User talk:Imad marie/Archive 1

Archive 1

OR

For this, see WP:OR. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Your topic concerning WP:V

I'm unsure what you mean. The footnote cites about 20+ pages worth of material in these books; the statement is a summarization, not a quote, and therefore it is representative of the points expressed on these pages. It's unsurprising that you can't find these sources online, because they aren't yet in the public domain; that is to say, they aren't free, and you'll either have to buy them or look them up at the local library.

So, here's what I'm saying: the sentence in question is a summarization of the points expressed in these two sources, both of which are published and verifiable. "Verifiability" doesn't mean that you can look the source up online; it means that anyone can go to a library or bookstore (or the internet), and check that the text conveys the same information as the sentence given. I just thought I'd clarify, since you're a new user.--C.Logan (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the clarification, when "Verifiability" says "published" I thought it meant "published online" so that editors and users can check it easily; my misunderstanding. I guess I'll delete the section from the talk page now since it was based on a misunderstanding. (Imad marie (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC))

Hey, no problem- I believe I'd thought WP:V meant the same thing when I'd first started editing. Wikipedia policy always needs a good look-over, because it's easy to misread things.--C.Logan (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleting comments from talk pages

Thats not good. Please dont delete comments like that. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Because you cant delete other people's comments from article talk pages. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Matt, Imad specified that he simply misread the policy, so he wanted to drop the issue and delete the section. Just to note, as my comments are involved, I don't mind deletion. To note, it would be good to elucidate the rules concerning comment editing.--C.Logan (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Structure

The tag I've added onto the Qur'an and miracles page a couple of times is rightfully there in my mind, because Wikipedia has various style guidelines with which we have to adhere. Although the set-up in use may be easier to read, it is not an encyclopedic format. We need to consolidate, rather than break into sections, the information presented in each respect. Aminz started to do so with his recent edit. Hopefully, you'll see what I mean. We are encouraged to avoid bulleting, numbering, and placing into repetitive "Claim/Response" sections.--C.Logan (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

3rr warning

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Arrow740 (talk) 08:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the (3RR) rule; I didn't revert, I deleted a criticism content when there is already a big criticism section. The change I performed is justified in my opinion, and the justification is written in the edit summery. (Imad marie (talk) 08:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

Sourced content shouldnt be removed like that. That is very good sourced material. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I already wrote in the edit summery, making it look like Maurice Bucaille is the foundation of the scientific miracles believe, and that his believes are backed up by Saudi rich Sheikh is not good for the article. This believe is supported by many other well known Muslim scholars (Imad marie (talk) 08:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

It doesnt matter if it "looks" like Maurice Bucaille is doing all this work. It didnt like that to me. Zakir Naik also talks about miracles. You shouldnt remove this amount of sourced material without using talk. I will however support the idea that we have a summarized statement of Bucaille's criticms here and the rest of it could go into his own article. Sounds good to you? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It sounds good, as long as the criticism is about Bucaille opinion, and not his funders. Also I think that criticism should be put in the criticism section. (Imad marie (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

I think it's important to note that one of the most significant criticisms against Bucaille was that he fabricated the whole thing for the purposes of payment (either by his own suggestion, or the offered patronage of others). I've read this numerous times, as many point out his own disinterest in converting away from his (disinterested) Catholicism to be one piece of evidence that he did not truly invest sincerity into his alleged miracle discoveries.--C.Logan (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this claim should be put in Maurice Bucaille article. (Imad marie (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

Of course it should be there, but it would be extremely questionable to exclude even just a summary of such a criticism. It would seem incorrect to present such a viewpoint in extensive detail without noting one of the most damning criticisms brought towards Bucaille's book.--C.Logan (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Replying to Logan, in my opinion, this section should only focus on the claim and its criticism, please note that there are other notable scholars who claim the scientific miracles. In my opinion the criticism of the scholars motivations should be put in their dedicated articles. (Imad marie (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

I've seen no context for the information (or links?), so I may agree with you. It depends on the presentation of things. Obviously, a digression is not advisable, but if any particular section focuses on these "Bucaille-isms", it would be wise to note the common criticism of his claims, which have been fundamental to Islamic apologetics in North Africa and around the world.--C.Logan (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, however please note that I have read a couple of sources that says that Bucaille conversion to Islam is doubtful. I will proceed with the changes now, I will put any criticism material in the criticism section, and in the claim section I'm not going to concentrate on Bucaille at all. (Imad marie (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC))

Well, I have too. That's why I'd removed the claim concerning conversion.--C.Logan (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, it is interesting to note that although you posted the 3rr warning on my talk page, you chose not to participate in this discussion. (Imad marie (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

I didn't have your talk page on my watchlist. Arrow740 (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Both you and Arrow740 are blocked for 24 hours for edit warring and violation of WP:3RR on The relation between Islam and science. You may contest this block by adding {{unblock|reason}} below. Sandstein (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You removed referenced content, calling it unreferenced: [1]. You also removed sourced content, labelling it "original research." Please self-revert or we can continue this discussion with admins. Arrow740 (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, my modifications are justified:

1. <ref>Zaghloul El-Naggar, an Egyptian geologist </ref> is not a resource.
2. I didn't find anything that says "well-funded campaign" in http://www.nooran.org/en/index.htm. (Imad marie (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC))

your undoing of my edit

That source is in the Quran itself. I will make the edit with sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HolyMuslimWarrior (talk • contribs) 18:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello?

Im not going to quote someone who read the Quran when its plainly obvious the Quran is unlike the Bible in style and content, and therefore the Quran cannot be a rehash of the Bible. Its not the format to provide a citation for every single fact. If I say the sky is blue, I dont have to get a scientist to write a quote so I can cite it. Furthermore, you havent stopped people from using obscure, anti-Islamic authors as their sources when making ridiculous statements in Islam-related articles. HolyMuslimWarrior (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Page moves

When we move a page, we keep the redirect from the old page name. By the way, was there consensus for the change? I have my doubts on that, since "alleged" is considered opprobrious and is almost never used in titles--certainly not as a NPOV improvement. DGG (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of the alleged Qur'an scientific miracles

An editor has nominated List of the alleged Qur'an scientific miracles, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the alleged Qur'an scientific miracles and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Imad, Sultan.org is not a reliable source. Please stop all of this Islam/science stuff. Very simply, you need reliable sources to be talking about this stuff if you want to include it. That means, people who are recognized to be an authority on Islam etc. If you include any website, ask yourself: does the standard I'm applying to Islamic website xyz, also apply to faithfreedom.org? If you include that unknown Islamic site then you should also include ffi.org. Please stop this propaganda type of stuff. We're not even sure Maurice B. should be included in Islam related articles, so Sultan.org is way off the charts. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

stop removing them

Wikipdai is NOPV and it will express all opinion about this issue.The articles by the way are very reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal (talk • contribs) 22:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Dangerous link

Use WOT extension of firefox and you will get warning. Here you can download it. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3456 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal (talk • contribs) 13:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

elnaggarzr

Do you have any evidence of Naggar being a reliable source? Where are the 3rd party references where he's being cited? Are there any? If he's not known in the scientific community, that means he's not a RS. Anyone can get a PhD and start up his own website. Thats not the criteria for inclusion here. You should stop pushing him as a source here. We need confirmation from the general scientific community that he's qualified to speak on science and Islam. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Just ask Bless sins (talk · contribs) or Itaqallah (talk · contribs) why Naggar is not a reliable source. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Neos

Regarding this, when the source uses a neo, we use it too since we are quoting from the source. I think thats common sense. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Merge

Hi Imad,

Well, if you can show that the sub-article has enough information, we can have a separate article for it. If it is too short (as it is now), we can merge it to the bigger one. If it got large, we can re-create the sub-article again... So, I think it really depends on the size than the topic. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

answer

It say a little more than Muhammad was illiterate.Oren.tal (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Palestenian Human shield.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Palestenian Human shield.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Human rights in Israel

Wikipedia can be a bizarre place and the rules make very little sense to newcomers. Let me give you some advice: don't make any more reverts on that page for now. You're not going to force those changes through just by repeatedly editing them; either you will get blocked, or the page will be locked from editing.

I made the same mistake myself when I started working on WP, and the result is I didn't get anything accomplished on the first few Israel/Palestine pages I worked on, and even got blocked briefly.

Stay cool and use the talk page. Try and be objective. Everything you write on a controversial topic like this needs to be directly supported by the source you provide. If you've written something that doesn't appear in the source you've given, you should either modify what you've written, or provide additional sources that have the information.

Contact me on my talk page with any questions. Please believe me when I say that I'm on your side here and I'm not trying to make you give up on the article. Just telling you the best way to accomplish what you want to see done.

<eleland/talkedits> 23:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Imad marie. The next step is to get Okedem talking usefully on the article talk page. If he follows the usual pattern of "pro-Israel" POV-warriors, he will try and ignore you as much as possible, so that when the page protection expires, he can say that there's still no consensus to change. <eleland/talkedits> 07:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Qur'an and miracles

Hey Imad. I used to edit Quran and Miracles, where I added miracles that are in the Qur'an, which I believe is something important enough to be in Wikipedia, in an appropriate article for the topic. However, you sent them to another article which now does not exist. I thought of asking you where this information should go, before you simply delete my edits again.Slsm07 (talk) 05:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I knew that that article was deleted, but my question is where should these miracles be added to now? the Quran and miracles page? Slsm07 (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Imad, the academia by its very secular nature favors the social and materialistic explanations for the emergence of Islam (or other religous or non-religous movements) as explained in Muhammad#Social_factors. So, I was trying to faithfully present that. But of course that is not an Islamic-friendly POV if one says or implies that the whole birth of Islam could be explained away by social and economic factors in a cause-and-effect way. So, I'll promise that I try to find something and add a sentence or two explaining the Muslim view.

The Qur'an in verse 3:159 does talk about the influence of Mohammed's character in his success and the academics do talk about his gifts but I don't feel it would be a good addition because the description of Muhammad's character varies from book to book. The differing descriptions can be included in some article but probably not in Muhammad article where there is not much space; we need to stick to the universally-accepted-facts instead of mentioning the opinions of a few scholars.--Be happy!! (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Alford Welch in Muhammad, Encyclopedia of Islam says:

That Muhammad was one of the greatest persons in world history in terms of the global impact of the movement he founded cannot be seriously questioned. How did his extraordinary success occur? One answer is theological: God chose Muhammad as His Prophet and was directly responsible for his triumph over polytheism and evil. Another is based on historical and other empirical evidence : Muhammad had remarkable leadership skills and a charismatic personality that enabled him to attract other strong leaders who were firmly committed to him, and together they were responsible for the early success of the Muslim community. These two views of Muhammad—one as the ideal person, the exemplar for Islamic orthodoxy and orthopraxis, and the other as the historical person, who first appears as a somewhat shadowy figure whose early life is little known, but who then gradually emerges into the light of history—are not necessarily incompatible, but they involve two separate inquiries, each pursuing its own path of investigation, each following its own methods of analysis. While the theologian and other believers seek to understand the role of God acting through the Prophet, the historian seeks the measure of the man himself. The theological answer is obvious and indisputable for the believer, but, if taken alone as the explanation of the Prophet's success, it runs the risk of diminishing Muhammad's greatness as a man by making him a mere agent of divine action.

--Be happy!! (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein

I have been the main contributor to that article for over five years. I am not making sudden new changes, but merely restoring a better written version that has been stable for a very long time. Please notice that I was able to integrate your constructive changes to the sections on his early career to the entry I have restored. Please use that entry as a basis for making changes. Regards, 172 | Talk 21:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad

I made this edit per the promise I had made [2]. Hope it looks more unbiased now. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Imad, we can not discuss the character of Muhammad without being accused of biased in favor or against him. And there are a lot of problems with doing that:

Muslims consider Muhammad to be the Perfect Man, meaning that all names of God has been manifested in him in a comprehensive way. The names of God are roughly divided into "jalaly" and "jamaly". While Muslims interpret the incidents like the Banu Qurayza as a manifestation of the "jalaly" names of God in Muhammad and thus a requirement for being a perfect man in the sense they define it, non-Muslims may find it as a negative point in his resume. This is especially so because in the Christian view, God has one prime name and that is the "jamaly" name of Love. So, I hope you can see why I am against discussing the character of Muhammad because it depends too much on the worldview of the scholar and his idea of a perfect man. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Watt has a rather low view of what it means for something to be divinely inspired, be it Qur'an or the Bible.

I think, IMHO, that the section explains the background from which Muhammad emerged. What kind of city Mecca and Medina were. It looks a bit unclear if we talk about the merchants opposing Muhammad without explaining where the merchants come from and what position they had. --Be happy!! (talk) 10:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

CIA activities

In writing CIA articles, I've tried to indicate why a "see also" or "further" link exists -- some words about what will be learned by following that link. For example, your wikilink makes perfect sense if the Saddam article covers US-Saddam relations that did not involve CIA, as from Defense, State, or White House representation.

Would you mind adding the clarification? If that article does have CIA-specific information, perhaps some of it should be cloned/edited into the regional CIA article.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We could approach this in several ways. Does the material you have involve Saddam with US contacts that were not CIA? Obviously, Rumsfeld and Glaspie, at least, fell into that category, and there might well be a US-Saddam article. If that made sense, I still would like to see a link to CIA-specific activities in the regional sub-article.

You may already be familiar with the problem, but late last year, when everything was in a single CIA article, it was impossibly long, just as you correctly suggest the regional sub-articles are growing. The latter is both good and bad, good in the sense that it allowed more detail on specific topics.

It's entirely possible that some of the regional articles need to have their own sub-articles. In this region, CIA activities with Iraq, CIA activities with Iran, and CIA activities with Afghanistan are all reasonable candidates. My concern with having a Saddam and CIA article is that it's not intuitive to find. One goes to the main page and finds regional sub-articles, and some of those regional sub-articles may have country-specific "sub-sub" articles. Having an article on a person, be it Saddam, Khamenei, etc., is a different way of organizing information, and I'm concerned that the navigation to it would not be intuitive. Geographic and functional (e.g., transnational drugs, transnational terrorism) does seem to be a logical way to find things; that's how the CIA itself is organized internally (they would have had Saddam specialists in the Iraq branch).

What do you think? My concern is less with the material and more that there is a consistent way to find it when one is looking through the large body of CIA information. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There is both an overall article and a means of navigating. Unfortunately, we haven't found the best place to put the navigation block--I don't know how to create them. Go to Central Intelligence Agency and scroll to the bottom. You will see several colored bars, the top one being "Central Intelligence Agency (United States)". Click "show" on the right, and it will display links to all the sub-articles.

For your information, I am the main contributor to a series of articles on intelligence theory and practice, not tied to any specific country. The navigation might be better there. Scroll to the bottom of Intelligence cycle management. The bold items are immediate second-leve sub-articles, and the non-bold are third-level subordinate to them. At least that navigation table doesn't need to be unhidden.

Since I originally wrote the intelligence cycle management article, as opposed to the CIA article, I tried to have wikilinks in the text, which take you to the sub-articles. Again, where I am the primary author, as in MASINT, HUMINT and SIGINT (didn't originate the latter but rewrote), there's commentary about sub-articles at the start of the articles, and wikilinks to them. MASINT has a colored sub-article block near the top. HUMINT is a little messy, as the list includes both things that were written in a conscious hierarchy, and some preexisting articles that are often either stubs or deal with a topic on a TV/movie level.

Also, and again there's no reason you could have known this existed, go to User:Hcberkowitz, and you will find both a discussion of the intelligence subjects (at least the ones on which I've worked). When you get into the intelligence section, you'll find a hierarchical list about non-country-specific intelligence, as well as some things to be written. If you look around elsewhere in Section 1, you will find military articles, again principally ones I have written, but that tend to deal with intelligence and special operations. You'll even find pointers to some articles that are only drafts in my userspace; I found now that major reorganizations are best done there, not little-by-little in the main Wikipedia space.

I hope this helps; I'm going to copy most of it to my userpage because it is an additional explanation of how to navigate through things in which I'm involved. Thank you for giving me that idea!

The CIA articles are in much, much better shape than in the latter part of 2007, where the main article was over 300K, and contained both substantive material and unsourced conspiracy theories. I am absolutely not intending to whitewash the CIA, but, having a decent knowledge of intelligence history, if some action was done before the Agency was formed, that doesn't belong in the list. When the CIA was carrying out orders from the White House, that needs to be indicated, rather than letting it be assumed it was going rogue. There have been rogue operations, and I've done my best to document them, but there are far fewer than many people believe.

Again, thank you. You have made me think carefully about my work, which is always good, and, as a result, I'm going to copy some of these navigation hints, at least to my userpage. Your questions, comments, and contributions are very welcome. Are you primarily interested in articles on Iraq?

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Israeli occupation

I'm not sure I am answering your question, although I certainly consider it an occupation. In this case, I believe that the controlling international law would be principally the Fourth Geneva Convention. Adjudicating status is difficult, but, in general, the International Committee of the Red Cross, rather than the UN, deals with the status of such things as the Occupying Power and the Protecting Power. Israel, as far as I know, has never accepted the status of Occupying Power, so there has been no movement to name a Protecting Power.

Unfortunately, customary international law does not deal well with situations where the participants are other than nation-states. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Re

You need to get a consensus for such major changes, just writing a message is not enough. The status quo should remain until the discussions have concluded, and a consensus has been reached. --CreazySuit (talk) 07:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Imad, several users are opposed to the splitting of "The Tanker War and U.S. support for Iraq", but you're going ahead with it anyway without a consensus. Please be patient, allow discussions for some time, and try to achieve a consensus or a compromise solution before changing the original format. Otherwise, the changes will not remain on the page, and the article will remain unstable. --CreazySuit (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

A proposal

Hi Imad,

Could you please take a look at my proposal here [3] (diff [4]). Thanks in advance, Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to keep the Iran-Iraq war section very tight, to avoid POV expansion there, and move country-specific discussion to articles without the I-I war size limits.

I'm afraid I prefer the earlier version, for several reasons. You may have noticed that very shortly after putting in a brief introduction to the U.S. section, another editor immediately put in more criticism of the U.S., and I reverted it. The criticism of individual countries belongs in individual country sections, with due regard that certain events involved multiple countries.

I removed the Nathan Hurd material, as it is only a chronology, under an organization that no longer updates it, and was concerned with sanctions related to the 2003 war, not the Iran-Iraq war. It is certainly not a reliable or notable source to justify the assertion that the Iran-US "Tanker War" was undertaken, by the US, only to support Iraq.

There are over thirty countries involved, so there has to be a reasonably compact heading. Starting the section on generic support to Iraq with a picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam does not seem NPOV to me; it suggests that the US was the most important puppetmaster. It might even be appropriate to arrange the wikilinks in a compact table.

Example:

Country	Support to Iraq	Support to Iran
France	link to support to Iraq	link to support to Iran
United States	link to support to Iraq	link to support to Iran
Singapore	link to support to Iraq	link to support to Iran
Soviet Union	link to support to Iraq	link to support to Iran

and so forth Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

By having separate articles, each country's actions -- or activities concealed from that nation's government -- can be discussed in detail. I believe this can be much more NPOV, because if there is more than a minimal link in the main article, some editors will keep expanding it to blame as much as possible on the US.

I will try to do Singapore next, as a good example of a non-obvious amount of support by a smaller country. Singapore is also relevant as a major supplier of chemical weapons precursors, and as the place where Italian firms moved their land and naval mine manufacturing after Italy imposed export controls.

The US draft in my userspace is difficult. I really want to try to keep the Tanker War separate from the very significant and complex financial and industrial transactions. Indeed, the BNL scandal, involving the US subsidiary of the largest bank in Italy, owned by the state of Italy, may have provided USD $5 billion in funding to Iraq, a good deal of which was spent in countries other than Italy and the US. By bringing in the Tanker War, it's too easy to obscure the commercial and governmental transactions.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

While I'm working on it now, do look the draft I'm saving frequently of User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-Singapore support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Much detective work will be required to tell if Singapore was merely an intermediate shipping step here, possibly for chemicals originating in India or Germany. There are some side references in other countries suggesting, variously, that the chemical exporter in Singapore may have been owned interests in Dubai, possibly by Iraqi agents. Dubai itself is an apparent transshipment point for proscribed shipments.

It is that kind of background, with seemingly small places such as Dubai and Singapore, that a great deal of extremely critical material made its way to Iraq. In my younger years, I was a biochemist and had some technical experience with chemical and biological weapons -- that gives me an idea of the significance of what might seem a small shipment, especially of the hard-to-explain chemicals in Chemical Weapons Convention schedules 1 and 2. I would note, both for chemical and biological warfare, some of the custom manufacturing equipment, or materials for it, are the hardest to get. There are steps in nerve gas manufacture when the reaction has to be carried out in silver, platinum, or specialized Teflon (difficult to make) vessels. The hard part in biological warfare isn't getting the cultures, but getting the specialized fermenters, refrigerated centrifuges, lyophilizers (freeze-driers), and refrigerated grinding mills. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Before I write anything substantive, be warned I am just starting my first cup of coffee, and a very affectionate cat (Mr. Clark, meet Imad Marie. Imad Marie, meet Mr. Clark). He helped so much that he caused the first draft of this comment to be lost).

In doing research on the multiple nations involved in the Iraqi procurement network, much of which was secret, I don't think many editors are aware of the extent of Iraqi dealing and getting around export controls. What may have been one of the greatest benefits to Iraq is their use of the U.S. branch of an Italian (state)-owened bank, as well as getting some very questionable loan guarantees from an agricultural export guarantee program. This managed to make at least USD $5 billion available to Iraq, which was spent in countries all over the world.

Products and manufacturing things that actually got to the battlefield are relatively low from the U.S.; there were a lot of high-technology things that probably went to their nuclear and missile development programs, but not overt weapons, chemical warfare materials, etc. Much of the more sensitive things, for example, came from Germany, and I will be writing up comments from the trial of certain Germans, in which the court, which had independent investigatory power, observed that the German government export control organization was not really looking at what went to Germany.

There are officials of other countries, at the level of Rumsfeld, that met with Iraqi officials. In other cases, the top officials of Soviet, French, and other countries met, in Iraq, with senior officials of the military manufacturing system. In other words, there were people at the level of Donald Rumsfeld that met with Iraqis, yet the only picture shown is of an American meeting with Saddam. There is more criticism of the U.S. than any other nation, but I have to say, so far, that the Soviet Union and France, and possibly Italy (including front companies), were as complicit.

One of the haunting images of the war was the Iranian volunteers running into the minefields to clear them, sacrificing their own lives. No one seems to ask where those mines came from, and the answer appears to be Italy in the earlier part of the war, and then, when the Italian government clamped down on export controls, the companies involved moved the manufacturing to Singapore, with the Swiss company, Oerlikon, providing the explosives.

Equipment for manufacturing rocket and artillery components came from Germany and Britain. I can go on, and I'm definitely still collecing information. Without any question, the majority of actual weapons came from the Soviet Union and France, not the U.S.

Yet the only image is of Donald Rumsfeld, and, especially if one regards the Tanker War as a US-Iran war that happened at the same time as the Iran-Iraq war but was only loosely linked to it in US policy, I have to question why the article seems to imply that the US was Iraq's chief supplier, and even the puppetmaster controlling Saddam. No one controlled Saddam except Saddam, and eventually a hangman's rope.

For NPOV, I believe there should be details in sub-articles, and yes, I believe there will need to be 30 or more to covrr all the support to Iraq and Iran. This material can be well sourced, but I don't think some of the most pro-Iranian editors are aware of it. It's too easy, ideologically as well as logistically, to blame the US. Yes, there were things the US did to Iran, before the war, that were stupid. Yes, there were things that Iran did, which if they had competent intelligence people and the leadership listened to them, were guaranteed to cause a strong US response aimed directly at Iran, without Iraqi involvement.

By all means have pictures of officials shaking hands with senior Iraqi officials in the appropriate country articles. To have only Rumsfeld's picture in the main article comes across to me as a POV that the whole war was a US plot.

The whole matter of support to Iran and Iraq is very complex and cannot easily be simplified other than saying that a lot of countries provided weapons, materials, and yes, even training to the two major belligerents. I'd like to see the article become much less anti-American POV, unless the US was directly responsible for something -- as in the Tanker War, where Iran was hardly innocent.

There is a book by Leonard Slater, titled The Pledge, which is about the secret procurement network used by Zionists, especially just after WWII, to get military supplies for the coming 1948 Israeli war of independence. I strongly suspect some Iraqi procurement officers read it very carefully. At the same time, I urge editors in the Iran-Iraq articles to look at the way the Sri Lanka Reconciliation project on Wikipedia manages to work out POV disputes.

These are some of the reasons I don't think the Rumsfeld-Hussein picture belongs at the start of the foreign support section of the main article. It oversimplifies in the interest of an ideological blame-the-US attitude. The US tilt wouldn't have had much effect, for example, if billions of dollars of weapons hadn't come from the Soviet Union, France, and Italy (including work done in Singapore). Germany and Britain were major suppliers of critical manufacturing tools, and a number of countries provided materials for WMD work, of which only the chemical part was used in this war.

I'm willing to put quite a bit of work into the country-specific sub-articles, if they contribute to understanding the complexity of what, if you consider suppliers, has aspects of a world war. If, in spite of any facts brought to the discussion, the significant anti-American tone continues, I'll simply stop participating in something that is historically inaccurate. I am absolutely willing to blame America for things it actually did. If I may share something that guides me as an American citizen, written by a U.S. senator who was an immigrant to the U.S., Carl Schurz (this is a more complete version of what he said than the Wikipedia article:

The Senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, "I confidently trust that the American people will prove themselves … too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: ‘Our country—when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right."

Sincerely, Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

First, to see what I have planned or are in draft -- and suggestions, or even taking over, various countries are welcome -- look at User:Hcberkowitz#Iran and Iraq. You'll see purple links to articles that exist; if they aren't preceded by "User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-", they are in the main Wikipedia space. If they are purple and do have the User: prefix, they are working drafts in my userspace. If they are red, I've seen some evidence of support to Iran, Iraq, or both, but I haven't written anything there yet.

This definitely has been a learning experience for me, as I've discovered links between countries that I had never suspected. In starting each new country, I often find references to others. For example, I was surprised to see Switzerland at all. That country gives me mental images of mountain climbing, banks, and chocolate. Actually, I was aware of Hagelin AG, which is more in my field; they make cryptographic equipment. It turned out, however, that they variously make cannon and ammunition (from a company I thought was Swedish), and were shipping them to Singapore for eventual transfer to Iraq.

On my main userpage,User talk:Hcberkowitz, I will put the basic outline I will use for each country article, and I will strt setting up the table with it.

In many cases, I have been very surprised to find how involved some countries had been, such as Italy, and, after export controls, Italy via Singapore for land mines. The biggest issue with Italy, however, had been the state-owned BNL bank, whose US subsidiary appears to have provided at least USD $5 billion for Iraqi purchases. As I've mentioned, it's important to know who made those land mines that those brave Iranians ran knowingly into, to clear the minefields.

France and the Soviet Union provided the majority of weapons and ammunition actually used by Iraq. I suspect that some countries will be more intermediate points to hide shipments to Iraq; see the current British article where a Member of Parliament said that if one looked at the export licenses to Singapore, they would have the largest military on the planet. Still, Singapore did assemble Italian-designed land mines using Swiss explosives. I suspect, however, that they were simply an intermediary for WMD-related shipments.

In no way do I think the US was not involved. From a financial standpoint, it was probably more in banking and loan guarantees than weapons. Very few actual weapons, that could immediately be used in battle, were shipped. There was, however, a lot of manufacturing technology and critical materials that were used in the Iraqi missile and WMD programs.

I may have mentioned that I started my career in biochemistry, and have some experience with chemical and biological weapons, as well as a fairly deep knowledge of military and intelligence matters. There are some things that I'll have to find sourced somewhere, but that I know, from personal knowledge, that they may not have been as critical as some think (e.g., the BW cultures, as opposed to the BW manufacturing equipment).

Cheers, Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Thank you, Imad. I think Islam related articles have moved forward quite substantially considering their state a few years ago (there were barely any good or featured articles). Things have improved somewhat since then, but there's still plenty of work to be done :-). Thank you for your contributions, too. I hope there will be many more to come. ITAQALLAH 23:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Minor suggestion on reference formats

When you are using <ref name=XXX>{{citation..., you don't have to put the XXX in quote unless it has spaces in it. Hyphens work fine without quotes; I haven't tried other punctuation marks. Doing this saves a little time, but, more importantly, is one less thing to go wrong when using <ref name=XXX /> later in the article and missing a quotation mark. Note the space before the / in the latter example; as you probably already know, not having the space confuses the software. I had to learn this the hard way!

Cheers, Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Help in dealing with speedy delete proposal

I have a problem at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Apparently, this was triggered by a bot that detected a copyvio of something I hadn't finished paraphrasing -- unfortunately, I took the text out of userspace too soon.

Now, the bot is happy, but several people seem convinced the subject can't be covered fairly. For those unfamiliar with the overall design of these articles, see User:Hcberkowitz#Iran and Iraq. You can see various drafts from that section; apparently, I have to be in better shape before moving to mainspace.

I'd like to get some precedent established that these sub-articles are intended to reduce rants currently on Iran-Iraq War, not to increase them. As you know, a similar sub-article technique helped reduce the sound and fury on the Central Intelligence Agency main page.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

EoI

Hi Imad,

I searched but couldn't find anything. Sorry. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

September 11th Reactions article

As I'm sure you've noticed I've made a few edits, hopefully nothing too massive - just adding a few points and amending some of the existing text. Probably at the moment some of the more "positive" stuff needs building up, ie the condemnations and/or expressions of sympathy, maybe with a few more very brief direct quotes so long as it doesn't just end up a collection of them. But having said that, I'm not sure it's worth you, me or anyone else putting too much work into this until we know what's going to happen .. I guess we'll see. Maybe just post it pretty soon as a standalone, real page? That might encourage more people to work on it as well. --Nickhh (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:First intifada.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:First intifada.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You guys owe me

Where would you be after all without my guidance and leadership? Sorry, but that just made my Sunday morning! --Nickhh (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance, my mentor :) Imad marie (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The irony is of course that I've not even given that much practical help or advice, other than adding a few bits of content to the page itself. Although I am pleased that the whole seems to be finally, and slowly, reaching some sort of balanced conclusion. --Nickhh (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hope we will not have a move war now. If we do, then we have to try some sort of WP:DR, one suggestion is to move this dispute to the related project talk page, maybe Palestine or Terrorism project talk pages. Hopefully some neutral editors can help then end this nonsense. Imad marie (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Image request

I will look for one but it will be hard to find something without copyright. I'm also not so good at understanding when copyright can in fact be waived. But I'll let you know if something comes up. Thanks for asking and happy editing. Tiamut^talk 16:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for Beautiful Amman

I've had a stressful few days in the mundane world, and came back from a late meeting to find myself involved in a totally unexpected edit war. By some odd sequence of links, I wound up at your user page, and found your image of "Beautiful Amman" remarkably calming; I hope you don't mind, once my color printer is working again*, I put a hard copy on my wall.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• The printer is, for some reason, remarkably sensitive to cats sitting on it, especially one much loved but too near 8 KG.

Qur'an and science

Hi! You asked that only hight [sic] quality sources must be used and stated that this, this, this and thislinks are not reliable. So what's wrong with Secular Web? I'm going to revert your POV-edit. Abdullais4u (talk) 06:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Dolphinarium discoteque suicide bombing

Could you please fix the spelling error. Thanks. Novidmarana (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, thank you for the notification. Done.Imad marie (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Fix double redirects

Imad - I see you've been moving a lot of articles. I don't object to standardizing the naming scheme, but I do expect you to fix the many double redirects you've been creating. Raul654 (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving 20 pages hasn't been an easy job already, I was hoping a bot will fix the redirects. I will check for double redirects, though I'm not sure I will be able to do it for the 20 articles. Imad marie (talk) 06:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Massacres

There was clearly no consensus for your unilateral re-namings, which removed the term "massacre" from over a dozen massacres of Israelis, but somehow missed similarly renaming the Deir Yassin massacre, Qibya massacre, Kafr Qasim massacre, Safsaf massacre, Arab al-Mawasi massacre, Eilabun massacre, al-Kabri massacre, Balad al-Shaykh massacre, Ein al-Zeitun massacre, etc. To ensure that your actions do not seem to be entirely one-sided, please focus your future re-naming efforts on the articles I have just listed. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Civility on Talk pages

Regard this edit - article Talk pages are for improving article content, not for attacking or otherwise commenting on other editors. The remarks you made are inappropriate, and you should strike them out. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I only say what I think is the truth, also what I said was related to the article. Imad marie (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You are free to think and believe what you like, but you may not post disparging remarks about other editors, even if you think they are truthful, on article Talk pages. Consider this some friendly advice. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Help

Hi i am about to be banned by the zionist Okedem for simply stating the fact of Israeli continued inclusion into Lebanon which breaks international law and provokes the resiustance fighters Hezbollah. The Zionists and their neo-cons friends use the media and try to manipulate the public into beleiving their ruthless actions is justfield. Will you unban me so i can continue my quest for the truth to be revealed thank you (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2008 [UTC]

Ownership charges

I can't follow your Ownership: "small group of editors here have managed to impose their will" argument/allegation.[5] 2 AfDs, an FTN post and a couple of merge proposals suggested that the community does not agree with the changes you suggested. A large number of uninvolved editors and admins registered their opinions and I disagree with this argument completely. I would suggest that you focus on content rather than uncivil commentary towards fellow editors. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

First AFD and merge proposals showed that the majority of editors think that this content forking is needless, but merging/deleting cannot be done because we don't have consensus, because a small group of editors object to the merge. This is what I meant by "small group of editors here have managed to impose their will", and there is nothing uncivil about that. Also, when I say: "pro-Israel" editors, that is not a personal attack, and when the editors objecting to the merge are "pro-Israel" editors that gives legitimate concerns about POV. Again, I say this in objectivity and not as a personal attack. Imad marie (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I (and others) disagree with your perception of the AfDs, FTN and merge proposals. Regardless, charges of ownership towards fellow editors are uncivil. Calling another editor a POV pusher and/or aligning him with a certain "camp" because they have opposing views is also. You have to stop fighting with other editors and consider the value of their arguments within Wikipedia policies rather than attack their "camp"'s alleged motives. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem stasis

Oh, if I entered into any discussion with the naive conviction I might convince my interlocutor, I would shut up to avoid a sense of futility. I do hope other readers will however take some note of what I or someone else may say when a commonplace is challenged. I comment where I think things that are obvious are not being said. Most obvious things are never said in I/P articles, since every statement is either committee-reviewed for its possibile political fallout, and contested to that end, or challenged because (and this is frequent) the reader is so drenched in the entrenched perceptions of his ethnic group that he cannot think outside of that framework, and views those who do not share it, as out of touch with reality, when they simply do not share that monocular vision. Though I am as pro-Palestinian as you will get, most of the problems I encounter here have nothing to do with 'defending a Palestinian cause': they are simply matters of getting people to stop thinking in terms of newsprint, and thinking in terms of thick history, the implications of the clichés we use, and conceptual consistency. Nishidani (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem

Dear Imad, I see it exactly as you do. One shall just have to wait. Two of us stood no chance of getting anywhere on this were it taken further, since this would quickly turn into a numbers game, and those who have managed to whittle down the lead on the capital to the Israeli position will defend it, as a textual conquest, at all costs. I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help.

One thing that is appallingly lacking in these I/P articles is detailed information from Arabic sources. People tend to focus hugh volumes of energy and concentration on minute points of language and phrasing that have political content, and rhetorical consequences. Of course one cannot splash these Arabic sources everywhere since it is an English encyclopedia, but just by providing hints on what is important in the Arabic histories of the towns, cities and regions of Palestine enables outsiders like myself to do research on the English literature regarding these points. We have noted for example that, apart from the Christian history, the Islamic history of the city is poorly shaped. I hope in the meantime that you can find time to note down lacunae of this type from time to time. Unless more effort is done in this regard, Wiki I/P articles will suffer what the land suffers from, i.e., a 'judaisation' of the history, which makes Palestinian realities even more marginal than they have become under Israel's preponderance of power over the past decades. Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1