User talk:Suladna

Welcome

Hello, Suladna, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! DickClarkMises 16:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

information on pre-state israel

I don't know what you think you know about Israel, but from your edits on the Israel article, it seems not much. For your information, Kupat Holim and all Israeli medical services are available, and widely used, by Arabs. Hospital wards and medical clinics (not to mention shopping malls) are packed with Arabs, and they receive the best treatment Israel has to offer. If you are talking about pre-state medical services, it is documented history that the Arab population grew due to the improved sanitation and health care that the Jews brought to the country. Arab infant mortality fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945, and life expectancy rose from 37 in 1926 to 49 in 1943. So don't be so sure you know everything. You have a lot of reading to do - certainly a better use of your time than introducing false information on Wikipedia.--Gilabrand 15:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text clearly concerned the pre-state situation. Kupat Holim was open for members of Histadruth and non-Jews were banned from Histadruth until the 50:s (you don't deny this do you?). So my edit was perfectly correct. Suladna 17:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Peel Commission, July 1937, chapter 12, page 312 (paragraph 5):

"The Hadassah Medical Organization has developed a widespread system of clinics in Jewish centres and hospitals in the principal towns and, pari pasu with the creation of similar services by the government, a school medical service, including an opthalmogical service and a widepread infant welfare service. Though naurally the Jewish population benefitted most, the Hadassah medical services were available to all the communities in Palestine and many of the poorer classes amongst th Arabs received much asistance from the work of the organization. This disinterested philantropy of Hadassah deserves recognition: it was a real step towards the promotion of good feelig betwen the two races; but unhappily the effect of its work was impaired by other influeces. As the rift widened, the Arabs attendance at Jewish hosptials and clinics became less and less".

I checked your information about the Histadrut. It was formed in 1920 as the General Association of Hebrew Labourers in Palestine, when Jews were a small minority in Palestine (with a history of persecution) and indeed closed to non-Jews. There was a bitter debate about whether it should be open to others. The Israel Communist Party claim to have led those calling for it to be a geeral workers union. It did provide services to non-Jews and joint strikes were occasionally held. The Bund was also an association of Jewish workers, so the Histadrut may have been following a familiar model.

In 1969 the name was changed to the General Association of Workers in Israel and it was opened to all comers. I am still checking to see if the Kupat Holim restricted membership.

Is Suladna a Swedish name?

Have a nice day.

Jonathan Telaviv1 08:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit concerned Kupat Holim and not Haddasah Medical Organization, don't change the subject please. Kupat Holim was the Histradut Sick Fund and hence closed to non-Jews. Even Gilabrand wrote that it provided "the newcomers" with health care, whom do you think these newcomers might be?

Suladna is not my real name, I don't think it's a name at all. Suladna 10:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why you think that the Jews should have provided the Arabs with anything at all. They weren't the rulers - the Ottomans were and the British were. So why WOULD it be their obligation to care for sick Arabs? If they did, they did it out of the goodness of their hearts, but they certainly had no obligation to.--Gilabrand 12:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally do not approve of racial discrimination, but that is not the point. My edit was simply "..with Kupat Holim sick funds and Tipat Halav baby clinics providing Jewish newcomers with health care." I.e. short, concise and NPOV. Suladna 18:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hadassah and the Kupat Holim worked together until the thirties or forties and Hadassah provided funding to kupat holim, so it seems reasonable to assume that Kupat Holim provided some helath care to arabs. I don't think the link you changed specifically mentioned kupat holim. Oh and its 1960 not 1969. I don't think its a change of topic: you should be more charitable, I researched what you were saying and looked for evidence which is more then you did.

As you are so full of good will I can only assume you are also an expert on how well European Christians and Arab Moslems treated minorities at that time.

Telaviv1 13:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand the difference between Hadassah (which many Israeli web sites brag provided healthcare to non-Jews) and Kupat Holim. Kupat Holim was exclusively for members of Histradut, i.e exclusively for Jews. I found your site linking Hadassah to Kupat Holim. In the very same site it says: The number of people receiving Kupat-Holim services increased to 160,000 (members and their families), which was about 20% of the total Jewish population..

"European Christians and Arab Moslems" is yet another change of subject, even if indeed Nazi Germany had organisations that only benefited its Arian population. Suladna 18:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use images

Regarding your submission of Image:Ilan Halimi.jpg for deletion, perhaps you were unaware of wikipedia's criteria for acceptable fair-use, of which this image is an example. Further, the image already has a properly-completed fair-use rationale template specifically enumerating why this image is acceptable. You may wish to rescind the nomination, otherwise, please explain why you do not believe the image is acceptable under fair-use. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, it is considered common courtesy on wikipedia to inform the uploader if you are nominating an image for deletion. Not doing so is a breach of courtesy; please keep that in mind for the future. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see on the talk-page of Halimi, I several days in advance took up the question about the image and asked "Do you agree?". Neither you nor anybody else provided a reply.

I also copied the following text from the very same page that you now refer me to (under the heading Unacceptable images): "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos." So, which I made clear on the talk page, I think it should be removed. Suladna (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of those people with over 1000 pages on my watchlist. That is the reason why notification should occur on the talk page of the uploader. I have responded on the images for deletion page, and would like to point your attention to Image:Sheikahmedyassin300.jpg. Image:JihadAhmedJibril.jpg, Image:AyatAl-Akhras.jpg, and Image:AbuNidal3.gif which are examples of fair use claims of photograph of deceased persons. Even worse, according to your argument, is Image:PAAhmedJibril.jpg which is a fair-use claim of a living person where a free-use version still remains possible? Perchance you wish to list that for deletion too for consistency's sake? Personally, I believe they all conform to wikipedia's policy, but you seem to disagree. -- Avi (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have responded to your respond. As for the other images, I simply don't have the time to scan Wikipedia for every possible non-free image violation. Let's concentrate on Ilan Halimi for now, the others we can take later. Suladna (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Hi Suladna:

Don’t know if you’re aware of it, but you’ve violated WP:3RR on Allegations of Israeli apartheid, which states that a maximum of three revisions may be made in a twenty-four hour period. You’ve made more than that. Ordinarily, I would ask you to self-revert, but as someone has already reverted, I’ll just ask that you refrain from any reversions for the next 24 hours or so. Oh, BTW: is this your first account? I ask mainly because I don’t want to plague you with notices about wiki policy if you know it already. Thanks. IronDuke 00:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not sure why a violator of site rules would be such a staunch defender of Nixon's lack of asininity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.252.82 (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Palestine-Israel conflict

Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

This arbitration has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted. An uninvolved administrator, after issuing a warning, may impose sanctions including blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. The Committee shall convene a working group, composed of experienced Wikipedians in good standing, and task it with developing a comprehensive set of recommendations for resolving the pervasive problem of intractable disputes centered around national, ethnic, and cultural areas of conflict. The group shall be appointed within two weeks from the closure of this case, and shall present its recommendations to the Committee no later than six months from the date of its inception. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israel article

Hello Suladna, I am new here and it seems that I went too far by inserting a (sourced) paragraph about discrimination in the article about Israel. I would appreciate if you could take the time to give your voice in the related discussion. Springwalk (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification motion

A case (Palestine-Israel articles) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick (Talk) 15:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]