| Revision as of 14:27, 10 January 2015 view sourceMakro (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,073 edits →Mail: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:08, 12 January 2015 view source Davidbena (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users56,534 edits →Go to article "Bayt Nattif" at the Talk-Page there (Last section): new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| {{You've got mail}} | {{You've got mail}} | ||
| == Go to article "Bayt Nattif" at the Talk-Page there (Last section) == | |||
| ], Shalom. One of our WP co-editors seems to be pursuing a political agenda bent on defaming Israel by its action in the winter of 1948, when I have insisted that he/she remain neutral, and not to politicize the situation. Specifically, the person prefers to mention ] of October 1948 as a "Palestinian-Arab village," when I propose that it is far better to simply write "Arab village," since in October of 1948 Bayt Nattif was then under the direct governance of the new government of Israel, based on the partition plan relegated to Israeli and Jordanian authorities by the dissolved British Mandate. To suggest that Bayt Nattif was, in October of 1948, a "Palestinian-Arab village" is to suggest a sovereign governmental body by the name of Palestine given charge over the village's affairs when it was actually the new State of Israel that had been given charge over its affairs. To avoid this seemingly contentious view, I have suggested keeping the introductory lines neutral in accordance with WP policy of ] and by simply writing "Arab village." (For a greater summary, go to WP article's ]'s Talk Page, bottom section. My disputant has also filed a formal complaint at Arbitration. Looking for your advice.] (]) 00:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:08, 12 January 2015
| This is Avraham's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
| This is Avraham's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60Auto-archiving period: 14 days |
 |
|
WP:CHU
If you are fixing 'crats' to 'global renamers', I think WP:CHUS' "bureaucrat note" template, editnotice on CHUS, {{Renameuser2}}'s (Ping user) template should be fixed. — Revi 10:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- You're correct in that there are many more areas that need fixing; I started with the low-hanging fruit. -- Avi (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Question about edit on WP article
Avraham, Shalom. Two days ago, I made an edit on a WP article entitled Cyclamen persicum. I added the section entitled "Plant properties," now changed to "Uses." In it, I had written the sentence: "...The Bedouins of the land of Israel used to collect the root, and after grating it, would mix it with lime and sprinkle it over the surface of lakes or other large bodies of water known to contain fish," but another Wiki editor came along and changed the name "Israel" to "Palestine." I wanted to know if this is deemed proper procedure on Misplaced Pages, i.e., not to use the name "Israel" when referring to this country and to ignore, as it were, the political reality on the ground, or perhaps it is because the reference to the Bedouins there occurred during the British Mandate? Just curious.-Davidbena (talk) 13:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- If it was banned prior to the formation of the state of Israel, then it would be Mandatory Palestine, probably. Why don't you just change it to "The Bedouins used to…" and sidestep the political morass? -- Avi (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Avi. I'll consider doing that.Davidbena (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Go to article "Bayt Nattif" at the Talk-Page there (Last section)
User:Avraham, Shalom. One of our WP co-editors seems to be pursuing a political agenda bent on defaming Israel by its action in the winter of 1948, when I have insisted that he/she remain neutral, and not to politicize the situation. Specifically, the person prefers to mention Bayt Nattif of October 1948 as a "Palestinian-Arab village," when I propose that it is far better to simply write "Arab village," since in October of 1948 Bayt Nattif was then under the direct governance of the new government of Israel, based on the partition plan relegated to Israeli and Jordanian authorities by the dissolved British Mandate. To suggest that Bayt Nattif was, in October of 1948, a "Palestinian-Arab village" is to suggest a sovereign governmental body by the name of Palestine given charge over the village's affairs when it was actually the new State of Israel that had been given charge over its affairs. To avoid this seemingly contentious view, I have suggested keeping the introductory lines neutral in accordance with WP policy of WP:NPOV and by simply writing "Arab village." (For a greater summary, go to WP article's Bayt Nattif's Talk Page, bottom section. My disputant has also filed a formal complaint at Arbitration. Looking for your advice.Davidbena (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)