User talk:HKT/archive2

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

It was an accident; he was trying to revert the other guy. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for your message. In fact, because I use the new message "+" tab, I didn't see your comment until I'd left mine — but I was glad to have been able to clear things up for you too. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Cruise

A "kosher tax" conspiracist appears to have show up; see edits at Kosher and Kosher tax. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Whitewashing Irving and also ranting about a "Kosher tax"? There's a shocker. The extremely poor reasoning and math skills should have been a dead giveaway. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the medal and thanks for being so level-headed... --Moritz 09:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

HKT article

Witkacy is again trying to insert an extreme minority usage into the article; I'd keep an eye on it if I were you. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've been doing my best, but Witkacy now has his buddy Irishpunktom[1] logrolling for him. If you don't help out, there's not much I can do against two editors determined to insert non-notable minority uses in a disambig page simply as a means of attacking you. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm some guys "buddy" because I told him you were gunning for him? Hardly. NPOV dictates that that Stay, after all it is a Disambiguation page, not an entire article. --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:45, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense; disambig pages are only meant to clear up common overlapping uses. HKT was an extremely rare usage. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

HKT, both Jayjg and Witkacy have agreed that HKT is used as an acronym for the German Eastern Marches Society (Deutscher Ostmarkenverein), however because because it is used by a minority of people Jayjg thinks it should be removed. I really don't see why. If it is used as an acronym, however rarely, then it is fair that it is put on a Disambiguation page. It's not as if there is an attempt to suggest that this is the only interpretation of HKT, it is one of several. If you think that Hakata needs a disam page too, and you are probably right, then yeah, I'll try and get to that as soon as I can. --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:08, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

HKT, if you want to NPOV that article, I'm afraid you'll have to get involved, as Witkacy is a determined revert warrior. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to tell you guys that I sympathise, I briefly thought about participating in the whole thing, but I just can't deal with this BS anymore, it's too frustrating. (Frankly I don't see how you can bear it.) --Moritz 23:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Nosson Slifkin

Regarding his name, please see the discussion at Talk:Natan Slifkin. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Your user page

Oh, you're welcome. Wasn't the only thing he vandalised, either. And in addition to that apparently he did some copy-editing. Strange. --Moritz 08:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Polish Barnstar

Hi HKT. Well, I gave some thought to it after reading your message and I think you really didn’t mean anything bad. I recalled that e.g. the American flag is often used for various commercial purposes and no one is shocked because of it. I don’t mean that the Americans treat their flag too lightly or the Poles too seriously. Just that these two approaches are different. For Poles national symbols are holy, probably because they were often prohibited. Anyhow, I can see that you're coming from a different place and that you didn’t mean to offend. As I understood that Witkacy was a part of the disagreement, I simply asked him what he thought should be done with it. He proposed to ask Moritz to change the barnstar. I saw that he didn't want to do it by himself as it might be misunderstood and only would add more fuel to the other discussion. He also thought it a better idea than taking it to the Polish board, which would only unnecessarily create a big argument. Well, I’m sure you didn’t expect it to be such a serious matter for us, and you would never do that if you knew it might have involved all of the Polish editors. I asked Moritz by myself then and he agreed. I hope you don’t mind as well and a compromise is reached. --SylwiaS 12:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

VfD

Well, it was certainly not my intention to contribute to an ongoing problem at Wikipedia. I've not been involved in anything quite as rancorous as this VfD. As may be apparent from my comments, I find the tone of many of the delete voters intensely irritating. The last voter called the article "filth"! Filth! In its state at the moment it's downright philosemitic, but it's being dismissed as antisemitic filth! If this is antisemitic filth, then there are a thousand and one Yiddish and Hebrew writers who are more so. I called them panicky ethnocentrists because the voters in the two VfDs are shamelessly ethnocentrist in their behavior ("the Jewish covers a real topic, but the Muslim one is offensive!", and vice versa). But if identifying the behavior as such is a breach of Wikietiquette, then maybe I just better steer clear of topics like this. Babajobu 00:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Calling someone paranoid and ethnocentric is a breach of Wikipedia policy. It's not productive; it provides identification of your problems with other editors, but it doesn't address those issues. Perhaps you now feel that continuing to address such issues wouldn't accomplish anything. If so, you're right about steering clear of potentially hot issues. HKT ^talk 01:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, I prefer to steer clear of any forum where its acceptable to be called an antisemite and a filth-producing racist, but unacceptable to defend yourself against such accusations. Babajobu 01:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Duly noted. Babajobu 01:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

You may want to be aware that User:LokiCT has reverted your additions to the VFD for Religious_persecution_by_Jews See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Religious_persecution_by_Jews&diff=19624298&oldid=19619189 --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 06:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Incivility

I'm a dues-paid member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians (how does one link to metawiki from within wikipedia?). Ambi is the founder and high prophet of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians. I can't imagine that he found that gentle jibe intimidating or surprising. If he did, I'll go to his talk page and issue a self-flagellating, hat-in-hand apology. Other than that I don't think I've written anything uncivil since we last chatted, as you claim I have (though of course I've been described as meshugane, along with various other gratuitous insults reserved for foaming-at-the-mouth bigots such as myself). Babajobu 17:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Sockpuppetry

I'm not sure whether it'll appease you or not, but I'm not a sock-puppet. I used to be User: ThePeacemaker, but David tempbanned that account because he thought I was a sockpuppet of User: Jeus, since we shared the same IP address. However, I wasn't then, and I'm not now. User: Jeus (as well as a few guys and girls I know) share a wi-fi signal on our flat. He personally got sick of WP, and I think he stopped using it a month ago. I know how to edit/make articles, et.al, because I *already had an account*. I decided to abandon The Peacemaker account so I wouldn't get falsely accused of puppetry again. AFAIK, the account is disabled. So anyway, I'd appreciate it if you could stop attacking me on the Vfd board without even attempting to contact me personally (which you've done now, and I thank you for). LokiCT 18:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I forgot to note in my previous message: I make little edits because I usually don't have the time or desire to create huge mods to articles. In particular, I catch things on the 'current events' page, and try to fill in red links with a primer for an article. WP is a blue-based site, and I can't stand the red-base at all. I don't think it's against the rules to make minor edits, at any rate. Each person contributes in different ways. LokiCT 18:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I guess I should give him some more credit (he was the one who taught me to use WP). Before I registered as TPM, I made quite a few edits anonymously when I was at college. Eventually, peer pressure convinced me to get an actual userid (which I did this summer), instead of signing about with an IP. I'm sorry about the vandalism earlier on the Vfd page -- I was simply irked at what seemed like someone questioning my edits due to my # of contributions. I'm not a newbie at WP, even though my postcount would indicate otherwise. Personally, I wasn't aware that he (Joey, aka Jeus) often did the short edit thing too. I just asked him though, and he said he did. Anyway, I won't remove your comments next time.

Oh, and I copied the language id from another user, because it fit mine. Joey, Alise...everyone that lives on my flat speaks English and various degrees of Spanish, because we all took it in high school. He's not my twin, but I could see how it might look that way.LokiCT 23:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Noahide Laws

You might be interested in the current debate going on at Talk:Noahide Laws. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Sjakkallle's dictatorial move

Hi HKT: Can you please research and re-open the ridiculous move by User:Sjakkalle. I have sent him this message: Hi Sjak: Kindly explain your math please at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews: 34 "keeps" is better than 66 "deletes"...the "deletes" had almost DOUBLE the votes and you decide against them? This makes no sense! I will call on others to object to your dictatorial move! IZAK 10:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Reopening the VfD

• Hi, User:Danny has called for the VfD to be re-opened. See Talk:Religious persecution by Jews#Reopen debate, please voice your opinion. Thanks, and be well. IZAK 12:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

If the other is up for VfD, so should this one be. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

It was your idea, you should do it; I've done my VfD for the day. ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 19:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd do it but I have never done one before and I'm not sure of the process.Existentializer 19:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

"Haredi": tremble or fear?

HKT: your translation of "haredi" is not more literal, it is simply less accurate in this case. According to the Even-Shoshan dictionary, "hared" means either tremble or fearful. See for example Genesis 27:33 and Shmuel-1 28:5. In these cases, as in the case of Haredi Judaism, translating as "fearful" is more accurate. OwenX 12:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, only in a colloquial sense has "chared" come to mean "fear" alone (see, for example, Exodus 18:19, where it clearly means "tremble"). The reason for the colloquial usage is obvious: Frequently, people often tremble out of fear or dread. In fact, the word is commonly used in the context of trembling out of fear. Nothing, including the sources you mentioned, contravenes translating as this word as "tremble." The article already mentions that Haredi means one who trembles out of fear. HKT ^talk 17:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Slave trade

If you have a chance, would you mind taking a look at Slave trade? I believe that User:Heraclius has been involved in a determined attempt to POV the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah photo description

Hi. Thanks for helping keep Mahmoud Ahmadinejad clear of vandalism. BTW, it seems that you have also removed my explanation about why the photo with Nasrallah is related [2]. Was it intentional? roozbeh 15:17, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, it was intentional. I did it for the following reasons:

• Mentioning both of them together in that context may imply equivocation of the two personalities and that one is equally innocent/guilty as the other.
• "Target" implies that they are both innocent (which we obviously can't make a judgement about in the article due to NPOV).
• There's already a link to the Hezbollah wiki, and interested parties could easily do further reasearch if they are unaware of what Hezbollah is and they are curious about the picture.

If clarification is necessary, maybe the sentence could be changed to something like: "Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization by a number of foreign governments." What do you think? HKT ^talk 15:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe some clarification is necessary, but don't care what kind of. Feel free to explain it using your own wording. roozbeh 15:35, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

VfD you may be interested in

Check out the VfD going on over User:Witkacy/Black Book. Tomer ^TALK 23:05, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Reply

I'd love to, but I can't, the Wikipedia servers aren't allowing me to edit that 'talk' page or the VfD page anymore. =P Xaa 18:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• On the other hand, this may not be a bad thing - I intended that comment to both attempt to speak to Witkacy and to those reading the vote. If it's moved, I'm not certain it will be read at all, and I'm hoping that everyone will benefit from the perspective. The key point is that people only know he's polish because he said he was. If he said he was African American and a troll threw the 'N-word' at him, would he have a right to complain despite the fact he's not African-American? Alledging offense because of a label one applies to oneself in an online environment is highly questionable, to me, and I think it needs to be considered in the voting. Xaa 18:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Working on moving it. Should have it in a few minutes. =) Xaa 19:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • All done. =) It's unfortunate that the situation reached that point in the first place. And even more unfortunate that Witkacy will likely never accept anything I wrote as having any validity. I've been online for many years now, and I've learned the same thing that the military learned in WW1 - once trenches have been dug, the war drags on for years without resolution. Xaa 19:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

RE: The Ominous Black Book of Polish Doom

I saw you moved the comment thread, and I deleted the remarks I had made. I don't think I have the right to delete the remarks of others, though, and I doubt they will take your hint. =) Xaa 01:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Vote for Deletion

Hi, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ritual Decalogue. Thank you. IZAK 09:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Censorship of criticism

My point with Jayjg was that there was no personal attack in that anon's paragraph that Jayjg deleted and errantly claimed there was a "personal attack". Also, there was nothing even arguably disruptive to the point of requiring deletion in that paragraph either, "edits" to articles by banned users can be reverted but talk page posts too??? The editor was only subsequently banned, was not banned at the time he made that post was he, how is entire paragraph deletion justified in this case? Do you see the potential for censorship if one editor mistakingly construes a challenge to explain debate inconsistency as a personal attack AND deletes an entire talk page paragraph because of this errant interpretation? As far as the actual issue goes the point is States are required to uphold the rule of law, give people trials, not blow them up from helicopters (injuring innocent bystandards in the process too) regardless of the unsavoriness of the individual. The war on terror should not create more terror itself anywhere. zen master T 17:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, rules for userspace are far less rigid than rules for mainspace. Since the IP's edits (wherever they appear) are assumed to be in bad faith, there is more than enough justification for deleting comments. Recently, I posted a polite neutrality reminder on someone's talk page. He subsequently blanked my comments. I didn't pursue the issue; it's his userspace. While I would consider his action inappropriate, it's valid. With this IP's comments, I think blanking is valid and appropriate. As far as your remarks on the terrorist cleric: (1.) Attempting to arrest him would severely endanger the soldiers who would be making the arrest. (2.) He was a hostile and dangerous force operating against the security of the State. It is appropriate to assasinate terrorist entities when arrest is a more dangerous option. (3.) I don't understand why you only call the cleric "unsavory", when he was a known and self-proclaimed hostile and violent entity (hostile and violent against civilians). (4.) How do targeted killings create "more terror"? Terror is created when civilians are targeted, and targeted killings therefore reduce terror. HKT ^talk 17:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

We are not talking about comments on a user's talk page, we are talking about a completely reasonable comment in a talk page discussion. Everything Jayjg claimed about that paragraph he deleted is incorrect. Are you claiming if an editor is subsequently banned everything that editor ever posted to wikipedia can be deleted? Is it possible this anon editor just got frustrated after a while? Is it possible this anon editor had at least one valid criticism? Is it possible Jayjg misinterpreted a challenge to explain apparent inconsistency as a personal attack? As far as the actual issue goes (which is actually irrelevant to Jayjg's apparent censorship) if someone is violating laws of a country you don't send soldiers, you send police, a nation state is required to protect innocent civilians or the state becomes just as guilty of terrorism as the allegedly unsavory individual they were targeting. The state can't ever conclusively claim things about an individual they blow up from a helicopter because nothing was ever proven in a court of law. zen master T 18:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Edits made before bans aren't subject to the same protocol. Of course it's possible for the IP to have a credible edit, but he's still not allowed to edit (or post on article discussion pages, if I'm not mistaken). True, he's allowed to post on user talk pages, but it's the user's discretion to delete such posts. By the way, the police aren't equipped to make an arrest of the nature that we're discussing. The cleric had armed guards, and in situations like that where arrests are made, the guards attack the soldiers. Arrests have been made like that in the past, but more people usually die when that's done. Sending police is entirely unfeasible. HKT ^talk 18:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Lack of feasability of arrest is no justification for state sponsored murder from helicopter nor endangering innocent bystanders on the street. Though, the current issue is Jayjg's apparent illegitimate censorship of that criticism. You have no comment or concerns about the possibility of censorship or inaccurate presentation? zen master T 20:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I already explained why targeted killings save more lives, accidental civilian deaths notwithstanding. Leaving terrorists alone is a rediculous option, as it only leads to many more civilian deaths. As far as censorship, people can censor their userspace as they choose. I don't understand the problem. HKT ^talk 20:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

You have to actually prove someone is a terrorist in a court of law before a (democratic) state can deprive anyone of life. Claiming that targeted killings save more lives is not proof of anything, and certainly not proof the victim was a "terrorist". If a suspect is actively fleeing arrest then some force might be arguably reasonable, but in this case a rocket attack from a helicopter was obviously a premeditated assassination. Did the executive or judiciary branch of israel order this assassination? The answer to that question should indicate to you its true legality. Also, violence if it's in response to an occupation is arguably justified. A state that commits violence should be thought of no differently than a "terrorist" that commits violence, regardless of the rhetoric or rationalization used to justify it.

Do I assume correctly you are entirely unconcerned with Jayjg's brazen censorship of criticism that appears to point out his inconsistency? zen master T 20:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

(1.) My concern is irrelevant. Anyone who wants to may "brazenly censor" his/her userspace and I'd have no say in the matter. To make a fuss over censorship of userspace when you're not even involved is intrusive. (2.) Democratic means governed according to popular demand. You're misusing the term. A group of homocidal maniacs could theoretically be Democratic. It seems that you are defining Democratic as "whatever conforms to my value system." (3.) If you think that targeting pizza shops and discos is "arguably justified," then I don't think that we're on the same wavelength, and we'd better not waste our time continuing this discussion. Cheers, HKT ^talk 20:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

You are mistaken, Jayjg's brazen censorship occured on the Talk:Israeli terrorism page, not Jayjg's personal talk page. [3] Also, you don't know (with proof) what crimes the specific alleged terrorist may have committed if you just rationalize it away with "it saves lives". If a state feels justified in killing a wheel chair bound person leaving a mosque then in my view it's no surprise someone feels equally justified attacking that state. Is it possible Israel or someone within didn't want the issue of the occupation to come up at that individual's trial so premeditated killing was deemed politically convenient? zen master T 21:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I believe the rule is that he can be reverted on sight (including on articles' talk pages), without justification, so the "personal attack" justification was unnecessary. I don't know why you'd think that Israel is afraid of "the issue of the occupation" coming up at a trial; it comes up everywhere, anyway. In fact, Israel managed to arrest Marwan Barghouti, and there were no problems with "occupation issues." Someone who constantly plots to murder civilians is no less dangerous for being in a wheelchair, and is actually much more dangerous for his armed guards who follow him everywhere, ready to shoot and throw grenades at any Israeli police/soldiers who try to arrest him. And saving lives is hardly a "rationalization." HKT ^talk 21:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

That is no justification for the removal of an entire paragraph from an article talk page. Endangering other civilian lives "to save lives" is an obvious rationalization. States are required not to use "terrorist" tactics or they become "terrorists" themselves. zen master T 21:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The term that you're misusing now is "terrorist." Terrorism means targeting civilians in order to terrorize the civilian popoulation in hopes of achieving a political objective. Assasination of clear and present threats (e.g. people working to build a bomb or in the process of giving directions to potential bombers), though the assasination may endanger civilians (depending on the situation), isn't remotely a "terrorist tactic." Frequently, terrorists particularly choose to place themselves among/hide behind civilians in order to make it more likely that their enemies will be blamed with civilian deaths. Deir Yassin is an early case in point. Governments primarily serve to protect their citizens. If saving the lives of many citizens might possibly endanger other civilians, most governments would still take action to protect their citizens. Israel is actually an exception; it tends to focus on house-to-house arrests/combat, despite the severely increased danger to its soldiers, in order to protect civilians. In fact, targeted killings by Israel are fairly rare.

You write that a ban is "no justification for the removal of an entire paragraph from an article talk page." That is your opinion, but it apparently contravenes Wikipedia policy. If you wish to do something about this "censorship," I advise you to start on a new policy proposal. HKT ^talk 22:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

In my interpretation, trying to kill any wheel chair bound person on the street (even if they are a "terrorist") with a rocket from a helicopter creates just as much terror as does "terrorism". zen master T 02:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

RFA

Thanks for your support for my RFA. It is appreciated. --Briangotts (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Thanks for making the obvious points. I find responding to certain editors just releases a torrent of repetitive words and arguments, so I usually just give up after a couple of explanations. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Passover "disambiguation"

Please take a look at Passover, which someone has decided to make into a "disambiguation" page so that anyone looking for the link to "Passover" on Wikipedia (and there are many areticles with links to it) will now get a Jewish and Christian version/choice. Do you agree to this move and what can be done? As far as I know, Passover is strictly a Jewish holiday and it is most certainly NOT an official Christian holiday AFAIK. Thanks. IZAK 11:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Questionable Television categories

Hey HKT (I think I'm just going to call you "Hector" from now on, pending correction)...just a quick note to let you know, I got your message. I'll review it, and see what I think and let you know. Just looking at the names of the categories I can tell already it's probably going to be an uphill battle, since one of them is "Polish"...so likely any discussion will entail a few outspoken individuals completely disregarding WP policy all the while dismissing the legitimacy of wanting to get rid of it with wild claims about how wanting to remove it is further evidence of "Anti-Polonism". It may take me a while to get to it tho, just so you know... The fracas at List of Jews has me kind of tied up right now. Tomer ^TALK 22:17, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Who is a Jew

Please see the recent edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

RFA

Have you seen this RFA? Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FeloniousMonk Jayjg ^(talk) 16:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Disengagement Plan

I agree with making the foreign gov't positions a separate heading, thanks. I had seond thoughs about just putting them in with Opinions, but you had already done it. --Red King 20:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Promises, promises...

I try to keep mine so here ya go, newMike Inez. Peace! Hamster Sandwich 20:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

History of anti-Semitism

Please review the edits by 65.34.181.39 (talk · contribs) Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Good point! I never thought of Molloy. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Many Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 18:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Al Andalus

If you have a chance, would you mind reviewing the current dispute there, and giving your thoughts? Thx. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Israel disengagement plan

The IP in question is just another Jew obsessed editor who knows little about NPOV, but thinks he knows much about Jews, Israel, AIPAC, etc. Normally their edits can be safely reverted. Regardless, my Talk: page is well watched, and another editor has gotten to it before I had the chance. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

from Talk:Israel unilateral disengagement plan; you said:
It's certainly not original research to say that a Palestinian demand for all land demarcated by the 1949 Armistice lines would accordingly become the Bush administrations policy, given that this is undeniably implicit in current administration statements. In any event, while your quotes are more specific and merit primary focus in this article, the necessity remains to clarify that the Bush administration is not satisfied with the disengagement plan alone. Bush and Rice frequently underscore that Israel must concede all land in the West Bank and Gaza (as well as East Jerusalem) according to 1949 Armistice lines. Additionally, the Bush administration continues to demand "meaningful linkages" between the West Bank and Gaza. Earlier statements about major population centers no longer appear relevant, as West Bank cities such as Ariel (2002 pop. ~25,000, including college students) fall outside of Israel's domain according to the 1949 lines. Basically, the administration's position is that the disengagement plan is only sufficient in the context of the Bush administration's current version of the Road Map (an article which itself requires updating).

I disagree with your logic, HKT, on the conjunction of [*the US support for agreed final borders*] with [*the Palestinian negotiating position of the 1949 ceasefire lines*] to infer that [*the US policy endorses those lines as borders*]. What is stated now by Abbas & co may not be what is finally agreed. I'd be interested to see any quote where Bush or Rice directly say (never mind underscore) that "Israel must concede all land in the West Bank and Gaza (as well as East Jerusalem) according to 1949 Armistice lines". However there is no denying that the Bush admin, along with everyone bar a few extremists, "is not satisfied with the disengagement plan alone".

Cheers, Joffan 23:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

"What is stated now by Abbas & co may not be what is finally agreed."

• This is true. However, if Abbas demands 1949 lines as borders, that will ostensibly be supported by the Bush administration. Demands for "right of return" would not necessarily be supported by the administration.

"I'd be interested to see any quote where Bush or Rice directly say (never mind underscore) that "Israel must concede all land in the West Bank and Gaza (as well as East Jerusalem) according to 1949 Armistice lines"."

• For one, here's a quote that was in the article for the past month:

...[C]hanges to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today, it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations.

• The Bush administration considers the 1949 lines as the appropriate frame of reference for negotiations. The only way the Bush administration would accept less Israeli concessions is if Abbas would do so as well. Therefore, as the article previously stated, a Palestinian demand for concessions to the '49 lines would be accepted by the Bush administration. The administration never "directly" said that Israel must concede all land to the '49 lines; maybe Abbas will spontaneously accept less. ;) The article previously stated as much.

"...[T]here is no denying that the Bush admin... "is not satisfied with the disengagement plan alone"."

• Very well. This should consequently be addressed in the article. P.S. Interesting how you consider millions of people around the world as merely "a few extremists." ;) HKT ^talk 00:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like you're happy with your logical inference to extend the Bush Admin's position on this - all I can tell you is that I don't think you have quite a firm enough rock to convince the majority of posters that it's fact rather than speculation. As you say, Abbas may accept less in the process of other bargaining considerations. Since I can't see the Israelis conceding East Jerusalem, the assumption that initial demands will never change means that the problem will not be resolved. Ever. A pretty gloomy point of view.

I think the fact that Bush described this as something that could restart the "road map" shows that they are looking for more to happen from here. PS: who are the "millions around the world" who are satisfied with the disengagement plan alone?

Cheers, Joffan 14:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• I made no inferences. The following if/then statement is undeniable: If Abbas demands borders at the '49 lines, then Bush will support those borders (if he follows his current policy statements). I did not assume that Abbas would make that demand (though I think it is quite likely, based on precedent, that he will. However, that is irrelevant).
• We seem to be in agreement that Bush wants more, so I'll assume that we're in agreement that the article should indicate as much.
• I never said that millions are satisfied with the disengagement alone. However, if you consider any such people extremists, a fortiori that you consider those who don't support any land concessions extremists. There are many millions of the latter (I dare say hundreds of millions). HKT ^talk 18:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Tzadik

Please see the page that I made for Tzadik and my comments to the talk page of chabad regarding ther merging of the section "Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers" into Tzadik. Thanks. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent edit, you made it much more readable! --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Pilpul

My original definition was correct. Among New Yorker goyischers, the word means 'academic-level pissing contest'. Any quote you can do I can do better. My learnédness is better than your learnédness. A real pilpul splits hairs down to the subatomic level, and brings into play the weak nuclear force: to do a pilpul to the extreme, you have to explain subatomic particles and quantum mechanics.

Anyway, pilpul describes a whole class of wikipedia fights. Unless you really object, I will be updating the article, in that the word is perfect. It's unfortunate that its positive sense has been lost in its transition to English. --FourthAve 06:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Al-Andalus

User:Irishpunktom keeps claiming that Al-Andalus was a "haven" for Sufis escaping persecution, but he refuses to provide a proper citation for his claim. I've been asking for one for over a week now, on the Talk: page, with no luck. Do you think you might have more success at eliciting it from him? I'd appreciate oversight from a third party. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Jewish texts

Hello HKT: Someone has tried to create a new "Jewish texts" template and has been pasting it on related pages without any discussion. This is a serious matter and your input is needed ASAP. See Template talk:Jewish texts. Thank you. IZAK 05:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Dispute at Israeli West Bank barrier

Would you mind taking a look at a dispute I am having at Israeli West Bank barrier with AladdinSE? For months he has been trying to insert a statement George W. Bush made about the settlements, and linking that the barrier, based on his theory that the barrier creates "facts on the ground" affecting permanent border negotiations. As I'm sure you're aware, Bush has recently made clear the U.S. government's official position, that the 1949 Armistice lines are the basis of any future negotiations, and that both parties must agree to changes, thus making nonsense of AladdinSE's theory. Please see the Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier#Bush's comment section for the details. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you could comment there yourself as well, the more voices in the debate the better the outcome. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I really have to get the hang of this political side of Wikipedia. To collude with other friendly and like-minded editors to overwhelm opposing editors. Very effective, I'm sure. --AladdinSE 10:09, September 2, 2005 (UTC)