Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg
- Archive of Previous Username 23 October 2005- 31 January 2006
- Archive 1 6 November 2005- 16 March 2006
- Archive 2 18 March 2006- 15 April 2006
- Archive 3 15 April 2006- 3 May 2006
- Archive 4 3 May 2006- 29 May 2006
- Archive 5 29 May 2006- 3 June 2006
- Archive 6 3 June 2006- 12 July 2006
- Archive 7 14 July 2006- 5 November 2006
I'm first!
Yes, go for it, by all means. Actually, I originally objected to the whole article on the grounds that there was no evidence given that it's used as a term in political science. There seem to be a couple of citations now but I can't access all of them. It's still not great. In any case, a list would almost certainly be regularly filled up with states different editors objected to for nationalistic or ideological views, which even if they were able to find citations for it - as might well be the case - still wouldn't make a good article.
And anyway, is there such a thing as a non-artificial state? Aren't all states human creations anyway? How can you really say that France is more "natural" than Iraq? (And while I'm ranting, is there any reason for terming Robert Fisk a "geopolitical critic", whatever that is, other than the obvoius one of making him sound like a respectable source for an article about a type of state?) Palmiro | Talk 18:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, all those are interesting points, but is this article a valid and useful framework in which to discuss them? The articles on state, nationalism and related topics might be more the place for them. I've put in a 'weak delete' vote on the AFD - after all we do have a lot of articles on ideas at least as vague as this and on various terms of political abuse, so purely on the grounds of consistency I can see why people would argue to keep it. I'd encourage you to have your say there too, either way.
- I would say in an off-the-top-of-my-head response to your remarks about nationalism, that nationalism is a force that can certainly result in the creation of states, and that can be used to strengthen existing states. But states existed before nationalism, and indeed the concept of an artificial state as it appears in some of the examples given seems like it may amount largely to a failure to recognise that nationalism is not the unique and natural basis for the establishment of states. No doubt we could discuss this at length, but unfortunately I have a pressing deadline - which of course is why I'm spending time on Wikipedia. When it's time to procrastinate, nothing beats the internet! Palmiro | Talk 00:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I wrote the article in the first place last winter one night. It is a difficult topic and poorly defined even in the literature, that is why I left it in that horrible state with all the tags. --Deodar 18:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Time to go I think. I couldn't make it into a proper article anyways, and I put in a good effort. I also let the article sit for almost a year in a bad state and no one really was able to fix it either. --Deodar 20:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Response: [1]. I'll stay out of it now, you guys can do what you want. --Deodar 02:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Can you explain why you removed the following cited, relevant information from Human rights in Israel
Rights of Women
In it's 2005 report to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Amnesty International notes its concern about agunot (chained women): "Jewish religious divorce laws discriminate against women by making divorce for a woman conditional on her husband’s consent, whereas a man can be "released" from his marriage through the signature of 100 rabbis. Even though religious courts can take certain measures (including imposing fines and even prison sentences) against a husband whose refusal to grant a divorce to his wife is considered unjustified by the competent religious authorities, ultimately a woman whose husband refuses to grant her a get (divorce decree) has no recourse." [1] Amnesty International also criticizes the custom that the illegitimate children of married Jewish women are considered mamzerim who face restrictions and stigma, yet the illegitimate children of married Jewish men are not. According to Amnesty International, "These discriminatory laws prevent women who find themselves in unhappy marriages, or whose husbands beat them up, rape them or otherwise abuse them, to obtain divorce if their husbands refuse. These laws and their implementation violate the right to equality and the right to marry and found a family."
FuManChoo 07:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)?
You are aware that deleting civil talk messages is uncivil behaviour and a violation of WP:TALK? FuManChoo 09:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)