User talk:MiS-Saath

small self note: grok http://www.pidad.org/files/F.Heijne.pdf .

Welcome!

Hello, MiS-Saath, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Saw some of your contributions and your RS/N query. It's always a pleasure to welcome another reasonable and informed editor!John Z (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moroccan Jews[edit]

Actually I'm the grandson of Moroccan Jews who emigrated to Argentina. I was shocked a few years ago when all this talk of Jewish refugees from Arab countries began. Never, ever did my grandparents talk of expulsion; rather, poverty and uncertainty about the future were always mentioned as their reasons for fleeing Morocco. In my house I keep letters my grandparents exchanged with their cousins, well into the fifties, and they talk of political strife, uncertainty, economic mess -- but never persecution. I recall an Ashkenazi Jewish researcher who once came over to examine the letters; after reading a few of them he told me exultantly "here's the description of a pogrom!". When we read more carefully the relevant paragraphs, it became clear they talked about fighting between rival Muslim factions, not between Muslims and Jews. But the Ashkenazi mentality of victimhood was so deeply ingrained in him that he needed to find antisemitism where there was none.

I'm sure it is wrong to call the Moroccan Jews refugees, but then history is being rewritten all the time, usually with truth as the first casualty.--Abenyosef (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

an ally[edit]

I read with interest your reply to SchuminWeb. I agree his editing knife is quite sharp and he seems to use it with impunity. Your point that he is the only one to read whatever it is that an editor adds or writes is an excellent one. No discussion, no consensus, just "into the wastebasket"...I will watch, from the sidelines. I may come "onto the field of play" but, for the moment...I wish you good luck!--Buster7 (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi jews[edit]

I understand what you are saying, but personally I know some Iraqi Jews in Britain who still consider their selves Iraqis and even still speak Iraqi Arabic especially the elderly ones. In fact this reflects a larger proportion of the Iraqi Jewish diaspora communities. In addition, having about 100 Iraqi Jews left in Iraq does not mean this community had disappeared, even though it is on the verge of extinction in Mesopotamia. So I thought this a valid reason to re-name that article! --Mesopotamian (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Negev Bedouins[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-07-25_Negev_Bedouins. Guy0307 (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the Khuzestan Province[edit]

Dear MiS-Saath, Wikipedia is a not a repository of reports by human-rights groups! As I have indicated elsewhere, if you wish to make a point about the maltreatment of minorities by the Islamic Republic, please do that in an appropriate place; for instance, in the section on Iran you could create a subsection in which you may state whatever you deem appropriate about the human-rights issues in Iran. What you CANNOT do is using a report by Amnesty International (a non-democratic body which I cannot recall ever to have elected any member of) and make extraordinary claims about the history and geography of Iran, or of whatever other country for that matter. At best, you demonstrate that you do not know anything about the history of Iran. I shall be frank with you, since you are editing from Israel, I am inclined to suspect that your editing of the entry concerning the Khuzestan Province might be motivated politically (your Wikipedia history shows that you have never had any involvement in writing or editing any entry pertaining to Iran and Iranian history and culture). With kind regards, --BF 16:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I'll start with the end of your message. Whatever you may think of me is ad-hominem and therefore a-priori irrelevant. I am to be judged by the virtue of my contributions and my contributions alone. The amount of material i've written on wikipedia with relation to iranian subjects is also totally irrelevant. i could be an iranologist, or i could be the village idiot, it doesn't matter - As long as my writing adheres to the rules of wikipedia, in particular with regards to important guidelines in areas of friction such as WP:V and WP:RS, is to stand by itself detached from whoever wrote it. I appreciate your frankness, but at the same time not too happy about the message conveyed. as for the issue of Arabistan: the issue of naming and history is a human rights one, and not only historical per se, as examplified by your own revert (you consider it propaganda, which means that it carries considerable political meaning behind it). I would be willing to concede if you give me a reasonable historical authority which rejects the existance of such an emirate in the early 20's. I will ofcourse re-insert this information as a debated fact if i manage to find a serious historical authority which asserts the existance of this entity. but as is right now, and on par with the level and type of arguments, it seems the debacle is more of a political nature than a historical one. MiS-Saath (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MiS Saath, in your response you yourself concede that you have been editing an entry without having consulted a single historical document. That is some scholarship! For your information, a person known as Sheikh Khazal once called himself an Emir of the area, but he was a misguided traitor (this is not my invention, but any person who knows something about the history of the region will tell you the same thing), having made his claim on behalf of the British colonial forces in the area (all the relevant historical facts are recorded and if you care, you can access them in good libraries). This is nothing new. As part of the Big Game (which continues to be played to this day), any part of Iran has at some point in history been claimed not to be part of Iran at all. Azarbaijnis are constantly being fed with the propaganda that they are not Iranians, but Turks, while any person who knows the Azari language will testify that Azari is a branch of Old Persian (Azari contains some Turkic words, but the language is not Turkic, in the same way that Farsi is replete with Arabic words but is not a Semitic language - Ahmad Kasravi has written a book on this subject matter which to my best knowledge is accepted by all scholars as unbiased and athoritative). All the place names of the area are Persian (including the place names in Armenia and Republic of Azerbaijan - some of the best literary texts of Modern Persian are by Nezami Ganjavi, from Ganja - a twelfth-century person whose texts, metaphrically, have all the characteristics of being written last month in Tehran). The same applies to Kurds; Iranian Kurds are constantly being fed with the propaganda that they are not Iranians. Needless to say, Kurdish language is replete with Old Persian words (please ask someone who knows Old Persian to read you some text in Old Persian and ask someone who knows Kurdish to read you a Kurdish text; you will not be able to tell the difference). Baluchis are being fed with the propaganda that they are not Iranians. Khurasanis, as well as Khuzestanis, are being said not to be Iranians. Don't you wonder wither the Iranians have gone? If Khuzestanis are not Iranians, how comes that during the Iran-Iraq War the same Khuzestanis fought valiantly against Iraq's invading army? Did you know that even the name Baghdad is an Old Persian name, consisting of Bagh (God) and Dād (Given)? I recommend you to look at the maps of Iran, from the earliest times until today, and you will see that Khuzestan has always been inside Iran's borders. For completeness, during the Qajar period Iran shrank by 1/3 of its present land mass. Bahrain was cut off from Iran in 1973 - during the reign of Mohammad-Reza Pahlavi, having been part of the Persian Empire since 7th BC. The on-going propaganda of calling Khuzestan as part of so-called Arabistan is the continuation of the same Balkanization process of Iran. I warmly recommend you to first acquaint yourself with the history, language, folklore and culture of an area before unwittingly acting as a facilitator in this ungainly process. With kind regards, --BF 18:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Interesting. Once you've published an article in the Journal of Middle Eastern studies, this will all have some sorts of a meaning. As it is right now, i'll have to attend to my salt mine to quarry some salt to consume together with your statements. MiS-Saath (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MiS Saath, I find the amount of fallacies in your logic beyond belief. It is not up to me to educate you: it is you who has to receive an education before having the audacity to edit an entry about the subject matter of which you have proved to know absolutely nothing! Either you are an agent provocateur or, in your own words, a village idiot. Let us stop this madness here and now; you have needlessly wasted my precious time this Sunday afternoon. Shalom aleichem. --BF 19:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)[edit]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]