User talk:Yoshiah ap/Archive 3

RfC on Alberuni

I've noticed you commenting on Alberini's rhetoric in a number of places. You might be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Alberuni Jayjg 22:32, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank You. --Josiah 22:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Minor edits

Josiah, if you make a change that was subject to an edit war yesterday (namely, removing the propaganda category from Hasbara), please don't mark it as minor. Thanks. Gadykozma 15:53, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gotcha. Sorry bout that.--Josiah 15:59, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your recent comment on Talk:Jew

You wrote:

Oh that's right, it's not as if Jihadist (i.e. Pro-Falistine, we can use names intended to insult all we want and see where they get there) haven't been guilty of the same.--Josiah 02:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I hope this is just an effort to bait someone. Yes, probably there are a few (very few) pro-Palestinian POV warriors on Wikipedia, but in a year here I haven't encountered a single editor I'd characterize as a "Jihadist": is there someone you have in mind, or is this just a blanket accusation? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:53, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

It is basically baiting. On certain forums I was on, I had gotten tired of a person who refused to mention the word "Israel" and constintely used the word "Zionist" in a demeaning and negative sense, which of course halted any conversations thanks to percieved personal attacks. In a cynical way I was showing Alberuni the same thing, due to his usage of the word "Zionist" in nearly every edit he makes. I was a bit peeved. I don't claim that it was the best thing to do in the circumstances, and I may have to take a temporary break from wikipedia if his personal attacks don't relent.--Josiah 03:14, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Arabic spelling

Not sure how you'd spell your name, but probably يوشاياهو. - Mustafaa 14:38, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks! The Hebrew is יאשיהו (yud-aleph-shin-yud-heh-vav), if that helps.--Josiah 15:10, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you spell it like in the hebrew bible your name is يوشياهو.

Mustafaa writes Yoshayaho. I write Yoshiyaho. --Neria 22:30, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How would that be spelled in Arabic?--Josiah 23:55, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Considering Arabic habits of cutting off -hu at the end of loaned Hebrew names, I suggest يوشيا Yūšiyyā. Of course, if you want to keep the -hu, I suggest يوشياهو Yūšiyyāhū. - Gilgamesh 00:29, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I suggest يُشيهأ

With 5 different spellings now, I am uber-confused.--Josiah 00:42, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, choose mine. :) My two are easy to choose from, depending on whether you want -hu or not. :) - Gilgamesh 01:20, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mine is more Yeshayahu with the Aleph/hamzah (required for aleph u'), which is as transliterated as it gets.

Yeah, if that's how it's spelled in Hebrew, Neria's sounds right. Of course, like you say, you could make it يؤشياهو, but it's not like the hamza's pronounced in Hebrew... However, if the name had entered Arabic at an ancient period (pre- or early-Islamic), it would probably have ended up as يوسياء (Yûsiyyâ') or even يسياء (Yusiyyâ'), by analogy with cases like إيلياء and يسوع. - Mustafaa 09:54, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It may have, from bible translations, but I don't know about common society. How would Neria's be spelled?--Josiah 14:29, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Same as mine. I just realized they are identical. :D So you can choose with -hu or without. You can replace the š with sh, and spell ā/ū as aa/uu or aa/oo. - Gilgamesh 05:39, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How is that spelled? I can't read, let alone type, arabic letters. I'm not going to try until i'm out of an ulpan, i've learned the hard way of what trying to learn too many languages at once will do a person.--Josiah 01:02, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Long form: يوشياهو Yūšiyyāhū, Yuushiyyaahuu. Short form: يوشيا Yūšiyyā, Yuushiyyaa.

VfD on Zionist Revisionism

Since you changed the name and content, do you still want to delete it? As it is, people can't find the article any more. Jayjg 18:05, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni moved it back and reverted the changes.--Josiah 20:44, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you've listed it on WP:VfD. Until you do so, the user community can't comment. Jayjg 20:55, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, I think I did it right this time.--Josiah 22:47, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not yet. --Neria 00:02, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please look at the bottom of WP:VfD for instructions on how to do so. Jayjg 00:54, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've fixed it for you; you have to follow the instructions exactly for it to work. Jayjg 02:54, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks.--Josiah 07:09, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Yoshiah

See Talk:Karaite Judaism --Neria 23:54, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict, Zionist Revisionism and Israeli-Palestinian history denial

To purge your page to see what others have added, click here

What we have here is a very complicated situation. There appears to have been a copy and paste move done between Zionist Revisionism and Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict. I am quite happy to merge the two and setup a redirect, however because Zionist Revisionism is on VfD at the moment I don't want to do anything like this right at this moment. Also, it is further complicated by the fact that there is another article called Israeli-Palestinian history denial, that's almost exactly the same as the other two. I'm sending a message to all participants so far, requesting their comments on what they think we should do. My own preference is to merge into a more appropriately named article, something like Historical perspectives of Israelis and Palestinians (as that's what this is all about), but I'm flexible. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Hi Ta bu shi da yu, Zionist Revisionism was the original article. I had moved it to Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict in an attempt to NPOV it, but Alberuni undid the changes and the move, without redirecting the other article. I have since redirected the 2nd article to another page.--Josiah 19:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Good idea, or you could just merge all three into Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict. As long as you merge information rather than deleting it, as some have a habit of doing. Don't worry about the VfD entry for Zionist Revisionism; it is invalid. Josiah has, yet again, failed to provide valid reasons for the listing. --style 13:01, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
  • Yet again? You obviously don't watch anything I actually do, as 1) That was the first page I had ever put up for deletion - the fact that I had done it wrong should be proof of that, and 2) I and others listed perfectly good reason on the VfD page.--Josiah 19:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I would avoid POV titles that are bound to be challenged. As for the VfD entry, it is perfectly valid to list the article for VfD, and the entry will be dealt with via the usual VfD process. Jayjg 15:18, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• I would suggest not to use the word "revisionism" in the title at all. It it nothing but an allusion to historical revisionism (a.k.a. Holocaust denial). Since none of the holders of these views on either side consider their views "revisionism", it would be better if the title did not contain this word. Finally, the potential for confusion with te unrelated Revisionist Zionism is enormous. More seriously, I also cannot see how any such page would contain anything but POV fights. Is that really what we need? Does it make sense to keep a list of historical points were Alberuni disagrees with Jayjg? Is that encyclopedic? Gadykozma 03:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • You have neatly summarized exactly what is wrong with the word "Revisionism", thank you. Jayjg 03:21, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

• OK, I have merged most of the information in the article Zionist Revisionism into the article Israeli-Palestinian history denial. I have not attempted to NPOV it, I just merged it. Please feel free to NPOV the Israeli-Palestinian history denial article. Please do not think I am endorsing the views of either side. I'm not. I'm just trying to sort out merging of articles. I would next like to merge page histories, if that's OK with people. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:53, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I have now merged the edit histories of Israeli-Palestinian history denial and Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict. At least this bit is sorted out now. If someone wants a better title, please use the move tool in future! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr's RFC against Proteus

You might be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Proteus. Regards, Jayjg 21:40, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Proposed Project

Aloha. Regarding your comments of interest in countering bias and promoting accuracy in Near East issues, I think a good way to do this is to collect a list of reputable sources that can be used (and linked) for reference. One way of doing this is posting information on Wikisource. For example, look at how some primary sources have been posted to Wikisource Miscellaneous material. As a start, can you think of any public domain references that we can post here? Thanks for your help. Also, see Religious texts for Jewish Wikisource documents, and Historical documents for Wikisource documents on Israel. I'm sure we can expand these sections to include more citations. --Viriditas 04:15, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. The question is, can we all decide on what is a reliable source in this conflict? I think deciding on what can be considered a realiable source in it is pivotal to the issue, regardless of which POV you hold.Josiah 16:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

P.S. thanks for the info about the religous texts.--Josiah 16:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nahum commentary

I'd be happy to give it a try; if it's in Arabic, that shouldn't be too hard to figure out. - Mustafaa 09:54, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks: Here is some of the text, minus the vowel markings, from a part dealing with Nahum 1:10 -

[...] קו בזו כסף הו קליל אל עדו פקאל מא דאם אהל Josiah 16:14, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Arabic language (or should I say Judeo-Arabic language?) Can't make out the first couple of words, but "... silver, it is small in number, so he said "as long as the people..." - Mustafaa 19:47, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Probably Judeo-Arabic. Thanks.--Josiah 20:51, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete/Redirect

Yoshiah hi.

Delete or Redirect is not quite the same as Redirect or Delete. In (currently hypothetical) cases there is sufficient votes for either delete or redirect, which one is performed should be done by examining which was most voters' first choice. Even though this does not seem relevant to the current VfD, maybe it will be better to split nonetheless, just to stress that we do care what was peoples' first choice. Gadykozma 10:10, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok.--Josiah 17:52, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Private message

Yoshi, I just sent you an email. Please check it. - Gilgamesh 16:52, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done, but by the time I was checking my email you seemed to have it figured out :D--Josiah 17:53, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Deletion policy

Regarding our brief exchange on VfD policy, you might be interested in this discussion between HistoryBuffEr and Cecropia. Let me know what you think. --Viriditas 04:36, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks.--Josiah 17:28, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

News links

Thanks for the Iman al-Hams news links - that really clarified the issue. - Mustafaa 18:04, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NP. I would have gotten to the issue of what was really meant, but I was tired. --Josiah 23:39, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dore Gold article

I think Mustafaa has come up with a very reasonable compromise, please let's just work to defend rather than changing it. Jayjg 17:25, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Palestinian_terrorists

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Palestinian_terrorists IZAK 10:09, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deletion policy

Josiah hi. Please don't edit war with HB on Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The page can stay without this text for a while — this will not affect VfD decisions immidiately anyway, since the text really is only a clarification. After his removal of the text a few others remarked that it required more discussion, so let's use the proper channels. This has its advantages too, actually. Gady 18:33, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dore Gold

Michael Snow has protected Blankfaze's version of the Dore Gold page, while the consensus on the talk page is in opposition to this version. Please see my comments on this issue.--Viriditas 12:56, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration voting

For your information, only members of the arbitration committee are allowed to vote on whether or not to take a case. →Raul654 21:40, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. I was unaware of this.--Josiah 21:42, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If it's accepted for arbitration, then you can comment on the case, and add evidence to the evidence page. Jayjg 02:23, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)