To Amerique - I've replied to you in here for reasons of my own, I trust that's alright.

Amerique -> I've had a look over your case description and the contested edits, and I don't think you have a substantial case here. One cannot "prove" the intentions of a nation, much as one cannot "prove" the intentions of the US, for instance, in invading Iraq. All you can do is provide documented evidence to say such and such a thing has happened, and what the consequences were. Providing quotes from soldiers saying they want to "smash Lebanon" does not support the claim that this has "always been the intention of Israel." At best, you could provide quotes from particular Israeli statesmen suggesting they would like to do this, but stated intentions of this sort would not necessarily carry over or translate into "national intentions," as even in Israel there is typically organized (if ineffective) resistance and political opposition to such campaigns.

Amerique -> I suggest focusing further editing on "things that happened" rather than "national intentions," as the later would be very difficult if not impossible to prove and would almost certainly be ridden with WP:NPOV problems from any angle, no matter what source you used. Discussing concrete goals of particular Israeli campaigns would be a more effective way of addressing the same material without getting into the problems of national abstractions. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or would like further advice.--Amerique 00:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm extremely disappointed - your own nation and Israel can legitimately and genuinally claimed to have "national intention". (Perhaps the only 2 nations on earth where this is possible - making it even more inexplicable you should dispute it).

One can "prove" the original intentions of the nation we now know as the USA by reference to the written "intentions of the Founding Fathers". (Subject to some qualification, none of which apply here [1]).

One can similarily "prove" the "intentions of the nation state we know as Israel" by the words of David Ben-Gurion, since he steered the state of Israel into existence. Or by the words of earlier Zionists. It's not even as if his fellows in the Zionist movement leading up to 1948 were striving for some different or "better" relationship with their neighbours - they're even more aggressive. There's something wrong if one cannot ascribe "national intentions" to Israel.

If that's your decision in this particular case then I can only back away, baffled. But I have another question for you - how can I consensually get the following outrageous claim removed from (or modified in) Qiryat Gat?: "Some accounts pointed to a harassment campaign by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), and it is quite likely that many Arab residents were pressured to leave by Israeli forces, the unfortunate side-effect of years of Arab aggression".

This statement in the encyclopedia is in flat denial of the record (UN observers, Quakers and the Israeli Foreign Minister etc etc, some of it covered in Talk:Qiryat Gat) and is an outrageous slur on the innocent victims whose safety and property were specifically guaranteed by the Israeli government. The victims of Lidice would never be treated in this way - surely it cannot possibly be tolerable in the Wikipedia when aimed at Palestinians?

And a third question - it is highly likely that some of the deniers will quickly recognise me and repeatedly post my real name in here (fortunately, they cannot agree what it is, but that doesn't stop it from being highly unpleasant). One of these people took to phoning prominent people in my neighbourhood and viciously slandering me. I can appreciate this is not a problem commonly encountered in the realms of academe, but I'd appreciate your word that the Wikipedia would decisively slap it down.

As I keep telling people, I'm absolutely not interested in an edit-war. Furthermore, I'm aware this project is a delicate flower, operating to rules that I don't yet understand. But over and over, sound referenced sources I insert into the record are unilaterally reversed. No discussion, no suggestions to temper language, no useful suggestions - only totally ahistorical denial, insulting accusations laid at victims (and some deliberately confusing/personally intimidatory comments posted to my own userpage). PalestineRemembered 18:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] the writings of the Founding Fathers don't cover strategic quarrels and actions taken "in the national interest" 200 years later such as invading Iraq, but you know what I mean. The writings of the Founding Fathers are also subject to semantic confusions over the meaning of words such as "the right of the people". But neither of these qualifications are at issue here - David Ben-Gurion, statesman and Commander-in-Chief in 1948, wanted to link the newly formed state with the Maronite Christians in northern Lebanon in 1948. He told us. He'd intended to lead the yet-to-be-formed state in this direction for at least 11 years. Other Zionists wanted a much, much bigger Zionist state, extending from the Nile to the Euphrates. Israel is entirely based on this kind of seizure - there's precious little factual dispute here.

Hi Amerique I just recognized that Excellentone has made the Ama request, kindly you mentioned my wiki-break, I changed it to a semi-wikibreak now, because I got an email someone was telling me the article will maybe deleted. However, please leave your comments also at the NKT talkpage so that other people maybe be able to follow that discussion too. Regarding Kay: his research is highly achknowledged among scientists. Whereas Cozort (I put now more of him in the article too) is mainly relying on NKT sources without questioning them much, Kays fieldresearch is the first time a unbiased study of the subject because he also interviewed former members and people who are critical to NKT and did not only rely what NKT has published or told him. His research shed light on the NKT history which he said himself has been always repressed by NKT. Waterhouse notes rgarding Daniel Cozort: "He discusses this with exclusive reference to NKT internal sources that describe the movement as "an association of independent centres with a weak center" (p. 240). However, fieldwork based accounts of the NKT produced over the last decade consistently find that, regardless of the movement's rhetoric, it is highly controlled, at least in the UK where the majority of its centres can be found. The essay would therefore have been more rounded with reference to academic analysis published in the UK, especially the work of David Kay." Instead of deleting the article we can include futher researchs as I have still suggested at the talk page:

We can use also the book British Buddhism, Teachings, Practice and Development by Robert Bluck, published in August 2006 if you think Kay is used onesided. For an extract please see: A ‘post-Tibetan’ Western organization?--Kt66 23:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waht do you think on that? --Kt66 23:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]