User talk:Armon/Archive 1 Dec 2007

Relevance of "Position of George W Bush" on the Caliphate

YOu may remember this exchange:

Section 2.1 identifies entities that seek to restore the caliphate, and it seems informative, But section 2.2 regarding the opinions of several high ranking U.S. officials regarding a caliphate restoration seems out of place -- more commentary on the notion than central fact, and highly granular in scope compared to the rest of the article.

Perhaps section 2.2 should be moved to a separate article regarding caliphate restoration movement and criticism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.174.255 (talk • contribs)

I agree, that's why I've removed it. <<-armon->> 09:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but no other article exists at the moment, and if we are to follow your logic we should remove most of the history sections too and leave only the concept. This article is about the caliphate, and has to include what the white house thinks of such a notion, and what Muslim groups a campaigning for it. This is not beyond the scope of the article. Also if you look at wiki policies, you cannot delete refenced sections without agreement here in discussion first. I would like to see a wiki policy to justify such a deletion, until then the section should stay, there is no urgent need to remove it Aaliyah Stevens 12:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's make an article then. The issue is too peripheral. Theissue seems too much like an excuse to claim there's a war against islam. Is no one objects in the next week or so I will create the arcile and a link to it--BoogaLouie 15:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: In case you have not encountered her before, Aaliyah Stevens is an active islamist editor not known for her NPOV. --BoogaLouie 15:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration request

I have submitted an arbitration request where you are a party. Thank you.Biophys 02:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is link to arbitration request [1]. Please note that case will be accepted or rejected by ArbCom during ten days or earlier.Biophys 01:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 14:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

And thank you for catching my mistake; I forgot to fill in a parameter on the template. Those are the correct links. Picaroon (t) 14:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Baha'i "sects"

The difficulty with such a move is the inescapable pejorative connotation that some would take - especially members of the referenced groups. I don't think that they'd find that acceptable at all.

Reading "Sect" however suggests to me that it would be a most appropriate title, and reference to that article should be made at the very least. So, I'll conduct an experiment: I'll find a convenient place in Bahá'í divisions to link to "Sect" and make the edit. Watch the article to see how long it lasts. I wouldn't give it 24 hours. That'll be an indication to see if a name change would be fought, and how hard.

Hope you're well. Cheers, MARussellPESE 03:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm good, hope you are too. Well I guess we'll see what happens... Cheers <<-armon->> 09:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Jenin / Prima Facie

Hey, I think you need to look more closely at the text you are reverting. The source is actually not the same HRW report from before, it's a year-in-review piece which flatly states, "In Jenin, Human Rights Watch documented twenty-two civilian killings during the IDF military operations in April. Many of them were killed wilfully or unlawfully, and in some case constituted war crimes." I would have agreed with you, until I noticed that it wasn't the same report I saw earlier. <eleland/talkedits> 00:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The full paragraph states:

Our early May report, Jenin: IDF Military Operations, documented Israeli Defense Forces' extensive violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting prima facie to war crimes. During the April offensive on the Jenin refugee camp, Israel committed violations including the unlawful or willful killing of civilians, use of Palestinian civilians as human shields, obstruction of emergency medical and humanitarian assistance, and destruction that appeared to exceed that which could be justified on the ground of military necessity. We pressured Israel to allow access to the Jenin refugee camp by humanitarian and human rights organizations and strongly criticized its decision not to allow a U.N. fact-finding mission. We welcomed the IDF decision in May to forbid the use of hostages and human shields, and to "examine" the forced use of civilians in response to a petition from seven human rights organizations. The petition was drafted by Adalah's staff attorney and drew on the April and May Human Rights Watch reports noted above.

emphasis mine. Anyway, I think it's safe to say that the major HR orgs consensus view was that there were "prima facie war crimes" so if we keep it short, and to the point, there's less to argue about ;) <<-armon->> 00:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Armon -- Hi. Thanks for your positive feedback about my suggestions. You asked for proposed wording -- but I did propose specific wording (well, 2 versions). Are those ok by you? Kol tuv, HG | Talk 13:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Gazimestan speech

Please, see Talk:Gazimestan speech. What you wrote is simply not supported by any reference there. Not to mention that it even wasn't in your initial compromise suggestion, so I don't see why would you want to insert it now? Nikola 21:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Armon, please see WP:AE#Enforcement request re Kosovo. -- ChrisO 23:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please e-mail me

tnx. Zeq 06:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI

[2] - maybe you have something to add there ?

I also sent you mail. Zeq 15:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)