002

Hi Ed,

Middle Earth/Orc is indeed deprecated (and contains a stylistic deviation, as Tolkien writes "earth" in lowercase). The reason why I redirect it to "Orcs (Middle-earth)" is, because Orcs are no longer unique to Middle-earth (though they were invented as a part of it), and now persist in numerous RPGs/fantasy novels etc., so I thought it made sense to disambiguate. I've been renaming pages couple at a time for a while now (I didn't rename so many so far). I think cooperating to get it finished quickly is a good idea. --Uriyan

Hi, Uri. How about making orc describe (a) the general creature of fantasy, as well as (b) the specific monster of LOTR and The Hobbit? Ed Poor, Friday, June 21, 2002

Ok, I guess that should suit me, but I hope it won't upset the guardians of disambiguation --Uriyan

Nothing to be upset about -- you can't talk about orcs without at least mentioning Tolkien's concept of them. If and when that part of the article gets too long, then much of that material (not all) could be placed into it's own article. --maveric149

Good, that seems fine to me. --Uriyan

---

Hi, uriyan. I have enjoyed co-editing articles dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict. I am a supporter of Israel, and also a supporter of the NPOV. It's difficult to reconcile these values, but I try.

One thing that perplexes me is the definitions of the terms Palestine and Palestinian. I believe the meanings of these terms sheds light on the arguments for a Palestinian homeland. For example, if Jordan is entirely within "Palestine", then it may well already be the Palestinian homeland for Arabs and/or Muslims. Israel and the West Bank could then be a Jewish homeland.

If "Palestine" is defined to exclude Jordan, that leaves only Israel (including Judea and Samaria) -- or as currently constituted, Israel and the West Bank. If the "Palestinian homeland" should be in "Palestine" (which excludes any part of Jordan), then the land has to come out of the West Bank and/or Israel.

There seems to be an irreconcilable conflict between those Arabs who want to take more land from Israel (probably, all of it) -- and Israel and its allies who want Israel to continue to exist.

I offer no solution. I just want to describe the current situation as accurately as possible, and present it (if possible) in the NPOV format. Wish me luck, okay? Ed Poor 06:30 Jul 23, 2002 (PDT)

---

Hi, first of all you can call me Uri since that's my first name :-). I've also enjoyed working with you, and I appreciate both your insight and your commitment to NPOV.

I'm afraid that one can't give a strict definition for "Palestine" or "Palestinian". For many people, both Israel and Jordan constitute Palestine; for many others, one of them does not not. It is true that there are about 3 million people who think that the West Ban and Gaza should be a part of some new Palestinian homeland; there are hundreds of millions world-wide that the whole of Israel should be destroyed the vacated space becoming a new Palestine. So obviously we're talking about 3 principal positions here (Palestine=Jordan/Israel/Jordan+Israel), 2 of which include a political option of either accepting or denying a partition of Israel to a Jewish and an Arab state (so there's a total of 5). I think that the best solution in the long run is to have all 5.

Since one cannot forever describe the thoughts of each particular group on this matter, all over the world, I'm afraid that any article eventually comes to taking this stance or other. If an article is about facts, it can usually be brought to some sort of balance, to serve as an average between all existing points of view. In other cases, I find that there's often no choice but to have really two (or more) separate articles, with the sides' points of view separated. Luckily, I don't think this is the case with Palestine/Palestinian.

Because of the multitude of ideas and views of the different authors, I often wish that the editing of some article was frosen so that it could be written in an atmosphere of reasonable cooperation. I don't know whether this could be implemented at Wikipedia, but even if it's not, I respect those authors who adhere to NPOV (even if I don't agree with them), and I'll surely contribute my share (trying to be as NPOV as I can). I wish you luck, and offer you my assistance (e-mail me through my site or notify me here). --Uri

---

Sorry if I stepped on your edit of Temple Mount. Sometimes I think I should wait 10 minutes between edits, so as not to create an edit conflict by mistake. Ed Poor

Yeah the same goes to me too (we're probably equally innocent ... err.. guilty since I started editing it right after the page appeared and never stopped :-). I removed the section about the Temple to Talk. What do you think about it? --Uri

I think I'm glad that someone who knows a lot more about than me, is writing about all those temple things out there. All I know about temples is: wear a skull cap in a Jewish temple, and take off your shoes in a mosque. Ed Poor

A good one :-). I wish I didn't have to do all these pages concerning with politics, though, there are far more interesting subjects, but I never get there due to trolls. --Uri

---

Uri, I know it can be frustrating when trolls trash topics dear to your heart. I've actually woken up in the middle of the night, dreaming about how to phrase something so the "opposing side" won't revert my edits. Ed Poor

But this is probably a good kind of frustration. The result has often been an enduring compromise: a wording which stands the test of time. For example, I wrote (most of) the following at Palestinian a couple of months ago, and no one (pro- or anti-Israeli) has seen fit to tamper with it in any significant way:

Several definitions have been suggested.

• any resident of Palestine (the region)
• a citizen of Palestine (the nation)
• a member of a Arab ethnic group having a distinctive language and traditions

Usage of the term Palestinian generally depends on one's views of Palestine, the Palestinian homeland, the Arab-Israeli conflict and related issues.

Wikipedia remains neutral on this controversy, adhering to the NPOV policy of saying only that group X says Y about Z.

--Ed Poor

---

Uri, did you just call me a "child"? I think you better cool off for a bit. Calling me names won't improve the apartheid article. And the Tutu quote isn't going away. Work with me, please, instead of against me. I love Israel, and I hate lies. I was just about to re-enter the bit contrasting military occupation with apartheid. I'm not your enemy, okay? --Ed Poor

First of all I'd like to apologize, the heading is the result of an edit conflict (with Jacob) that I was all to quick to end my way without looking it up. I am deeply grateful to you for your continous support and your sanity (which is so lacking in Middle East). Of course the Tutu quote is staying; however I also want the Israeli POV represented, otherwise it'll be a unilateral attack on Israel. I'm sorry that Jacob (perhaps others?) regard me as some sort of a propagandist troll; I have a similar love of the truth, that is however incompatible with the troll warfare going on for many weeks now. --Uri

I eagerly accept your apology! Now please read talk:Apartheid where Jacob has quoted Tutu, and you guys work out an acceptable way to include it. I must go off-line for a commitment in the non-virtual-reality world. See you guys tomorrow; try not to kill each other (Cain/Abel, Jacob/Esaus) till then :-) --Ed Poor

---

Uri, did you remove a large section from the anti-Semitism page? I would like to see that portion of talk put back, unless you would like to refactor it into a cogent summary. --Ed Poor

I didn't (knowingly) remove any sections, maybe there was an edit conflict or some browser bug. I'll check again. --Uri

Ah, now I see what you meant; it was a complete accident. IE loaded just the first several lines so I thought the rest was put to archive or something (the page was long enough beforehand). Sorry for the inconvenience/false alarm :-) --Uri

---

Uri, would you please look at my talk page and my recent Contributions on the Middle East? I want to make sure I am interpreting the NPOV policy correctly. --Ed Poor 12:58 Aug 20, 2002 (PDT)

---

May I make a suggestion, please? Rather than saying things like Vandalism is cute, a less sarcastic and more informative alternative would be to explain the reasons for change. You might say elements were rejected. However, I do commend you for taking the time to move the offending text to the talk page. --Ed Poor

---

Uri, somebody seems insistant on listing a couple of Biblical characters on Famous gay lesbian or bisexual people that I've never heard were ever considered to be gay. King David was one of the people listed. Is this anything other than trollish idiosyncratic nonsense? I do hate that page - one's sexual orientation is very often not the type of thing that is easy to find out from historical records (esp. since this fact was - and often still is - usually a closely guarded secrete). --mav

Maveric149 -- they aren't actually trolling as such. Many gay authors have interpreted the Bible to mean that David had a homosexual relationship with Jonathan. Certaintly, I don't think we should list this as a fact (it is extremely controversial, and rejected by an awfully large number of people) -- but it should be listed as an opinion some have. More generally, the problem with historical figures on a "list of famous gay and lesbian people", is for a lot of people we don't actually know what sexuality they were -- its often just guesswork (and guesswork by people with a vested interest in the outcome.) -- SJK

Thanks for the info - I hadn't a clue this was an issue with David. It is the inherent "guesswork" and "vested interest" stuff I object to with such a list (and I'm gay). --mav

Well, considering the fact that King David's existence as a historical individual is under doubt, I think the whole discussion is a bit virual. I am not a great Bible expert, but (according to it) David has definitely enjoyed a great number of sexual relationships with women (he had a lot of children), so that if he were real (as well as Jonathan, and their relationship :-), he would probably be classified as bisexual. Personally, I think there's too much guesswork to make a consistent conclusion. --Uri

If a man who kisses and hugs another man is necessarily gay, then I guess I must be gay. Hmm, now how am I going to reconcile this new-found gay identity with the adamantly anti-homosexuality stance of the Unification Church? --Ed Poor

---

Uri, I think it's just going to create trouble if we REDIRECT from Noble Sanctuary to Temple Mount. Unless you want to spend the necessary time to disentangle the Jewish POV from the Islamic POV in the Temple Mount article. --Ed Poor

Hmmm, maybe you're right, but having 2 articles for exactly the same thing is also unacceptible, to me. I think the POVs are pretty clear as of now; perhaps there's a more "middle-ground" name? --Uri

---

Hello Uriyan, I don't know if you have subscribed to the wikipedia mailinglist, so I wanted to let you know that I started a discussion about the articles on the Arab-Israeli conflict there. A copy of the initial posting is linked from my users site. Since you are one of the main editors in this area, I'd like to hear your opinions on this. Feel free to leave comments on my talk page or mail me directly about it. --Elian

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! I left some notes at Talk:Elian[?]. --Uri

Hello, thanks for your welcome :-) I added some comments to your notes. (one other thing: shitty IE and Opera on Mac don't support editing textfields with more than 32k and cut them, this seems to happen on many of the talkpages on the conflict and on this page. so I am a little bit handicapped and have to post by IP there with another browser, don't wonder) --Elian

I also use Opera (on a PC) and have the same 32 KB limitation. Anyway, after a discussion gets that long it's time for archiving. Some pages have 3 or 4 archives! --Ed Poor

---

I personally like your alternate version (/wiki/Palestinian_territories/NPOV_version) of Palestinian territories -- marked wishfully "NPOV" -- but I doubt that I am capable of surmounting my own pro-Israeli bias. I'm thinking of either:

• copying some parts of your version, especially from the first 1/4 or 1/2.
• replacing the entire article with your version.

What do you and Elian want to do? --Ed Poor 13:49 Oct 30, 2002 (UTC)

Well I admit calling it "NPOV" was a bit presumptous on my behalf. I intended the article as a replacement, and wrote it accordingly. I feel that many of my changes are justified for good presentation of the Israeli POV, and if you don't like it, we should discuss it, not remove it altogether. --Uri

Territories

In general, I feel if (A) someone works real hard and (B) they ask for feedback and (C) no one says not to, then (D) after a reasonable amount of time they should just go ahead. You have manifestly bent over backwards to be fair on this, Uri. --Ed Poor

Ok, I'll update it accordingly.

Ship incident

I took only a quick glance and did not read everything, but I see no need to intervene. The other guy is just supporting a different POV. So, all you need to do is phrase everything in terms of "Source A believes X" and "Source B says Y". If someone deletes an According to to prop up their favorite POV at the expense of another, I'll might have to get involved. --Ed Poor

The story is more complex here. Joe is a USS Liberty survivor, and I feel he has treated me with a degree of contempt - the personal part of which I can understand and tolerate, but I feel it also harms the article. I feel the issue is important enough to ask for your help (besides, another pair of eyes won't hurt the article). --Uri

---

---

Hi everyone, I wanted to drop a couple of lines on my page to let you know I'm still around. Unfortunately, my various academic pursuits keep me quite busy now (the time being the end of the summer term at the university, and the beginning of the autumn one, as well as of the school year). This means that for several more weeks I'll not be able to monitor and edit Wikipedia regularly. I hope I will have been able to resume my activities by the end of September.

Also, as these are the Jewish New Year days now, I wish all Wikipedians that the new year will be a happier and a more peaceful one. Shana Tova Le-Kulkhem.

Yours truly, --Uri 08:45 Sep 5, 2002 (PDT)

---

Hi can you have look to verlan I think you can help.

 62.212.103.37[?]

===============================================================================

Hello URI, if I can still call you that.

It is me Joseph E. Saad, you may remember, the Palestinian refugee living in Canada...

Anyhow I had some free time and read a number of articles in Wikipedia tonight, I see many changes, and some limited attempts at trying to present our view, the other side...

I have to say though, I really feel that most mid-east articles I read have a bias (built-in) against Arabs. I do not see NPOV at all. I see some glossy terms used, but the fundamental injustice remains, especially as I read more, learn more, I see that we as Palestinians never stood a chance for a proper state (not in 1948 or 2000), and are misrepresented.

I am just curious though, how are you doing? Are you safe? I mean are you in a safe area? The reason I ask is the little remaining family I have left in Jerusalem thought they were in a safe area. Not long ago though, a home of a relative was broken into, luckily the burglars did not get much it took them so long to break the steel bars on the windows that neighbours heard and came to investigate. My relative was not home. Later on they returned, and broke into another home nearby, and were successful, they got jewelry and money, luckily no one got hurt, again no one home. If that was not enough, an attack by settlers left nearly all the homes in the area with broken windows, wrecked cars, and general vandalism in response to some attack by Palestinians on their settlement.

I was thinking of you after I heard this, what do you think? Have you heard about these incidents? I only got the news the other day from another relative. It seems to me that this is symptomatic of the break down of law and order in the PA & the reluctance or indifference of the Israeli authorities to protect Palestinian civilians, even while in control of them under the Geneva conventions.

It sure bothers me, though, I am now sick to death of the slaughter, what, something like 2200 dead. Unbelievable, how can ordinary people like you or myself stop this? I am just an ordinary person, who happens to be born a Palestinian in Jerusalem, I wish I could go there again one day, just to see, the last time I was there was in 1984.

Anyhow, I just meant to say hello, and to let you know that I am thinking of you, and Peace (I guess dreaming is a better word).

I also wanted to mention this site: http://www.deiryassin.org/

Are you familiar with it, and the related book: Remembering Deir Yassin: The Future of Israel and Palestine

Edited by Daniel A. McGowan and Marc H. Ellis

It is done in the spirit of true scholarly research, between Jews & Arabs (even some Rabbis are involved).

I just recently read the book. So did my father, and guess what, another chapter in our missing history, my grandfather's home was close by pre-1948, as a matter of fact my father recognized many names of families in the area, he knew the children from these families. Another thing I noticed, is that it is near Yad Vashem [sp], what an irony, now I know why in 1984, when I visited that place a eerie feeling came over me, you may think I am exaggerating, but it is true, I had this feeling...

In any case, if you want to take it on, I would like to have some reference made to it on the Wikipedia page for Deir Yassin, at least it factual, with photos before, after, and now. There is even an account of the attack with survivor?s testimonies. Would you update it?

I do not want to do it, because I know RK will attack again, and I know I won't be too NPOV. Please let me know what you think, or if you want to take it on or not, and comments on what is happening... You can respond to my entry under my name: Joseph E. Saad. Later on one day I may feel secure enough to share my personal e-mail with you, right now I am still not sure.

I would like to keep in touch with you, perhaps we can establish a friendship, you could at least say you met a normal Palestinian (not a so called terrorist, what a stigma to be a Palestinian nowadays after Sept. 11). I too could then say I met an Israeli with moderate views, who also wants us to succeed in establishing a peaceful state alongside Israel.

Am I right in this thinking? Do you still strive for Peace?

Warmest regards, in all sincerity,

Joseph E. Saad (Palestinian Refugee, Proud Canadian)

This is an encyclopaedia, not a chat room. Uri a moderate? Who are you kidding? Maybe compared with foaming-at-the-mouth pop-eyed loonies like RK, he is, but that's not saying much. I don't believe "Joseph E. Saad" is a real Palestinian. This is just more devious Israeli propaganda. GrahamN 21:09 Dec 15, 2002 (UTC)

Careful with your accusations, Graham. Joseph has been a contributor for quite a while, and is certainly not a piece of "devious Israeli propaganda". Making such accusations is just as bad as shouting "anti-semetism" at anyone who disagrees. -- Stephen Gilbert 21:44 Dec 15, 2002 (UTC)