Tony Robinson

Goodbye to many friends and acquaintences.

Neil, Ceedjee, Avruch, Tewfik, Malik Shabazz, Imad, John Carter, Itzse, Eleland, Ashley, PhilKnight, LamaLoLeshla, ColourintheMeaning, Nomoskedasticity,Pedrito, ZScarpia, Petercohen, IanPitchford, PR, dearest Tiamut, RolandR, Steve SM8900, Sposer, Nickhh, Currie and G-Dett, Pinkville, Gatoclass, Jaakobou, and many more that don't come spontaneously to mind, but should figure.

Rather than blanking this page, I think the correct procedure is to archive it.

I've always in life and in wiki, hit out hard at the slightest sign of prejudice, especially antisemitism. I dislike at the same time the use of that word with malice aforethought, carelessly, of people like myself with a critical temper. Fling it about with tactical cynicism, and the potency of the tremendous burden the term wears to attuned mind is deadened, and the concept itself becomes what real antisemites would like it to become, dead coinage, a token in the deflated currency of cheap slang matches. So over the last few days, while registering mild disgruntlement, making due warnings, and nudging a person who did, whatever he might say, insinuate that I was antisemitic (from an article I took pride in cleaning up, and where he and co,. have edited poorly), to retract. I felt it odd that this simply passed by as though it were on a par with any other casual taunt, or impromptu piece of reproving tattle, like calling me an paranoid egotist with an inferiority superiority complex, a gross infringement of I/P editing rules that was met with administrative silence, though customarily it is the sort of attack that earns its launcher immediate suspension. I was strongly tempted to ask for administrative action, but didn't because such a step might have borne with it a semblance that I was using a complaint as a pretext to get rid of Amoruso from the Lehi page (apart from my native grain, that blokes don't whinge. Which is true, but only because they can slug it out, at least verbally, which you can't on wiki). After however a further succession of remarks twisting the record and my remarks out of all recognition, I did endeavour to register that protest. But I did not know how to apply my request to the appropriate forum. Amoruso obliged me, and I added my comment on the page. It shaped up as though I, who have spent many days trying to bring evidence, sources, rationally assayed, to a difficult issue, was indeed the culprit. This together with the sudden archiving (no doubt accidental) of the whole Lehi page where our recent interchanges had taken place, and the fact that my efforts to elicit evidence for assertions were met with abstract rule-waving that ignored what is disruptive behaviour that betrays no trace of intelligent editing, broke the straw of the camel's back. Yeats was on my mind, some figure of a salmon popping into mind until I recalled the words, This is no country for old men'. This is indeed Byzantium, not Yeats's, but 'byzantine' in the sense of an infinite Kafkian labyrinth of intricately wikilawyered regulations that, fastidiously applied irrespective of the real content questions at stake, can make a mockery of anyone seriously committed to bring to this difficult area of the encyclopedia an informed, and impartial contribution, when they must edit in a milieu where scalp-taking deliquency is not infrequent. It's, on the positive side, a world for the young, their vitality, speed and high intelligence undergirds a project that appeals to me because it is financially disinterested, if not politically neutral. The old are therefore not of much use, what they have learnt in several decades, in composition, the sedulous survey of sources for relevance, and reading, is frail when face to face with, in certain editors, wilful mischief, disattention to details, endless prevarication inspissate (a word beloved of T.E.Lawrence) with vapid opinionizing, carelessness with language, riding on the back of their passionate convictions. It's been a great two years. I hope something of what I contributed will stick. A word to Ceedjee. Imad went to some trouble to get those quotes from Amin's memoirs. I hope when you get round to helping with that page, you can position it in some form. I would really have liked to have pushed through to the end, and made it finally to GA standards. But I've just erased a file of 50 pages of notes accumulated on the subject over the last year to make sure this is my last appearance here.

No comments, one way or another, please. This is not compelled (and therefore no one but myself is responsible), but a choice I've made. And Neil, if you can archive this page tomorrow morning (I stilll have a copy to make and a few other things). Best regards. Ciao wiki! Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Replies

• Hi. Wow, hard to believe. sorry if you feel things got a bit negative. by the way people are always free to change their minds around here. Just wanted to mention that. Hope all your efforts and activities go well. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• I respect your decisions, but allow me to protest to this one? Differences and disputes with other editors are always going to exist, but is leaving WP the solution? In all cases, you surely have made WP a better place during your presence here, and I do hope that you will change your mind about leaving. Imad marie (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• You have also shown me that you are an extremely useful and informed editor, and we would be better off with you present. Having said that, I do note that the content with which you deal is among the most contentious we have, and that opinions regarding the content will often create bad blood. That does not mean that the project is not better for your presence. And, for what it's worth, I am in the process of trying to find a way to write a Wikinews article on Gabriel's Vision, based on the information you have given me. Unfortunately, I don't think I've ever written one before, so it might take a while. I would hope that you would return, as your insight and knowledge have been vital to the project in the past, and I have every reason to believe that they would be just as important in the future. John Carter (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not far off in joining you, basically because of what's going on over there and because of many similar reasons. As Wikipedia gets bigger and worse not better; the noose is being constantly tightened against us. To give our free labor, is a privilege we are told; Wikipedia is not a Democracy we are also told; what it is we aren't told. I wish I knew what will be the end with WP, and make my decision now based on that, but lacking a crystal bowl, I'll need to make a judgment call to stay or quit. Although we disagree a lot, and I don't feel that we disagree that much, because deep deep down in your soul, I know that you know I'm right; but nevertheless I found you intellectually stimulating. I think meeting you in Rome and having a long discussion is much cheaper and much more worthwhile then wasting our time here. Maybe I'll even be able to change you back into a friend of the Jews or at least get you to be neutral. Smart people, learn from the mistakes of others, ordinary people learn from their own mistakes, and fools never learn. Itzse (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think you will find many people who are a more genuine, real friend of the Jews than Nishidani. --NSH001 (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • You got a point there. He did at times exclaim awe of the Jewish people, but worked untiringly for the interests of the Palestinians. I will dare say that the length he took to defend the Palestinians equaled the depth of his admiration of the Jews. Itzse (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• I am happy enough to comply with your request to archive this page, which I will do tomorrow (it's certainly long overdue for archiving). However I'm not going to refrain from commenting on your (I hope not permanent) departure. You are an exceptionally valuable editor. I don't have anything like your intimate acquaintance with the relevant sources on Israel-Palestine articles. Like you, I find editing I-P articles distressing, which is why I only do it intermittently. I see it as part of my wiki job to give you some moral support here, which is why your sudden departure is such a blow (and I'm well aware that I could have given you more support recently, but my wiki time is limited). You have made enormous improvements to Wikipedia, and it's been a pleasure reading your contributions. Best wishes, and I hope you'll be able to come back here when you feel able and ready. --NSH001 (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• I regret your decision, which will leave some of us even more exposed. Having gained one scalp, those apparently intent on manipulating Wikipedia for partisan ends may feel emboldened to target others. Your erudition, and your patience in discussion, have been exemplary, and will be greatly missed. I continue to hope that you will reconsider, though I recognise that there are more important things in life. I'm sure that you will a valuable contribution wherever you continue your work. RolandR (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Salut. Ce n'est pas nécessairement une mauvaise chose de quitter wikipedia. C'est par de nombreux aspects un poison et une perte de temps incroyable. A l'occasion d'un voyage, ce serait avec plaisir que je te rencontrerais pour "refaire le monde" :-) Amitiés. Ceedjee (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Come back! It's getting lonely over in Jerusalem. On the other hand, maybe we could all use a break. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC) By the way, for the record, Nishidani called attention to user:Cush's anti-semitic inuendo ("Jew Crew"); when I tried to engage Cush in a dialogue, Nishidani's reaction was, "just ban him! zero tolerance for antisemitism".
• Very glad to see you back just now. Hope you stay. It's rather more boring without you!John Z (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Potential copyright issue

Nishidani, I notice that you have a near 1000 word quote on your user page. Aside from the fact that User page should not be used for polemical speeches (see Wikipedia:UP#NOT), I suspect that an extremely lengthy quotation like this is a copyright violation. Could you confirm whether or not it is, indeed, a copyright violation? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The copyright is fine. "CPT material is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License." [1]
--NSH001 (talk) 07:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added a copyright notice according to the terms of the licence.

--NSH001 (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

AN post misplaced

Hi, I've noticed that you have placed a comment sorta "out of order" on AN. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=229760669&oldid=229759781 please and see what I'm referring to. You have placed your comment inbetween an ongoing conversation. The reply below yours was intended to be after G-Dett, not yours. If you would fix it, I would appreciate it as it does mix up the reading order. —— nixeagle 12:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Attitude to RfCs

Hi Nishidani - thought you might be interested to see this comment yesterday. It can be enjoyed alone, or one might compare it with this from the day before. My well-known weaknesses as a thinker probably make it impossible for me to work out what important principles of the project are on display.

I don't think I'm canvassing, but just in case I'll send it to User:Nixeagle as well. PR^talk 09:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Pure condescension from a pseud in Polonius's corner but

I'm breaking my rule again, but this is not editing, which I deeply enjoy, and therefore . . . Twenty years ago I spent a week arguing night and day with a friend on the proposition 'If I am hit by a thrown stone, no matter whoever threw it, I am to blame'. My friend lives in terms of this principle of absolute responsibility. I think that, philosophically, I won the argument, i.e., that it is simply not operationally true, though psychoanalytically there is a deep truth hidden there (and my friend was a diagnosed 'schizophrenic' successfully treated by psychoanalysis), in that we are by nurture and nature, driven to be complicit in the world's woes while, on a conscious plane, deploring them and disavowing our personal responsibility. Still I accept that it is a useful moral myth, worth adopting. The advice my anecdote is intended to proffer is, I hope, evident. Never allow situations to arise in which you feel you are the victim. You do, read by others, appear to seek out situations in which you are personally challenged. You will find an inexhaustible number of people ready to exploit an heroic frailty of this order. If you have an inkling, however well founded, that this is how you feel, then you'll have to work it off. Bringing it into your edits is precisely what those who would rid wiki of your presence desire. If these situations recur and you play by the standard rules, then you are indeed complicit. Use occasions, where that possiility is being prompted by provocative edits, to examine your conscience, rather than indulge in (an otherwise justifiable) sense of outrage. In a certain sense, we also construct our grievances, and when one reads a vignette like, to name one of many, 'Tagar and the Teepee Family' (in Henryk Broder’s A Jew in the New Germany 2003 pp.124-129, from memory. It deals with an American Jewish couple who settled in Hebron), one should murmur, if one reads deeply, 'I too can see myself in this', though the story invites, on one plane, the reader to view those it describes as bizarre. Take a break, reflect on your conviction of certainty, which is a dangerous thing to have, use your extensive knowledge frugally, to enrich the texts, not to bait those who bait you, and, please, lastly, try an experiment. Find two figures within Judaism or Jewry, and Palestinian culture who have yet to earn themselves the page due to them, research them, and write the two bios up with care, contemporaneously. For Palestine I suggest Yitzak Shami, the Hebronite writer. Not to convince those who hunt for your scalp to lay off. But overfocusing on I/P conflicts, and not on many other dimensions that are less conflictual, is balm to the self, or, if you will, the soul. Best wishes. It is summer, enjoy it. Apologies for the paternalism, and goodbye for now Nishidani (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand what you're getting at, but I don't think it has much to say in real life. For example, racists make people's lives hell, and the solution is to name and shame and protest and strike back. Yes, smug people will treat you (and your supporters) as immersed in victimhood, but it's a lot better than trying to ignore it (or avoid it and let someone else take the rap). Ditto in a place like this, nobody came to this project to cheat, nobody really likes seeing it, and most people can see it (even if they often pretend not to). Tell me what you think of this - is it a policy-compliant revert or is it IDONTLIKEIT vandalism? PR^talk 18:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has little do do with real life. It is mostly, a drug, like the Net, except that there are many fine mainliners of splendid intelligence using it to sift wheat from the chaff. The labour of love is dyke-fingering, in the Dutch sense, naturally, against the tsunami of disinformatsiya. I have nothing against drugs of course, and have taken most that have come my way, for limited periods.

As for the antagonist you seem intent on facing down in a virtual replay of Wyatt and the Clanton gang (and you will lose, not because the victimizer will prove to be smarter, but simply because he will never be hampered by any sentimental idealism, or sense of justice, a fatal weakness in these duels), I have nothing to say except, off the cuff, I think of a remark Karl Kraus made in 1934.

But I see my advice is not understood, so, rather than pontificate orphically,...Best wishes on whatever trip you take, PR. Regards Nishidani (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I hinted last night that I'd take (or was taking) your invaluable advice to self-suspend for a period. It's not clear anyone even noticed I'd said this, which probably accounts for the uninterrupted discussion of sanctions against me. This morning I see it casually suggested here that I'm somehow comparable to a well-known and very large-scale cheat, who undoubtedly damaged dozens of articles with his abusive sock-puppetry, personal aggression, wiki-lawyering and edit-warring. (The case is here - the brave editor who raised it shortly left the project). That particular case bears examination for other reasons, and not just because most articles touched by Former User 2 in his 7,000 edits were almost certainly damaged by his conduct. Every effort was made keep this heavy-duty cheat on board - he was even absolved from divulging what other sock-puppets he'd been using! The UserPages of each of his two known sock-puppets User:Clintonesque and User:Teens! were deleted, making it impossible to check what they'd been up to. I was chastised and reverted for going to a few of the damaged articles and informing people there'd been serious cheating at work. I could have more to say on the subject of protecting abusive sock-puppetery, but with your e-mail not enabled, your delicate ears are protected from it. PR^talk 09:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Review of evidence

Your review of evidence on WP:AN is amazing. You've systematically destroyed pretty much every claim and every piece of innuendo against PR, while exposing those who just want him gone regardless of the cost, for what they really are. Keep up the good work! -- Mark Chovain 22:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

While I found it difficult to follow due to its sheer length. Are you sure it can't be stated as a more condensed and accessible account. El_C 05:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Issues

I have sent G-Dett some of the issues that have been raised to me and/or Ryan regarding PR's editing. I am awaiting his responses, comments, or corrections about them. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Nishdani. As I said on the other page, I recognize and appreciate PR's intelligence, and I understand that he has a distinct point of view (which is completely acceptable, it is how that affects wiki editing that is the issue) as do many other people, myself included. What makes it somewhat more difficult for me is that my natural point of view is somewhat antipodal to PR's, so I need to be extremely careful when discussing issues with him, or about him, to ensure, both for myself and for others, that I am not letting any personal beliefs interfere with what I believe is the proper behavior on wikipedia.

At this point, PR has developed a reputation; some view it as a good reputation—others view it poorly. Regardless, his edit content and style has made him a focal point of discussion, for good or ill. That, in and of itself, is not good for the project, and I think that in order for the project, and the highly contentious issues of the I/P articles in particular, it behooves everyone to minimize issues of personality and discuss content as calmly as possible. With the now near instinctive reaction that PR engenders, that is very difficult. I had hoped that mentoring would have had some success, as it has with Jaakobu, who runs nearly every controversial edit in front of his mentors, and has demonstrated a distinct improvement in the areas of civility. I am not certain PR has done that. PR has also run through multiple mentors. Nishdani, what does that tell you?

As such, I think it would be good for everyone, including PR, if he took a vacation from I/P articles for a while. Upon return, demonstrating the ability to converse civilly with opponents, and the ability to compromise on a consensus, would go a long way in allowing whatever is in PR's past to remain quiescent.

As for possible discrepancies between how PR is treated as respects other editors, I am sure that people from the other camp have examples where they feel they were treated unequally. Moreover, as dispassionate as it may sound, it is an inherently destabilizing situation to allow improper behavior in one camp to balance improper behavior in another. Editors who create difficulty, from any ideological camp, need to be addressed on their own merits (Isarig, Zeq, etc. come to mind). I agree that other editors' behaviors should be discussed, but i do not believe that is then an exemption for PR's behavior.

I appreciate your taking the time to explain your position, I understand it, and I hope I have made my understanding of the situation as clear as I could. I would appreciate any comment or corrections of any misunderstandings that I may have. Thank you for your time and patience. -- Avi (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion, please. What I too extreme in my response on WP:AN? -- Avi (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; you understood what I meant, and you expressed it more eloquently than I could have to Palestineremembered. I appreciate it. -- Avi (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for an apology at all. I am also glad that I wrote that "very few" of us are orators, as opposed to none . -- Avi (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi N. Thanks for your note on Agamben. Re: ArbCom, I believe anybody can file a request. I might do it, as I mentioned at the AN discussion. Wanted to let you know that I just posted a note about this on PR's Talk. Ciao. HG | Talk 03:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Crazy world

Thank you for your support.
I really thought that such things could not happen. Once again, on wp:fr, he would already be banned forever.
I know you don't like coercitive methodes but, well, it is a little bit hard to understand.
I don't have time to argue with "no argument"... Too much time ocnsuming.
Here my last work fr:Bataille de Latroun (1948). I know you don't like much articles on war operations but I am quite proud of this. I invite you to read the "historiography" sections... I was not aware of that before. Ceedjee (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee

Re your attack on my block on his talk page, can you explain what exactly was wrong with my NPOV'ing of the article, and the statement that I "will not leave a trace on the articles you defended"? пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI Nishidani, you might like to know that the block has been overturned at AN/I. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ne te tracasse pas. Ce n'est pas bien grave mais c'est très désolant.

J'espère que l'échantillon d'éditeurs israliens n'est pas représentatif de toute la société bien que je craingne fort que oui.

Quand je pense à tout mes antécédents pro-Israéliens et à mes amis juifs, j'ai parfois peur.

Bon, la "bonne foi" n'est pas le propre de l'homme mais là, franchement...

Surtout, reste calme. Ca ne sert à rien de s'énerver...

Et puis, c'est une belle revenge d'écrire en français. Ils vont tous penser qu'on les insulte alors qu'il n'en est rien ;-)

Bonne continuation mais dis moi ce que tu penses sur la partie historiographie. Tu peux poster sur la page de discussion de fr:user:Latroun.

Amitiés, Ceedjee (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thx for your message on wp:fr.

I appreciate this.

Take care. Ceedjee (talk) 07:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

NB: Indeed Arab and Palestinian historiographies are poor and not well developed... But for Latrun, we can understand. For the 1948 exodus, that is something different and more difficult to handle with NPoV and accuracy. Ceedjee (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Retired wounded, awarded Purple Barnstar

		The Purple Barnstar
		For injuries received in service to the cause of good writing and historical accuracy. May you make a full recovery. PRtalk 14:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Now now, standards, if you insist on returning so quickly

I browse at times. You posted on the M.Durrah page. The points were at times useful, but please don't editorialize ('illiterates'). Be brief, to the point. And above all, check and cross-check. The French foreign minister Karsenty alludes to is not M.Hubert Vardin, but Hubert Védrine. The Canadian Jewish source you cited seems to be playing a rather shifty little game of innuendo by an error that, as it stands, is a rather sly allusion to the German spy Hubert Vardin in a short story by Conan Doyle. Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I considered myself released from my obligation to you. Who would have supposed that the Zionist source I quoted would deliberately mislead us? PR^talk 20:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No apologies needed. You have no obligation to me whatsoever. You have, as all do, an obligation to strive to meet the best standards of wiki editing, to justify our faith in your abilities.

p.s. (a) you use 'Zionist' rather mindlessly. This is a Jewish Canadian source. Learn to use le mot juste. You use adverbs rather wildly, as above 'deliberately'. That is an inference about the source on your part, and to use the adverb only feeds the imaginations of those who would argue you may at times think in conspiratorial terms. (I myself imagined (a) a slip of the 'pen' (b) a coincidence (c) a copy-editor, with a love of the minor short stories of Conan Doyle, making a private joke for friends). If you had an obligation to me, it would have been to behave with such propriety of analysis and language, that I should never succumb to the temptation to return to editing wiki, since qualitative improvements in the meantime would prove that no one is indispensable, and thus bludging fogies like myself might better enjoy their superannuation (and superfetation of words) pottering quietly in their gardens (instead of feeling that my observance of temporal distinctions in the classical English verbal system leaves much to be desired). Good luck, PR Nishidani

I discovered something interesting - Adam Smith observes that capitalists "seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." But this does not make "The Wealth of Nations" a "conspiracy theory"! PR^talk 20:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but only for for those who never take the trouble to read the rest of the book, or at least ponder at length Book 4, chapter 2 (Everyman's edition, J.M.Dent 1975 pp.400ff.). Smith knew that merchants pushed to rig things to their own interest (as all lobbies do). They did not know however much if anything about the mechanisms relating to the way their countries, as opposed to their own interests, were enriched by the extension of market principles (ibid. p.380). There is an 'invisible hand' at work which promotes ends that the merchant himself is unaware of. Conspiracy theorists confuse the merchant with the 'invisible hand', which is an aggregate of interests including, but extending far beyond, the immediate calculations of individual economic agents.

Let me illustrate. Some think Zionism a conspiracy. Yet Zionism began as a project of secular nationalists to redeem Jewry from the stunting, obscurantist malaise of life in the shtetl where identity was keyed to religious traditions. It was bitterly opposed by the rabbinate. Now, it is the religious tradition which threatens Zionism's germinal secularism, as the religious right exerts constant pressure on the state to transform the nation into a vehicle for religious redemption. This is the law of unintended consequences, and its effects are far more prevalent in historical events than any ostensible 'conspiracy'.

Conspiracy theories in historical, political and economic thought have the same status as God in a scientific worldview, i.e., they provide simpletons with a specious 'solution' for problems of great complexity (generally see Philip Ball’s Critical Mass: How one thing leads to another). The fact that there is a certain formulaic similarity between Smith's statement and the proemion of Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion owes much to the fact that the latter is written to vindicate a feudal aristocracy whose power was destroyed by the mercantile forces that backed the Enlightenment whose emerging role Smith's theory justified. Antisemites confuse two distinct things, individual mercantile calculations, which are restricted to limited contexts, and the 'invisible hand' which is the logic of aggregate demand and supply. Smith's 'invisible hand' has been traced to Macbeth, but the proper source is Hamlet's:-

There is a divinity that shapes our ends

Rough-hew them as we will.

The divinity became, under the Smithian dispensation, the aggregate economy under conditions of unrestrained trade, merchants just rough-hewers among many other social actors. There is therefore nothing 'conspiratorial' in Smith's analysis. That Smith's materialistic reduction of 'God' as the founding principle of rational order (creation) is by now an ideological construct, that confuses the idea of a pure market with 'nature', and endows the former with the attributes and principles medieval minds associated with a divinely infused nature, is obvious.

If you can't bother with Adam Smith read Emma Rothschild's, Economic Sentiments: Adam Smith, Condorcet, and the Enlightenment, Harvard UP 2001 chapter 5. Conspiracies require omniscience and omnipotence, qualities only God had, until Nietzsche wrote his obituary. In one sense, there is just one vast conspiracy for which there is overwhelming evidence, and to which Sterne alluded in having Walter Shandy remark that, 'The world is in a conspiracy to drive out what little wit God has given us', a quip the Monty Python philosopher Eric Idle played off in the final words of his Galaxy Song. Nishidani 14:44, 25 August 2008

You've lost me a bit - the neo-cons could have plotted together to have 911 for immediate ideological or war-profiteering motives, but the "invisible hand" could have been a primeval realisation that it's time for a cull.

And I was under the impression that the Zionists (at least, the important branch, which was not Herzl's wing) were old-fashioned Russian/East European pre-Bolsheviks who could see no means to seize the Czarist wealth, needed a refuge to avoid the secret police, and which, in the event, instead opened their eyes to a people easy to dominate. They were not driven by religion, but by easy pickings and revolutionary zeal.

There's an extraordinary situation going on at the Jewish Internet Defense Force, where one guy and his recently formed group is considered entitled to an article, whereas much bigger, more significant groups of quite careful anti-Zionists are considered not entitled to the same thing. PR^talk 17:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The Neocons are not intelligent enough to mount a conspiracy. Everything they officially planned went wrong, as most neutral analysts said it would. What they aspired to do politically was announced long before, publicly. Conspirators do not go public. The most one can say of 9/11 (as with many other so called conspiracies from within) on the evidence is that certain branches of government or certain individuals within some governments may have been aware of a risk or even of the plot, but withheld that knowledge because they saw the obvious political advantages in having something like this occur. Keeping mum, and letting things happen, as they are planned even by one's enemies (Bin Laden and the Kandahar tapes), is far more prevalent in history than actual centralized conspiracies. To embrace 'conspiracies' is to cultivate 'paranoia' and one of the things about paranoia is that it tends to miss the obvious elements and facts in its pursuit of the devious 'Truth', which unlike the obvious which is often complex and messy, embraces everything in a crushingly simplistic hug. That is why, as with antisemitism, conspiracies appeal to simpletons (Antisemitism is the socialism of fools, it has been well said).

The way you view early Zionists is extremely simplified, confusing and, if I understand you, plain wrong. Reread, slowly, Lenni Brenner. In any case, Zionism succeeded because of (a)fundamental mistakes made on several crucial occasions by the Arab elites of Palestine. Amin al-Husayni is vilified in Zionist historiography, but they should build a monument to him, and (b) the Second World War and Hitler's Holocaust. Without this latter factor, most Jews would have done what they had usually done, opted for emigration to Western Europe or America if the chronic antisemitism of the Slavic East had not been reined in. Hitler's gift ('gift' in the German sense of a 'poison') to the West was to destroy one of the greatest creative elites within the West, and turn many of its survivors into troubled nationalists within, or emotionally committed to, an enclave in the Arab world, while depriving the Arab world of the leavening genius of its historically settled Jewish diaspora communities.

You really must cultivate a ticklish sense of irony and humour. The Jewish Internet Defense Force is a rather comical piece, using wiki to bignote a shoe-string operation. The title tells it all, in its confusion of what is virtually a one-man show posing as a massive ethnic force de frappe. I'd advise you not to mess with it, but merely, as many, sit back and enjoy the spectacle. There are intelligent people around who will bring its major delusions to heel.

I hope we are not violating any wiki rules by using this page as a consultancy on general issues you think I may be able to help you with. Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Names

I always use names, where available...both sides....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at arbitration procedures for future reference as I can see it needing arbitration later...crystal ball gazing...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani the Heron section is not about Palestinian settler violence as the violence in that section is from Israeli state parties not settlers (apart from the diplomats being attacked).... Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Tips are always welcome...rule books I prefer to forget, common sense should be enough, unfortunately on ME subjects it is not....Thanks....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hebron has been non-Jewish for 95% of its history...with minor Jewish input for the rest...even the early history Hebron was Jewish controlled rather than a Jewish city..The cave of patriarchs is a crusader invention for tourism (pilgrims) for the cash flow (pilgrims only went to Jerusalem and it was done to encourage Latin settlements outside the area) as the site of the original cave had become disused....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That is caricature, and if sourced, badly so. Rabbi Pinhas ben Hama spoke of it eight centuries before the Crusades. As for the early period, you are quite right that huge confusion arises from a Biblico-centric reading of Palestine/Israel and of using 'the Jews' to refer to a coherent tribal unity when historically we are dealing with a diverse congeries of groups whose descendents found their identity in the religious chronicles written in Hebrew. You underestimate the intensity of Jewish rabbinical attachment to the sacred topography of the Bible, something that has motivated consistent aliyah to places like Jerusalem and Hebron. The 'ethnic' majorities governing an area do not necessarily define its identity. For a large part of time, Turks dominated the Greek world, but that doesn't mean that the Greek attachment to their ancestral land must yield place to a predominantly Turkish reading, throughout the centuries down to the 1900s.

I do know that the cave of patriarchs was revered but by the time of the crusades the practice of visiting had fallen into disuse. Richard The crusades c. 1071-c 1291. ISBN 0521625661 and was then re-invented by the Latins as a recruiting aid....and yes I do "bite" although not in anger, it's more a pavlovian response, it's the inversion of reality that I'm responding to......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting hyperbole...Yes I am contented, which I count against myself in this benighted world...and yes my time would be better spent in research and writing than quibbling, it's a habit I should control more, only I get a perverse pleasure in sticking the occasional pin in...I do take your point an will try to curb it...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we move on splitting contemporary Hebron off from Historical Hebron?....PS I appreciate your "Turn of Phrase" and use of the English language, some of it is very elegant and always well crafted....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Assumption for future reference

(1) Anti-semitism as a generic trait applicable to most non-JewsNishidani (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

you forgot "and some Jews." Come on Nishidani, it's not like you actually like the Jewish people. You seem like you're fairly well educated. One cannot objectively look at the entire scope of Jewish history (even EXCLUDING the Holocaust) and not walk away with the thought that the majority of people have not taken kindly to the Jews. My apologies if I have learned the lessons of my history and walk away with the conclusion that most people hate me for being Jewish. The only times non-Jews seem to like Jews, is when those Jews also take an antagonistic stance toward other Jews (Chomsky, Finkelstein, the NK.) Or when Jews care so much about trying to make the non-Jews love them that they go to extremes in order to try to be loved ("Peace Now" and other such Jewish liberal organizations, etc) While I do assume most people hate the Jewish people, I also know that there is such a thing (while extremely rare) as a righteous gentile. Certainly anyone who lives by the 7 laws of Noah is considered to be righteous according to Jewish tradition. My definition is a little different. Who among the Jew haters will go out of their way to fight that impulse deep within their souls to hate the Jews (or in the modern sense, Israel?) Who among the Jew haters will fight that urge to the point where they can actually objectively look at the Jewish people and Jewish history and not hate us because we are still here and not envy us because we are alive and continue to strive despite all odds? Who can actually look at the situation in the Middle East and objectively understand (through slicing through all the layers of a seriously biased/leftist and ironically oftentimes "Jewish" media) that the Jewish people are not aggressors and only want to live in peace among their neighbors? How many can take an honest look to see that throughout history the Jews have proven so often to rush to the defense of everyone but themselves? Why is do so many carry this disdain for the Jew who defends himself and who triumphs---not buy blowing himself up or committing mass murder, but through merely living and surviving and trying to contribute to humanity in good and wholesome ways? Today, this attitude toward the Jews has manifested itself in hatred toward Israel. It is not my imagination. It is apparent. The world thought the "Jewish problem" would be solved after the Holocaust, but what happened? The Jews pop out of the ovens to re-inhabit their land and with their own defensive force to defend it. Nothing more has solidified my faith more than the fact that despite all attempts throughout history to rid this world of Jews, that we still exist. Sorry to disappoint you.  ;) I write this not to cause any problems but to expand upon my point of view and assumptions which you felt the need to simplify here for some reason. I guess you wanted to chat. --Einsteindonut (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't like or dislike any 'people'. I like or dislike individuals. Nations and ethnic groups are just fictions. I have my background, full of genocide, contempt, ethnic slurs and centuries long persecution. I don't wear it as a badge of distinction or something to defend. In this, I am like the Jewish intellectuals I most admire, and perhaps owe the insight that I am human before I am anything else, to their drawing the conclusion first and redeeming me with the eloquence and trenchency of their insights into tribalism and its stereotypes.Nishidani (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you expand more upon this "nations and ethnic groups are just fictions?" thought of yours? I believe that shows a dangerous disregard toward all history and identity. Perhaps you misunderstood my take of my history. I'm not saying my background of awful things is something to defend, but I have a moral obligation to prevent them from happening in the future. It's a shame it seems you have admittedly bought into certain Jewish individuals' overwhelming desire to run from their histories and from what they are. I urge you to not buy into that. It's just mishegas. Perhaps consider embracing who you are and your history. It's our differences which should be celebrated. We are not all the same. Denying the fact that there are nations and ethic groups is the true fiction here, and also a true concern. Ideology is typically a long way away from reality. Mind if I ask your background? --Einsteindonut (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't many read serious books, do you? If you did, you would have understood my allusion and not confused what I said with a 'thought' of mine. See Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities rev.ed. 1992 Verso London, and Ernest Gellner's Nationalism, Basil Blackwell, 1983, who trace the concept back to Renan. My background is the books I read. 'Ethnically', I am Irish, most of my forebears hail from that people, who suffered from forced exodus and long-term genocidal policies long before that concept was thoroughly modernized by Ataturk and Hitler. Nishidani (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"You don't many read serious books, do you?" No, but I have read me some Dr. Seuss. Spare me the insults please. I came here in peace not to attack you. Appreciate the insight into your background. Just curious. What about your religious background? Sorry I have not read Benedict Anderson's book. I'll check it out. You stated this idea as if it were your own, so I assumed that it was. I'm still confused by what you meant by it. What does it mean to you? Personally I'd treat any work that proposed that idea as fiction itself. --Einsteindonut (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No insult intended. The notion's a commonplace, and I thought anyone reasonably well-read would recognize this. Thomas Cooper scandalised many when he called the notion of a nation 'a grammatical fiction' created to save us using periphrases to say what we mean. But that was 200 years ago. If the nation has roots in an ethnic identity, i.e. race, then it still remains true that, given the mongrelization of mankind through history, a Yemenite Jew will have, culturally more or common with a Saudi than a secular Ashkenazi from an upper-middle class German background would have with both (the history of Zionism is riven with this contradiction). Culture always trumps 'race', which appeals to the worst in us, our pathologically jejune instincts for the pseudo-securities of tribal life, one of the blights seeded into Western civilisation, rather uniquely, by the divine authority of the Bible. Like all nations, Israel was founded to invent an identity that collapsed differences. I dislike homogeneity in any form, esp. when I see it everywhere in the three or four usual opinions trotted out when any topic is broached.

As to religion, my background is the same as yours, since we were both raised on the Bible. When I was old enough, 8, to choose for myself what to read by preference, I quickly took to Greek myths: they fed my imagination, and required no theology, or literalist allegiance, and were properly understood as tools to think with, not fairy-tales to believe in.Nishidani (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some people read different things than others. I'm not sure if I agree with your statements with regard to "race" appealing to the worst of us. I'm not sure if you are claiming that the Jews are a "race." Nor do I think "race" has much to do with "tribal life" or see how it is a blight on Western Civilization. I completely disagree with you with regard to the founding of Israel. Which "Israel" is it you speak? The people, Israel? The Biblical Land of Israel? Modern-day Israel? I believe Israel has tried to celebrate differences, not collapse them. It's one of the most culturally and religiously diverse places on Earth. Perhaps you have Israel confused with many of its neighbors. I share your dislike for homogeneity, however, I don't think I see it manifested in the same places in which you do.

I wasn't necessarily raised on the Bible. When you say your background is the same as mine are you saying you are a Jew? I was raised with the tools to think as well and actually raised on very little theology and/or "literalist allegiance." However, I always knew in my heart that I was a Jew and didn't fully comprehend what it meant until later in life. It's true, many Jews do tend to blend into their surrounding for various reasons. --Einsteindonut (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone raised within Western civilisation is a 'Jew' whether (s)he likes it or not, since the formation of Jewish identity was foundational for one major stream of occidental identity, just as Greek paganism and philosophy makes us all sons of Greece. One definition of an antisemite is a person who dislikes himself, in that to be, he can only hate his deepest nature, and blame its existence on some identifiable other, in this case the Jew, whom he holds responsible for everything he secretly covets. In both senses (and there are more) we tend to act like prodigal sons. Many return to the narrow fold: I prefer the prodigal world of exile and diaspora, culturally and otherwise. All people, as children, blend into their surroundings. Growing up means, in any deeper sense, 'blending' out of them. The former is fortuitous and tribalizing, the latter an act of choice, in quest of one's proper difference from one's fellow man. I'm sounding terribly pompous, or thinking too much of John of Salisbury.Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding said pompousness, you said it, not I. I'm not sure I agree with you regarding everyone being a 'Jew' if they were raised within Western Civilization. I know many people raised within it who are FAR from being Jewish and I'm sure you do too. It's ok if you don't want to just come right out and say it. I was just curious since you seem to know so much about Jewish and Israeli history, etc. I'm not sure about the narrow fold. However, I do know that when Israel left Mitzrayim, 4/5 were left behind. They were the 4/5 who preferred exile and diaspora (and therefore death.) Throughout the generations that same choice is made, whether in the physical or spiritual realm. 'Have you ever tried the 'narrow fold?' Or are you saying that you have 'blended' out of it? Some partake in that quest to comprehend their difference from one's fellow man at an early age, and make more spiritual choices later in life. Others are raised within the confines of a religiously vigorous life, only to eventually rebel in an effort to try to be and experience everything in which they are not or in which they never had the opportunity to be.--Einsteindonut (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(2) Dershowitz is an 'expert' on the Arab-Israeli conflict whereas Chomsky, Finkelstein and Carter are just a bunch of foolish anti-semitesNishidani (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nishdani. A couple of comments and questions. First, I am a newbie so I respectfully ask, is your talk page on WP the place to have an ongoing discussion like this? I am truly asking because if it is, I would like to join in. If not I sure would like to find another blog or discussion group that deals with philosophy, politicis, mathematics, philology, etc. Second, I notice that most of your comments and edits are pretty solid and I respect that but every once in a while your use of adjectives creeps in, specifically "Radical" Zionist and other terms like that. Now I now there are sources for these adjectives but they are one sided. I would have no problem if you balanced your comments or buttressed them. For example Jabotinsky the "Radical","militant", "visionary", "terrorist", "hero". Its NPOV to state all of these, but not one. He is definitely controversial and his actions were provocative. Of course he was living in a very sharp edged world at the time, where other parties actively worked to murder every Jew in the world they could find. Third, your comments and enui remind of James Joyce, another writer who reflects on the benefits of exile, and who rejected his Irish patrimony. Now when you discuss Jews, Judaism, and anti-semitism its clear that you are engaging these terms on a quite rarified intelectual and philosophical level but the fact is, the palestinian terrorists that murdered the old crippled Leon Klinghoffer in1985 did not make such fine distinctions. His name alone sufficed to serve as a hangman's noose, with no chance of clemency, much like it would today in many different countried in the Middle East that are Judenrein. I would like to make several suggestions. 1. Lets you, Einsteindounut and I work together on some neutral noncontroversial Wp article, there are at least 13,000 that we could labor on together, most of them having nothing to do with these hot topics. At worst, we could respectfully sharpen our editing and rhetorical skills, but stay clear of any suspicious bias. 2. If you are truly interested in learning history, philosophy, and religion on a deeper level I would be happy to help you, in the form of an exchange. 3. Why don't you practice taking on the political and philosophical positions of someone you disagree with? After studying Islam, Palestinian History and Arabic I spend four years being the Teacher Advisor for the Muslim Club at my high school where I worked. It really helped me clear out some of the bias that arose through a lack of knowledge and empirical experience. Cheers aharon42 (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have no intention of using this page as a blog, which would be an abuse of wiki, even if some lenience is due on space use as informal payment for unpaid labour expended on the project. I am bound by rules of courtesy to reply to anyone who may ask me a question. I admire Jabotinsky for two things, his intellectual integrity, and his experiments in adapting Dante's terza rima to modern Hebrew. He is one of those rare men who tell the truth of what others just privately think, yet deny with those effusions of public hypocrisy most of the press now take as NPOV, especially when he wrote programmatically and prophetically that Zionism must trample over native Palestinian love of their homeland and wrest it from them, exercising such overwhelming resilience and intelligent outmanoevering against the Palestinians' wholly natural resistance, that they will be left crushed, without hope, and, from their sheer despair, agree to foreign domination by an immigrant Jewish majority.(b) Saying that any abstract analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is undone, as mere woolly cloud-gathering, if one doesn't mention Leon Klinghoffer, is about as intelligent as saying Efraim Karsh's or Bernard Wasserstein's books are useless because they don't mention hundreds of children who've been slaughtered like Iman Darweesh Al Hams. I must admit that when I read this remark, I dropped off reading the rest. There are some simple rules of logic even sophomores, if not the newspaper-reading public, should understand.

As to cleaning up bias, anyone can see the bias in someone else. It takes much more to clean up one's own. Like ideology, we think of bias, as relating to what other people think. That is not the problem at all.

How about we work on the Unamuno article together. I think I have several books of his as PDF files that I could send you and it looks like your Spanish is better than mine. Take a look and let me know. I would be open to any of your suggestions also. Que tenga suerte, plata, y amor. aharon42 (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As said above, I've retired from editing wiki, except for an occasional role to advise, help, and provide some suggestions on a few talk pages. So as regards your proyecto sugestivo de trabajo en común, to adapt a phrase from Ortega y Gasset (España invertebrada(1922) Madrid 1981 p.41) I must decline. However, let me know when you do tackle that wiki article, which is rather impoverished, and I will of course look on with interest.Nishidani (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar

• [2]

What is your mind about some "adoption" of this "gentleman" ? :-) Ceedjee (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I know this and I have somewhere a pdf explaining in detail his whole biography. I sent this to Benny Morris so that he confirms or not what was written and tells me if he agreed to see this published on wp.

He didn't answer. Just sending me his CV.

He was in high financial precarity in 95... My mind is that he has found some kind of compromise, which, at the end, was not that much harmful for him and his family.

I prefer not taking care of this. This is wp:blp

Ceedjee (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

canon is cannon

Thanks Nishidani I hadn't even noticed what my fingers were typing....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries, pal. It's an affliction we all suffer from. When I don't know what my fingers are doing, my first and best instinct it to pull one of them out! It usually works.Nishidani (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you any access to the texts from the Franciscan site?.....Your site certainly gives more than Jean Richards but I have no access to the relevant books texts to verify it.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No I don't. My neighbours are Franciscan friars though, and when next at dinner with them, I'll ask them about this. They do have a computerized studio in the monastery, and good connections with Israel, and perhaps to a specialized library where I can look things like this up. Think in the long term, in any case. Finding stuff often takes months, if not years. I've noted the details on the Hébron French study in any case, and that will be a priority. Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You mentioned Ian Lustik do you have the book/page for the quote used in the Hebron article:

The government was caught by surprise. Internally divided, depending for its survival on the votes of the National Religious Party, and reluctant to forcibly evacuate the settlers from a city whose Jewish population had been massacred thirty-nine years earlier, the Labor government backed away from its original prohibition against civilian settlement in the area and permitted this group to remain within a military compound. After more than a year and a half of agitation and a bloody Arab attack on the Hebron settlers, the government agreed to allow Levinger's group to establish a town on the outskirts of the city

Nice quote agrees with all I know about the politics of the time but the quote has no citation....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 07:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The italicized text is on p.42 (I'm sure, since the book is freely consultable in an unpaginated online version, that specific page references can be disposed of, since anyone can check whatever is culled from it, by searching the net edition).Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I take it that was for FOR THE LAND AND THE LORD Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel. By Ian S. Lustick. New York: Council on Foreign Relations/Kampmann & Company. ...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Found the quote thanks bottom of page 42. Chapter 3, Evolution of Gush Emunim,....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems that...

Great minds think alike. ;) I've missed you my friend. Hope all is well with you. I also hope you will give up your self-imposed exile from article editing, and get back into the swing of things as soon as you feel your creative juices flowing again. I've sorely missed your content contributions, though as always, deeply appreciate your reasoned talk page interventions. Cheers. Tiamut^talk 15:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Funny that you should mention Brecht. I hae been working with someone who holds him high esteem and makes mention of him most often when complimenting the work of another artist. You seem almost too fine for these times my friend, which may account for your self-imposed exile from article writing. It's dirty down there in the trenches, as you know, try as one might to keep things pleasant. Cordiality can only go so far when it is a merely a gloss. In any case, it's good to see you have not abandoned the community outright and I await your return to penning the prose, of which the encyclopedia is made, on tenterhooks. Take care of yourself, Tiamut^talk 12:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

'working with someone'. Ah, my bones whisper, RM! (No need to comment either way) I don't mind wrangling in muck, as long as one has a prospect of climbing out of it. I do mind wasting time on trivial bickering based on flag-waving. Light monitoring duties, like Nigel Bruce on patriotic nightwatch amid the sandbags and streets of London in WW2, perhaps fit an old codger like myself. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I wish there more old codgers like you around my friend. By the way, what (or who) is RM? Tiamut^talk 17:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No, not him, but good guess, as its someone he has worked with. And how do you know of his work? Nishidani! You neer cease to amaze me! (nice Italian by the way. between french and spanish I can pretty much make out what it means, but I'm not sure my written spanish is anywhere near as good). Á bientôt mon ami. Tiamut^talk 21:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hi there Nishidani. Since you have commented on a recent case, could you please have your say here? Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Fayssal. I've read the thread twice, and only discovered how profoundly ignorant I am about what computers do and how they work through routers and IPs. My computer broke down finally some 10 days ago and I've bought, and work from, a completely new one, and, looking at this case, can only wonder if the change makes me out to be I(S)P-wise an editor with a different electronic profile than the one I had with the old computer!?

I don't think my opinion would be anything more than that, on the page, and therefore have withheld commenting. Since the evidence is extremely technical, on these things I tend to take administrators at their word, esp. when 3 of proven experience, caution and balance like yourself, Lar and Alison concur. The only thing that worries me is that Tiamut noted NoC had way back posted a protest against an antisemitic remark, so his presumed attack on Einsteindonut is queer. I tend to go overboard and call for permanent bans when racist or antisemitic remarks are dropped, so I instinctively backed your decision, even though I couldn't see much in Einsteindonut's evidence (as opposed to the larger environment you controlled). I also didn't comment because I think your overall interventions on this have shown in their cautious balance something that is often lacking in administrative judgements, a psychological acumen into the otherwise tacit politics that appear to be going on.

You guys have to do a tremendous amount of hard labour at the digital coalface because of bad user habits, and I can only hope that, as Carcaroth and some others suggest, one works out a method to make people who want to edit wiki use a single account. This blather because I feel a bit stupid and embarrassed that I can't reply adequately to your request on the relevant page: it requires a mastery of technical details I lack. Best wishes Nishidani (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:) Thanks Nishidani. Fair enough. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 08:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflict

It was a political speech and so should have been in blockquotes, that was the confusion on my part. speeches by politician rarely use historical "facts"....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Analysis

Text:

I haven't found any reference to whether classical arabic replaced its pre-classical ancestor (with origins supposedly stretching back to the 4th Century CE) or existed alongside it.

All languages in their 'classical' form (usually 'classical' here means a subjective judgement on the best literary style in a language, i.e,. Athenian Greek as compared to other dialects, or Mycenaean, one of its ancestors) descend from an ancestral language, which they replace (as the English of Shakespeare and Johnson replaced Chaucer's, as Racine's replaced Villon's). They develop out of internal changes taking place within that ancestral language. Since a 'classical' language descends from an earlier pre-classical language, the former language parent is ipso facto dead, since it survives only in its classical form. Classical Arabic derived from a pre-classical form, which might also have generated other dialects in its branches of descent. If those 'cousin' descendants are more conservative than the classical form, preserving more archaic features, lost in the classical form, those dialects are not 'the pre-classical ancestor', but collateral affines contemporary with the major descendent, the one arbitrary history and literacy has accorded linguistic primogeniture to.

The notion of 'descent' from an ' ancestor' in linguistics was taken over from 19th.century Darwinianism. The metaphor carries with it the same implications of natural descent. If I descend from an ancestor I 'replace' him also because he is dead. If Shakespeare's language replaces Chaucer's, and we say Chaucer's English was the ancestor of the former, the implicit meaning is Chaucer's language was 'dead' (going the way of all ancestors) by Shakespeare and Bacon's day.

In that sense, a pre-classical language can no more exist side by side with the classical language that superceded it, than can a ancestral forebear exist side by side with his distant descendents. That is what I meant by logical implication. Sorry if this has led to any misunderstandings. I used Italian for discretionary reasons, and because, when I clicked I saw only Malta and Italian, and thought it discreet to phrase it in a private idiom you would be thoroughly familiar with. Perhaps indeed the point is trivial, but Eastern and Western Christianity split precisely over what, to us, seems trivialities of this linguistic order. In the area of wiki I specialise in, noticing small things about language is crucial for establishing NPOV. Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You've written, 'a pre-classical language can no more exist side by side with the classical language that superceded it, than can a ancestral forebear exist side by side with his distant descendents': but as far as I can see, it's not about 'distant descendents'.. it's whenever the subjective decision that the language became 'classical' was made. And if a classical language's status exists in its literary qualities, wouldn't the 'non-literary pre-classical' language persist?

Anyway. I probably wouldn't list my misuse of evolutionary language in linguistics alongside medieval disputes over the precedence of the Holy Spirit. But it's an interesting thought.. take care. Piːtru Farrutʃ (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion with Jaakobou on English usage, copied from his page

Not that it really matters, but Tiamut is a self professed Israeli-Arab female. I'm not entirely sure if the article should just go due to it's status or that the issues could be worked out. Random reverts with uncivil commentary, though, make me concerned that you might be correct. I'm keeping hopeful that "stiffened necks" might loosen a bit and that the article could become encyclopedic rather than a mouthpiece. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I am a self-professed Palestinian citizen of Israel. It's nice that you got my gender right, but when prefacing statements with "self-professed", a little sensitivity toward how I represent my identity might be in order. I'm quite sure you are aware of how the most Palestinians in Israel find the term "Israeli-Arab" to be somewhat insulting. Cordially, Tiamut^talk 17:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for offending you Tiamut. I would appreciate a link to your claim that your terminology is indeed majority preferred by Palestinian citizens of Israel. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that most Palestinians in Israel prefer my terminology, Jaakobou. I relayed to you how I construct my identity (something I thought we had discussed before) and asked you to respect that. The only claim I made was that most Palestinians in Israel find the term you used (i.e. "Israeli Arab") to be insulting. I'm surprised you're not aware of that. It is covered somewhat inferentially in the article on Arab citizens of Israel, but to respond to your request for a "citation", this one by Jonathan Cook says:

Although most continue to identify themselves as Palestinian, preferring to be called Palestinian citizens of Israel, the state identifies them as ‘Israeli Arabs’ – a term some of them find as offensive as black Americans might today at being called ‘negroes’.

I hope that satisfactorily addresses your concerns. Tiamut^talk 18:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I was somewhat confused that you used "most Palestinians in Israel" in your statement. I have no qualms about apologizing for as well as correcting my error in regards to your personal self-descriptive. I'm still left confused by your somewhat surprising "most" claim when the provided source is a Nazareth based writer of both Electronic Intifada and The Guardian which uses the term "some". I'm fairly certain that had the term truly been offensive to the majority of Palestinian-Arab civilians of Israel as you ascertained, then it would not have been used by the BBC. Heck, even Azmi Bishara uses the term and no one suspects him of being an Israel-o-phile.

Btw, I find Jonathan Cook's mention that some Arabs are as offended by 'Israeli Arabs' as (most) Black Americans are offended by 'Negroes' - to be a completely improper (read: grotesque sensationalism, borderline anti-Semitic blood libel) statement that leads the reader by the nose to mistakenly assume that Israel may have treated Arab citizens of the state as the Whites did to the Blacks not too long ago (see also: Slavery in the United States). This "writer" truly earned any superlatives I may endow upon him in the future.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC) clarify. 19:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC) add. 19:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

General discussion with Nishidani

People who are self-assured of their identity, and their cultural world, shouldn't really be asked to 'prove' it, Jaakobou, particularly when they belong to minorities. So it was somewhat indelicate, as a Jewish Israeli, to push for evidence. I'm glad to note you have apologized. If you have an identity, you don't cast about to shore it up with data, unless you are lacking self-assurance and not known for reliability, as a wikipedian, unlike our Tiamut. In any case, I do have the data you requested, that confirm her remark, and am happy to share it. After the al-Aqsa Intifada, the early poll results which showed roughly 40% of Arabs in Israel described their identity as hyphenated by using 'Israeli', changed rapidly. From that time, things changed (I can't find the data I have from the Haifa region, I'll put it in when these wretchedly messy files of mine are collated). David Rudge's "Poll - Israeli Arabs' Palestinian identity Growing', published in the Jerusalem Post, on March 31, 2000 revealed that there had been a 25% collapse in the earlier (1996) figure: only 15% of Arab citizens of Israel identified themselves with an hyphenated Israeli-. Instead 80% described themselves variously as Palestinians or Arab-Palestinians in Israel (However, Donna Rosenthal, in her The Israelis: Ordinary People in an Extraordinary Land, Simon & Schuster, New York 2005 p. 256, gives the 2000 figure as 70%. It depends how you break down the data).

Of course, polls fluctuate over time, and fresher evidence might alter the picture. But Donna Rosenthal's recent book, and also Steven V.Mazie's 2006 book, Israel’s Higher Law:Religion and Liberal Democracy in the Jewish State, Lexington Books p.79 showcase this data, and confirm the truth of Tiamut's remarks.Nishidani (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nishidani,

I think you kind of owe me an apology here for claiming I asked Tiamut to prove her ethnicity. I did no such thing and accepted it at face value on her own assertions that she is a Palestinian citizen of Israel.

The debate was on her surprising claim that the term 'Israeli-Arab' is offensive to the majority of the Arabs in my country. Your polls btw, do not assert this claim - see Misuse of statistics (let me know if this requires further explanation).

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(postscript added) She didn't say 'offensive'. She said they found 'it somewhat insulting'. That somewhat means for the majority of 'Israeli-Arabs', being called such rather than 'Palestinians' of whatever absolute or hyphenated form (which is what 80% prefer to be called), bears a derogative nuance, strong or slight as it may be. It is implicit in the rapid drop in the number of Arab citizens of Israel who identify themselves as 'Arab-Israelis'. Nuance is not caught by statistics. But those statistics 'speak for themselves', and underwrite Tiamut's remark.

Now, now, Jaakobou, you are, permit me, shifting the goal-posts. You have some regard, from past encounters, for my having the appearance of being a precisian in linguistic niceties. Let me give you a little lesson in construal of what is not your native idiom.

(a)'Tiamut is a self-professed Israeli-Arab female

Comment. 'Self-professed' means 'self-proclaimed', which means 'based on one's own assertion' . A self-proclaimed/self-professed genius is someone who asserts he is a genius, with the implication that the assertion is subjective, and not one generally shared. 'Self-professed' is actually a modern pleonasm, a calque on 'self-acknowledged', and in English historical prose, one simply said 'professed'. Professed meant 'openly declared or avowed by oneself; something with an implication of 'not real', and so = Alleged, ostensible, pretended' (OED vol.XII p.572 column 2, sect.2 sub professed).

To call Tiamut a 'self-professed Israeli-Arab' implies therefore to attuned native ears that only Tiamut asserts that she is 'Israeli-Arab', reducing a fact to a claim, and wrapping that claim up in doubt, indeed insinuating that it is not true but merely an alleged identity. 'Self-professed' implies, perhaps you missed this strong nuance, that Tiamut is not what you called an 'Israeli-Arab' a citizen of your country, but simply pretending to be one, indeed with female attached, the force of the adjective extends to it, and raises questions marks about her 'alleged' gender identity. Unfortunately this is the way language works, and in this sense everyone from Fichte, to Heidegger to Derrida is correct in saying, 'we do not speak language, language speaks through us' often making us say things which bear connotations the unwary do not note. Secondly, Tiamut has never professed to being an Israeli-Arab. She has, as long as I have run across her remarks on this aspect, always strongly identified herself as a Palestinian in Israel.

(b)Tiamut, whose feel for English is of a very high order, did not wholly miss this nuance (which is usually heard as extremely crass only by native speakers of a certain literary background), and, adopting your adjective ironically, replied:-

'I am a self-professed Palestinian citizen of Israel'

I say 'ironically' because she quickly added: 'when prefacing statements with "self-professed", a little sensitivity toward how I represent my identity might be in order'.

By putting 'self-professed' within inverted commas Tiamut alerted you to the problem I have expatiated on earlier. It carries, in short, a derogative connotation, common in mocking people's pretensions.

(c) She then made a generalization you later contested, as doubtful.

'most Palestinians in Israel find the term "Israeli-Arab" to be somewhat insulting'

(d)You replied: 'I apologize for offending you(,) Tiamut. I would appreciate a link to your claim that your terminology is indeed majority preferred by Palestinian citizens of Israel.'(a pardonable lapse given the medium we work in:= 'is indeed preferred by the majority of Palestinian citizens of Israel'.

The apology was due, and you gave it promptly, and for that you are again to be commended. The problem is that trailing afterthought you then hung on the end of the apology. You withdrew your (crass? let us say thoughtlessly casual) remark, only to repeat it in different terms, by asking for evidence to back her second affirmation. In other words (i) you said Tiamut claimed to be someone she may not be (in your perhaps unintended view) and when reproved apologized, only to ask her to prove something else, namely that most Palestinians in Israel find the first term you used of her 'someone insulting'.

One could overload wiki(it already happens) with hairsplitting queries on virtually every exchange made on talk-pages, requesting 'proof'. Now in normal human affairs, we do not footnote our every other remark (though my family has for decades mocked me gently as someone who even footnotes his jokes). Conversation can never exhaust the complex implications, intuitions, mental associations and subtle perceptions that interleave our words. We 'twig' the essential point, and when we avert somethings, simple withdraw, stay silent, or drop the tempted follow-up or repartee. Nothing in the rulebook in Wiki would find your second remark objectionable. It is simply a matter of style. You cut a finer figure, if you tread on sensitive toes, to drop the argument. You apologized, but did not drop the argument. This is all nuance, Jaakobou, and it certainly isn't easy for non-native speakers. You have shown notable progress (like myself) over the past year in these things, and these things would be nugatory peccadillos, were it not for the fact that our Tiamut happens to belong to an ethnic minority.

(e)When I supplied evidence that there was a radical shift in what Israelis called the language of 'Arab-Israeli' identity, you now turn to say I owe you an apology. I owe you no such thing, except, perhaps this lesson in English usage. My Haifa University data, read a year ago, and more recent than what I supplied, shows that there is a very pronounced generational shift in 'Arab-Israeli' perceptions, with the older generation conservatively accepting this formula, and the young eagerly asserting their Palestinian identity, often in a prickly way. The Haifa data revealed interviewees complaining of how they had to live dual lives. If in the streets and discoteques, they passed, for culture and mastery of colloquial Hebrew, as Jews, fine. If they reacted to some anti-Palestinian crack by admitting they were Arab/Palestinians, friendships froze up. To frig round with statistics when there is so much evidence of this order, anthropological and anecdotal, is rather, yes, crass. I would prefer not to end up on a sour note, but every Israeli knows their fellow Arab citizens are citizens of what is a Jewish state. Sensitivity and tact is therefore required by the majority, for the former can never be fully 'Israeli', can never wholly feel accepted, under those terms. A matter for reflection, and not for debate (and in no way implying Israel has no right to exist. Of course it does). You alleged, in an incautious use of 'self-profess' that Tiamut was neither an 'Arab-Israeli nor who she had said she was, and this was the original offense, implying she had a dubious statehood (Palestinian though in Israel): the rest is irrelevant. This is the end of my comment. I have an off-wiki reading backlog. Sincerely yours Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani,

I'm honestly not amused by your condescending conduct and bad faith allegations. English sub-context can mean a number of things even to native speakers of it and I don't much care for the way you falsely ascribe hyperbole to context and attack me on a personal level. To put it succinctly, only two people have made intentionally offensive comments on this discussion, the other's comments were removed.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC) update. 23:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Jaak, forgive me for interrupting, to be brutally honest, I don't think Nishdani's comments were in bad faith, and are more properly characterized as "pedantic" than "condescending". Nishdani (such as myself, I must admit) does tend less to compendiousness than most, and will often explain things at great length. However, I do not think he meant to attack you, but to explain why Tiamut would have responded as she did. Whether you agree with Tiamut's or Nishdani's facts and their interpretation is one thing. But as someone who lurks and monitors these various conversations, I think in this case, you may be responding with (understandable) defensiveness where it is not needed. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou. Though I can see how my remarks might strike you as 'condescending', please note I am aware of this impression when I write, and strive to avoid it, though any advice from anyone can inevitably be construed as patronizing (my frequent advice to Ashley Kennedy, for example). Secondly, if you read what I wrote there is absolutely no assumption of 'bad faith'. To the contrary, I attributed your deafness to Tiamut's complaint to the fact that you, as a non-native speaker, used words whose resonant implications were probably not available to you, but were so to her.

Thanks, Avi. Pedantic is the correct word, and I confess I often feel like a lumbering species of garrulous dinosaur in a world full of more evolved types, swiftly efficient in thought to the point of weariness with nuance, laconic to the point of glibness. I only ask that the finicky murmur from the paleobiological creature in the zoo that I am, at times, be respected by passers-by as something well-intentioned, not as some insinuation by a Iagoesque beast in subtly lethal attack mode, like the panther behind the bars in Rilke's Im Jardin des Plantes: a witness to a different mode of observation, now in desuetude, but, not for that, devoid of interest.

Disputes, tiffs, conflicts can be papered over by waving a monitory flag to avert interlocutors of potential breaches in the wikiquette rule book. Flagging of this type shortcircuits understanding, because the code is too generic to capture the fugitive nuances in recurrent tensions. My occasional analyses at what must appear to be nauseous length, aspire to clarify some recondite dimensions that will always exist, perceptible between the lines, and that otherwise impatiently energetic wikipedians ignore as 'improductive' distractions, only to find that their disattention to nuance is itself productive of recurrent eruptions of simmering discontents. I will shortly suggest to Tiamut that this be dropped, and I suggest to Jaakobou that, as I said earlier, an ear for tone is essential for full mastery of a second language, and a certain capacity to twig potential conflict, and deftly sidestep temptations to press a trivial point, would further improve his work here. There, I've been tedious again. Back to Jurassic Park. Thanks, my friend, and best regards Nishidani (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My dearest Nishidani, Of course, as usual, you have in your extensive analysis, accurately outlined many of the problems with what Jaakobou has said. In my last comment to him on his talk page, I made a final (rather sarcastic) attempt to get to see how consistently offensive and provocative his comments are. Whether he is conscious of this or not ...? There is WP:AGF and then there are my multiple experiences with him mocking, stereotyping, or otherwise denigrating the ethnic group with which I have quite openly identified.

Since our last tumble at WP:AE, I have been trying to avoid Jaakobou. However, he keeps appearing at articles I have either substantially contributed to like Land Day or just edited like Palestinian prisoners in Israel which makes such evasion difficult. I most certainly should not have engaged him on his talk page, as I did today, since it invariably leads to this kind of sordid drama. Going to WP:AE with this kind of complaint again is likely to be fruitless, since Jaakobou, while a serial offender, seems to have a knack for kicking up so much dust, no one can see the forest for the trees. It is too much though when, after you took so much time to try and explain to him the problem, he begins accusing you, so self-righteously, of disruption, without any regard for how his own actions and words disrupt the calm waters others are desperately trying to maintain. Any advice on what to do? Is there some kind of wiki clause that can be invoked to restrain one editor who takes a rather perverse interest in consistently and subtely provoking another? Or perhaps I am just fulfilling my need for catharsis. Thanks for listening my friend. Tiamut^talk 23:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Dearest Tiamut, to answer I must prevail on Wiki to indulge what might appear to be an abuse of its space for a personal discursive essay, at the risk of being chided by kibitzers for an WP:SOAP infraction. The problem is serious, and yet nothing much can be done about it, unless a sea-change in sensibility takes place, and not in just one minor protagonist. Unlikely.

I can't open a newspaper without seeing offensiveness splattered all over the most innocuous articles in the 'liberal' or mainstream press. Expressions, words, clichés of analysis, that are the stable currency of everyday language, and even of cultured salons, presume so much tolerance of intolerable assumptions about other peoples or classes, that one despairs, as lines from Pound's Mauberley murmur in one’s inward ear:

The age demanded an image

Of its accelerated grimace,

Something for the modern stage,

Not, at any rate, an Attic grace;

Karl Kraus once quipped to the Czech musician Ernst Krenek that the bombing of Shanghai in the early 1930s would never have occurred if people were, like him, attentive to the minutiae of punctuation. The hyperbole is often mocked in the secondary literature. Yet Kraus, like that other extraordinary Jewish mind, Kafka, foresaw WW2 two decades earlier because the potential for apocalyptic violence was implicit in the very prose of otherwise respectable newspapers, and the mode of thought of otherwise intelligent people, who thought they had buried war, the war of WW1, and left it behind them. As a neurotically meticulous stylist, he heard a deathknell in what others at best too to be the playful, tingling jingle of repartee. Part of this just hypersensitivity to the nuances of otherwise casual language, which has had immense literary impact, (but is lost on our average daily world), comes ironically from the lessons of antisemitism, and it is no coincidence that the Jewish intelligentsia of the Haskalah contributed substantially to the refinement of our ability to hear undertones of this kind. As heirs to millenia of discrimination as a despised minority, they could twig menace in what, in the wider community, passed for a light jab of ethnic wit, a vagrant sortie of chiacking repartee, or indeed a justifiable characterisation of deplorable traits associated by hearsay with that minority. They taught us to read prejudice even in ostensibly polite, well-meaning words, or the exercises of a great poet (Christopher Ricks ‘s, T.S.Eliot and Prejudice (1988) kicked off a trenchant debate on this, for example). Unfortunately, the lesson is all too often retained in the post-1945/1948 world, only in contexts where Jewish sensitivities are at stake, and not generalized beyond that community. We have innumerable well-funded organs with global reach monitoring antisemitism (and they are indispensable), almost none catch the parallel diffusion of anti-Arabism, anti-Palestinianism. It is as if, to put down the indigestible foulness of the Holocaust as the consummation of Western prejudice, we transferred holus bolus a tradition of ethnic antipathy to some more reticent, lerss capably self-defensive, more marginal semitic victim, while apologizing to our Jewish bretheren. The Eurocentric prejudice was dropped, out of shame, in regard to its traditional victims but survives under a pseudonym less readily identifiable as prejudice, against the victims’ victims, after Europe got rid of its Jewish communities and thrust them on Israel, where any native reaction to the project could be recast as anti-Semitic fundamentalism, and the West could feign to be redeeming its own sins by collaborating in the repression of ‘terrorism’ (national redress, often violent, by the violently dispossessed).

The other day, by pure chance, I came across a photo on a forum with a huge Israeli tractor bulldozing an olive grove, and below the rise where it worked, several 'unkempt' Palestinians, tossing stones in futile frustration at the gargantuan metallic juggernaut hovering above to rip out their livelihood. The rubric ran: 'Where would you prefer the Arab to be? driving this bulldozers, or under it!' The allusion was to the two episodes in Jerusalem, the triumphant battuta effortlessly naive in its darkly violent attempt to meld an ethnic slur with comedy. The forum was full of this material. This kind of thing doesn't even make the backpages, nor does my daily overhearing in my area of frustrated outbursts against invasive 'islamic' immigrants as 'scum' (most are actually Nigerian Christians or non-practicing, canny Moroccan street-vendors). Cartoons or quips with the slightest edge of infringing political correctness in regard to Jewish or Israeli interests, make the front page globally, they elicit supersonic patrolling by the valiant myrmidons of groups from the minuscule JIDF up to the Anti-Defamation League. Palestinians have only a mere century of dispossession, discrimination, diaspora, to their account, and they are, to boot, 'Arabs', (as problematical as Jews in the Western imagination since the 7th. century CE). This is, in the wildly arbitrary reportorial mechanisms of our modern world, treated as a trivial debt in the historical accountancy of prejudice, a debt to be noted and rolled over sometime (a millenium?) after we have amortized the larger, inextinguishable debt of anti-semitism.

People don't get these linguistic reverberations any more in the otherwise blatant sidedness of our ‘public opinion’ and its discourse, and if you live on the edge of nuance, you will be taken to be daft. This literary preamble is small consolation for the slight you suffered. In this instance, one cannot remonstrate with Jaakobou's tacit worldview, or the timbre of remarks he thinks innocuous, though they come over as leaden and offensive. The problem is not Jaakobou. His slips are the overt witness to attitudes many other posters, (not the very fine ones who moderate us here), keep under wraps.

One has to live with this imbalance. Protest is of little avail. There is no consolation. Here, the object is to improve Wiki I/P articles. One cannot, as PR, tends to do, overfocus on the obvious, yet invisible, cantedness of the world's perspective. You and I have talked in the past briefly of karameh and صمود, and it is hard for an outsider like me to advise the dignity of silence, without feeling priggishly condescending, since that offers no immediate relief. But it is one thing, in the end, that might prove more telling than 'rising to the bait'. I genuinely do think Jaakobou simply is deaf to these nuances, while hypersensitive to his own ethnic and national interests, something which makes him interpret the self-defensiveness of other groups, that happen to be a minority, as an attack on an imperilled identity of what is, to outsiders, an immensely strong vibrant and successful nation. When he and others in here will learn to understand that the desire to be Palestinian, a stateless people in an exiguous patch of occupied land, is nothing more than the history of Zionism mirrored in the mimetic scaled-down aspirations of its victims,with the crucial difference that it has no pretension to seize the age-old land of others, but merely to reclaim its own natural right to title of what remains, and thus constitutes not a threat, but the only long-term guarantee of the state of Israel, powerful, thriving and recognized, to achieve peace with its neighbours, is not for me to forecast. Texts that register criticism of Israel cannot be held to ransom, and blocked from Wiki articles, as anti-Semitic, nor their authors, when Jewish, branded as self-haters for ever. I can only conclude by advising you to drop the complaint, which is more than legitimate, and trust that there are many admins and editors who watch, take note, and intervene on these matters, if no improving tendency to avoid provocative language is forthcoming. Best regards, as ever Nishidani (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Nishdani. One general comment, if I may. Jaak may have a tendency to defensiveness. This is understandable if you realize that he may have been treated unfairly by those whose political inclinations are different from his. While he may have started out as a more sontentious editor, over the past year or so, he has been working diligently to work within wiki guidelines, and in the main, has been very successful. Regardless, his comments have often been disregarded or minimalized based on past history, and that can be very frustrating. Understanding on all sides would be very helpful, as Jaak has, is, and will hopefully contribute to the betterment of the minefield that I/P articles have become. Thanks, and thanks again for not minding my uncalled for interruptions. -- Avi (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nishdani. Are you still mentoring PR? In my opinion, edits such as this one indicate a continued focus by PR on continuing inter-editor squabbling, and a continuation of the "poking a hornets nest with a stick" activity that has made it difficult for others to mentor him previously. Perhaps you can drop a note on his page, I do not know of anyone else to whom he would listen, which will not serve him well should his future actions and edits return him as the subject of a community discussion. Thank you very much. -- Avi (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Karameh and صمود are never in question my dear Nishidani. They are still bulwarks where I come from despite attempts to pretend they do not exist, that we do not exist. I have over the years become so accustomed to the ignorance, willful and otherwise, that these kind of interactions where that subtext is just below the surface, while sometimes irritating and slightly depressing, can no longer shake my foundations.

I remember being spat at once when I was 16 years old by what must have been an 80-year old woman who said, "You people are animals," (behaving exactly like the Polish antisemite whom Ze'ev Sternhell recalls in WW2: 'I remember a woman shouting at Jews: "Filthy animals, you came out of your holes, too bad they didn't finish you off".')when I tried to hand her a pamphlet about what was happening in Palestine. She shook me - though I recall that my immediate response was to smile, and say "thank you," and then take a break from pamphleting to cry about the inhumanity and absurdity of it all. That was many years ago, and many many other things happened, before and since - all of which have taught me that while I cannot control people's perceptions and actions toward me, I can certainly control my own perceptions and actions towards them.

Your counsel is wise and I don't take it as a recommendation toward capitulation. There are simply some battles not worth fighting, and the one thing that is constant, and something of a consolation to an embattled nation like my own, is change. I appreciate your verbose and passionate defense of the human spirit, and your energetic support. You are an extraordinary person, and it is my great pleasure to have made your acquaintance here. I never cease learning from what you write, how you think, and how you carry yourself above the fray, and I thank you for sharing all of that with us. Take care, Tiamut^talk 11:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If there was any equivocation in what I wrote yesterday that might have allowed some incautious and naive readers (PR) to take my words as advising 'capitulation', it would not have occurred had I managed to retain the opening paragraph, where I noted that karameh (honour) in Wiki is paged only as a Jordanian town where 156 Palestinians died, in defensive action. It, like several other edits, went down the virtual black hole because of momentary difficulties with this new computer. As always Nishidani (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Need advice regarding article deletion

I've come to appreciate your counsel, Nishidani, so when I encounter problems here, I turn to you first. I hope you don't mind too much!

Yesterday, using Petraeus/BBC: NO victory in sight as my WP:RS, I started Petraeus on Iraq. The Petraeus statement passes WP:Notable and the BBC is surely a WP:RS. Nonetheless, the article was summarily deleted. I don't understand why. I was not even given an opportunity to challenge the deletion on the article's talk page, since that too was deleted. This is ridiculous! What should I do next? -- NonZionist (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for deleting your remark higher up. (Facile recourse to Nazi analogies, like shoah-biz and chucking antisemitic labels comes cheap). Main reason though was that the exchange addressed a hurt, and was, well, 'private' (neither I nor Tiamut use email on principle). Nishidani (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

(Interrupting) That's why I suggested deletion. I wanted to offer my support, however "cheap", but I felt a reluctance to intrude. -- NonZionist (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't wish to say your support was 'cheap', but make a generalisation, with an implicit piece of advice, about ever using casual analogies of that calibre. The world pressures us to ratchet up rhetoric and use its clichés. A first step back towards sanity is to use words with a certain austere sense of their contextual fitness, and not be sucked in to cant. Sorry if I in saying this I seemed offensive.Nishidani (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not offended, just frustrated. Unfortunately, apologies do nothing to cure that! I do believe that our situation is parallel to the pre-WW2 era. Like Ernst Krenek, mentioned above, I am reading the tea leaves. Like him, I warn of "apocalyptic violence". I use the "unthinkable" or "cheap" historical parallel to popularize those warnings and make them comprehensible. "Cheap" is what most people understand these days! -- NonZionist (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Multiplying articles is generally not a good idea, unless new or ancillary material to hand is so extensive that forking is advised to avoid undue weight. Creating a new article or a fork should imply that the editor has several reliable sources. You can't make an article out of one or two sources (Except for the JIDF!!!) Nishidani (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

(Interrupting again) I confess: I was looking for a way to get around edit wars, a way to get important information into an article QUICKLY. The idea was to separate composition from integration: First, compose the article, then worry about integrating it into the encyclopedia later. "Multiplying articles" leads, at least temporarily, to WP:MuPOV -- MULTIPLE points of view -- something I DO regard as a "good idea", since it mirrors the real world and reduces edit-war paralysis.

This is an encyclopedia under composition, with 2 and a half million articles, with a few thousands that reach high standards. Knowledge is clawed in slowly over time. There are a huge number of edits (see the Shuafat talkpage for just one of thousands) which strike me as quick, without merit, and just politically censorious. Particularly in the I/P area, where work and scrutiny is intense, we have little that passes the sophomore snuff. The best way to contribute is to work off page, studying a subject thoroughly, and then returning to edit already existing articles with assurance. No one is obliged to do that, very few do. Think over the long term, because short-term work in this area is mainly, between the lines, securing political images by stacking details to one's partisan advantage, something which mirrors what even the mainstream press (one major source of information for wiki) does, wittingly or otherwise. I've always thought mastery of details, and clear presentation, makes a sufficient case for most things one might be passionate about. I disagree with Benny Morris, but he's proved far more influentialn than partisan polemicists for a Zionist interpretation of that world, simply because he knows most archives inside out.Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I am rapidly becoming convinced that WP:NPOV is untenable: The directive, if it works at all, creates a bias towards the non-controversial, a bias we already see, overwhelmingly, in the Establishment mis-media, and we end up becoming a pale imitation of the Readers Digest. A lot of effort is being invested to achieve a result that satisfies no one: Are you sure there's no better way? -- NonZionist (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

True, but see above.Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There's huge volumes of work to be done in this area. Book sources are rare and we are becoming a dumping house for newspaper clips. I haven't checked but surely there's some article on The Surge? I opened an article on Antonio Saura in the Italian Wiki for a friend yesterday, who didn't known much about Wiki but knows a lot about modernism and Spanish painting. It got slapped down. It will be back, when my friend starts putting in extensive material from many sources. If you want proposals to stick, develop them on a work-page on your computer, until you reach a point where others can see considerable work from multiple reliable sources has been done. Regards, and don't hesitate to ask if I can help (Bob Woodward's new book has fresh material on the Petraeus surge's background, by the way).Buon lavoroNishidani (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I respect your judgment, here. You are saying that I have to make editing a full-time job -- my life's work. It's "all or nothing": Making no contribution at all is better than making a small contribution. In other words, I should return to forums, where intellectual freedom reigns and the full truth can be told without impediment, and I should forget about working to bring the encyclopedias up to speed. (I know that is not what you intend to say, but that is what you are implying.) -- NonZionist (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

And I am flattered you think that I, something of a pedantically fixated oddball, might be worth seeking advice from. I don't think editing should be a lifetime's job, ***(*) forbid. I am saying that the great weakness of 95% of editors is that they are hyperactive, and don't read the relevant secondary literature, which is decades ahead of them, since they draw on journalism, which is mostly hackwork by people writing to a daily deadline. Here editors edit to a minute by minute deadline, to erase or challenge words, refs., that they rather paranoiacally think undermines their preferred image in any article. A little slow work among books does wonders. I'm not holding you personally to what is a personal standard others don't share. I'm merely suggesting this is what real encyclopedic editing, as opposed to informational politicking, is about. The former sticks for a few days, the latter endures. One superbly informed edit is better than a hundred attempts, battling POV warriors, that look like they'll only stick around for a few days or months. My best wishes for whatever tack you choose to take and, as I said, I'm happy to help, if you still think I can offer advice that might prove useful for the editorial approach you think suits you best. regards Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the sympathetic counsel. I went back and put the Petraeus comment into the David Petraeus article, as User:Strikeout_Sister suggested. This will not make User:The Squicks happy, but "some things are worth fighting for". I will persevere, as time permits. -- NonZionist (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

In retrospect

Hi Nishidani,
Back on track: Perhaps we've gotten onto a bad route with this one. I gave it a bit of extra thought and reached the conclusion that my suggestion, that an apology was in order, is not neccesary since you had no mal-intentions even it it were possible to assume that you did. I take my previous claim to this back if you will accept such an act.
Misbehavior, mistranslations and misunderstandings: I can see where you'd feel it justified to suggest my comment as "demanding a minority prove they are a minority" even if that was, quite clearly IMHO not the case (I'll explain this in a bit just to keep on the safe side). I had trouble though, wrapping my brain around why you'd insist to the justness of such intentions/interpretations from my text, esp. considering how just recently I took the time to note another editor when they had misunderstood your intentions and became angry at you for their misunderstanding.[3] Collaboration and respect, I felt were a two way street rather than a one way ally.
Minorities: Perhaps I do not understand how it eluded you -- since you emphsize respect for minorities all the time -- but a source was used by the offended party which compared Jews with white supremacy and slave driving on their native land of all places. On top of this, it were suggested that the term Israeli was, in general, down-right offensive.
Intent 1: In wikipedia, it's best not to make inclusive assumptions/suggestions about other editors and talk behind their backs. When I clarify something an editor had said about himself, I will not say "he is", but rather say "self professed/noted about themselves/suggested that/etc.". This could be understood as though I'm suggesting doubt, but it is not my place to assert this input as accurate as it is quite possible that I misunderstood or remembered incorrectly.
Intent 2: With the good intention of avoiding insulting the majority of Israel's Arabs I requested clarification to a perspective that seemed a minority among Israeli-Arabs. I personally know several Israeli-Arabs who are not only not offended by the term, but are proud of the possibilities this country gives them. So in order to verify if my understanding of the issue was incorrect, I requested a clarification to a claim that seemed dubious. Tiamut deserves to be titled as she wishes, but I had the general public in mind.
Summation: Minority sensitivities are important in today's advanced society. Surly both you and I care about these sensitivities and wish to defend them when we see a fault. However, I think we should not jump to conclusions and ascribe fault before inquiry as it's been established that we're both at risk of being misunderstood and even accused of antisemitism/racism.
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I very much appreciate the time you've set aside now for an extensive review and reflection on this contretemps. I can see, and indeed, if you read closely, understood that you may well have had no intention to offend, and that what occurred, originally, may have arisen from a natural lack of full mastery of English (‘’soi-disant’’ bears the same pejorative sense as ‘self-professed’, with a stronger undertone). Languages are wonderful, but full of insidious traps. We mean to say one thing and are heard to say something else. Sometimes, what we consciously mean is suspected of betraying traces of an unconscious intent. Indeed, much to our grief, if we are honest with ourselves, we occasionally find that the unconscious intent was present in some instances. Freud wrote a marvellous book on this, Jokes and their relation to the unconscious, which rewards reading. Indeed it was Jewish intellectuals who were in the forefront of those who taught us to hear unintended resonances (without wishing to be blasphemous, this comes in good part from a rabbinical tradition dealing with the bat qol). Most conversations are at cross-purposes, because we fail to gain mastery over ourselves and the languages we use. As a general rule, if misunderstandings crop up, and someone is offended, we do well simply to apologize, whatever the pros and cons, without ifs and buts. Tiamut’s use of ‘Israeli’ was not derogatory, by the way. She said for most Palestinians in Israel, being called ‘Israeli-Arabs’ was slightly ‘insulting’. To explain why this does not snub Israel would require me to expatiate at great length on what is a very intricate problem of identity, and I forebear to do so because I am already risking accusations of running a blog. Briefly though, Jewish people in Israel have a strong double identity. It is often extremely difficult in these situations for many Israelis to understand how the ‘other’ people, whom history has denied both a state identity, and a national identity, can be distressed by a term, not of their choosing, that involves a double compromise, and, on one plane, an hyphenated identity of loss, rather than two positives (‘just Arabs, though distinct from all other Arabs, who have a state, and distinct from Israelis, who have a state in which Palestinians are recognized as citizens, but since it is a Jewish state not on a par with Jewish Israelis).

We all are raised within honour codes, only they vary from culture to culture. Tiamut’s honour code, when spat on as a girl, was to say ‘thanks’ in public, and weep in private (we call this an honourable defeat, for the vanquished is the moral victor). A variation of the same honour code might have reacted with violence, but we would not think that ‘honourable’ . A strong society, (like a self-possessed person secure in his identity) particularly one as successful and culturally vibrant as Israel’s, is such because it can embrace criticism, rather than feel threatened by it. A self-assured society undermines itself if it is too defensive, for defensiveness in the strong is symptomatic of the frailty of uncertainty (the French adage runs:’Qui s’excuse, s’accuse) trumping the generosity of such values as tolerance and sometimes a unilateral apology, even if one may think that one personally has done nothing wrong.

A good part of the Australian elections recently ran on the platform of ‘should the nation apologize to the aborigines’ or would such an apology be unnecessary, since, it was widely thought, Australians have nothing to apologize for (‘aborigines are all layabouts or drunkards’ was a widespread perception). The nation voted for Kevin Rudd, who then made a formal apology, unlike his predecessor Mr Howard who had no personal feeling of guilt and opposed the idea. For 15 years that had been banned by conservatives as a dangerous sign of weakness, and of ‘caving’ in to an ‘irresponsible’ constituency. Overnight, 90% of the electorate surprised itself by being moved, and proud. (Rudd had in mind what Willy Brandt did in Poland, kneeling before the Warsaw Ghetto, in what is known as the Warschauer Kniefall. Willy Brandt had nothing personally to apologize for, given his war record.)

We live in small worlds, and nothing that occurs in them quite compares to these historic acts. Nothing in wiki crises can bear comparison to the complex reasons for such gestures. I note them because these things assist in looking beyond ourselves to the wider dimensions of a problem that otherwise might not engage us directly. I must cut this off because I worry about abuses of wiki space, and the tedium of my exchanges. Thanks then, for your reflection. It does you credit that you have 'wasted' time you might have preferred to use in way that you might think more productive, to re-examine the problem at some length for the benefit of a fellow wikipedian 'on the other side'. Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Iman Darweesh al-Hams

Jaakobou. Could you take a look at the lead of Iman Darweesh Al Hams? It looks like there's some technical confusion in the mark-up of line 1, since her birth-date is separated from the date of her death by some Arabic script. I played with seeing how it might be fixed, but only worsened it. You're very good on these technical things, so I thought you might just fix it. Hope it's no bother. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Don't know what below refers to, but will look around.Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Would be better if you put some time into mentoring PalestineRemembered to stop playing games and promoting the massacre narrative about the Battle of Jenin. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't edit any more, only check in for damage control on a few articles I have edited, and don't intervene unless someone asks me for assistance or advice on my talk page. Nishidani (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, for a person so sensitive to nationality issues, Tiamut sure doesn't have any qualms about trashing on Israel. Just now she insists on adding the suggestion that Israel "enjoyed" the 9.11 attacks, lending a hand to the usual antisemitic libels running around in the Arab world. Heck, not just insisting on it, but tag-team edit warring to keep it in an article despite external opinions of two uninvolved editors. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be careful about tag-team accusations, since it's not in character for Tiamut to behave that way (like me, she disabled her wiki email utility, to keep things above board). I see a substantial amount of behaviour that might easily be interpreted as tag-team editing. Technically, anywhere people on the same side with similar interests and pages on their watch-list, edit, can be interpreted as tag-teaming. As to point 2, the world is full of Arab-trashing (Cologne presently) and Israel-bashing, of course (as opposed to intelligent and trenchant critique of either geopolitical dimension). I think our job here is simply to note what reliable sources and intelligent opinion says about anything. I understand patriotic feelings, though I don't share them. There is an inverse correlation between the strength of one's patriotism and one's attachment to the truth (since truth is not commensurate with national interests), and this holds the world over. That is why Samuel Johnson quipped that patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel. Nishidani (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you just unintentionally called Tiamut a scoundrel so it's best to refactor your comment. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I never refactor my comments, which would be tantamount to deleting evidence that might be held against me, while providing proof that suspicions of prejudice were well-grounded. Even the WSJ today notes that Johnson's dictum is not addressed to patriotism, but to the fact that scoundrels, cowards and idiots most often wrap up their nefarious activities in the radiant vesture of the national flag.

In any case, Tiamut by definition cannot be 'patriotic', since she lives in a state that defines its national identity in terms of Judaism, which automatically means she, like 20% of the population, are deficient in a key quality of full proprietorial citizenship. She has rights within the state, but is formally excluded from full identity with its inner identity. Israel chose to exclude her and her people from being patriotic. Patriotism in the classical sense would imply conversion.

There is, further, a distinction you miss: patriotism has a pronounced military overtone, a long history of both spontaneous valour, and cynical manipulation of natural love of country towards dubious and often evil ends. By contrast, love of country is a quite distinct emotion, suggestive of a profound feeling for, and identity with one's native land, sufficiently strong that at times, those who love their country are ready to risk their lives and careers in order to challenge it and their fellow-citizens when the nation is in danger from within. David Shulman is an example of an Israeli patriot in this sense. In his book, 'Dark Hope' he writes of crawling over the hills below Havat Ma'on in the Hebron Hills to dig out thousands of barley pellets dipped in extremely toxic rat poison and sown into the very texture of the soil by settlers to poison the herds Palestinian shepherds graze there since time immemorial, and to drive off those legitimate owners, while incidentally killing off the endangered samur weasels and splendid ghazal that graze their as well.

‘as I sift through the brown, most soil under the eyes of the settlers, even I cannot resist the sense of something horribly symbolic. They claim to feel something for this land, yet they treat it – her – with contempt. It, she, interests them mostly as the object to be raped, despoiled, and above all stolen by brute force from its rightful owners. It belongs, in this wild, ravished, ravishing landscape, to the people of the caves. This is not merely a matter of injustice, though flagrant injustice screams out, unmistakably, at every point. Nor is it a matter of madness, though the settlers here are truly demented. It is, in the most serious, most atrocious sense of the word, a crime – a crime against the land the settlers glibly call holy, against life itself. Who, what human individual, would deliberately poison a wild deer? What kind of man would poison a whole herd and, through this, the community of human beings who live off this herd? But then the settlers have poisoned far more than a few rocky fields.” (p.56)

That is an intensely Judaic sentiment (by the waters of Babylon I wept...), yet is mirrors perfectly what Palestinians feel.The sentiment behind patriotism crosses the related sentiment of love of country in what Juergen Habermas called Verfassungspatriotismus, or constitutional patriotism. I.e., emotional and intellectual commitment to the defence of universal values incorporated into modern constitutions, as each democratic state articulates and refracts those values. All that is allowed someone like Tiamut by way of patriotism is the poetry of Mahmoud Darwish, an immense lyrical longing for a native land no longer one's own.Nishidani (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No offense intended, but you're dead wrong.

Darwish, nativity and national identity: Darwish can be patriotic to the state he wished would replace Israel even if that state had never existed. Yes. He can expand on how much he cared about his native "country" even if that land was stolen by brute force from previous natives (See Dervish, Sufism, Ottoman Empire, etc.). He can also be quite insulting and even threatening to another nationality as he sees fit to tell people to get off their native land.

These people, who hold on to their national identity and love of earth just as much as Darwish, could very well be offended when blood-libels are referred to their people to justify this narrative (Suggested viewing: "Blaming the Jews"). Some of the nationally threatened individuals even turn to hard-to-justify violence when faced with opposition.

To further explain the Jewish-Arab dissonance, Darwish may have written a demand that Jews remove themselves from this land he saw as "his", but I know of no Jew who wrote poetry demanding that Arabs remove themselves from Yathrib and the Arabian peninsula... No Jew who suggested we nuke Mecca in "resistance" to the Arab-Islamic occupation of Palestine... I know your political affiliation about nativity but since we do not agree on this one I can only request that you at least try to respect my nativity and avoid pushing texts who's main objective is to attack it and delegitimize my people's historical rights on this land.

Refactoring comments: Refactoring comments can do more than just correct grammar or a broken link. It can also be used to show that you are capable of seeing and correcting a mistake when you make one; it happens to the best of us. No one will give you extra grief if you tone down a possibly unfair or overly harsh comment, to the contrary, it is a trust building move. For example you are also dead wrong (read: unfair) about your perception of Arab rights in Israel and it wouldn't hurt if you avoid presentations that neglect the 11 Arab Knesset members and the Supreme court Judge as well as rights that even Jews don't have.

p.s. a good start for learning the virtue of refactoring would be if you remove the soapbox about violent settlers poisoning the fields of the "rightful owners" (see: 1929 Hebron Massacre, The Travels of Sir John Mandeville (Chapter IX), the mythology of the Hebron al-Tamimi family, Ibrahim Pasha and the 1834 massacres). That text is just as offensive as if a Jewish person had used the 1066 Granada massacre and Shiraz blood libel to claim that Jews are the "rightful owners" of anything other than their historical homeland. It is improper to post such text on my page just to make a point about love of land as it lends to delegitimization, both in rhetoric[4] and also in action.[5][6][7]

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, everything you said in reply is incomprehensible to me. My use of Shulman, was not soapboxing. It was a concrete illustration of the concept of love of land, and patriotism, regarding Palestinian perceptions, about which we had, I thought, agreed to exchange a few notes. There is no law court in the world, even the Israeli Supreme Court, which says that land with full Palestinian legal title, can be seized and expropriated, (or even poisoned), without even compensation and an agreement, by settlers, as is the practice on the West Bank. The only 'law' that might justify this, is a highly restrictive interpretation of Jewish religious law. If you believe that religious law cancels out all non-Jewish claims to a land where non-Jews have legal title, you would appear to someone like myself to believe that race and religion trump humanity (this would strike one as religious patriotism in the most pejorative sense of both words), something you vigorously denied, by implication, in our previous exchanges. That is why I am mildly surprised.

And it would of course be pointless for us to continue any form of discussion any further. Naturally, if you don't like what I wrote on your talk page (David Shulman is a reliable source, as one of the foremost Israeli scholars in his field, an activist, a pacifist, who saw with his own eyes, (the poison was analysed by Israeli chemists) what occurred below Havat Ma'on, and, as a dutiful man, cleaned up, along with many other Israeli activists, the poisoning left there by settlers on what is land with Palestinian title), then good manners require that I remove it. I will therefore delete my remarks in this thread from your page, while retaining the right to reproduce the whole conversation, for the record, on my own. In closing, I do thank you for fixing that edit problem on the Iman al-Hams page. Fare well, then, Jaakobou.Nishidani (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Small note of clarifcation:

• Yes, we disagree on who are the "rightful owners" part - please keep religion out of it.
• No, I try not to justify violence by people who's national identity is threatened -- still, I can understand it's motives even if I disagree with a large chunk of the narratives - Jewish and Arab.
• Yes, it's probably better if we try to disengage when these topics are involved.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with the Israel Supreme Court which frequently has recognized Palestinian title to land settlers have driven them from. Since these specific settlers use religious claims, and attack these judgements, I certainly won't keep religion out of it. It was a fairly reasonable inference. Since no legal system in the modern world says a people are 'rightful owners' of land to which they have no legal title.
• Just a note of clarification on my part. I find arguments like yours, that immediately a point re Palestinians is raised, dredge up links to things like 1066 Granada massacre and Shiraz blood libel totally incomprehensible, for a very simple reason. It has nothing to do with the subject unless the linker thinks these links point to some ontology of blood libel hate in Islamic culture and Arab people (remember your famous, fortunately cancelled, outburst?). By a similar 'logic' you should refer me to a couple of hundred possible links to the profoundly violent anti-semitic history of Christendom, say, off the top of my head, to the Holy Child of La Guardia or Kishinev pogrom or what happened at Bury St Edmunds in 1190 (was it?), to prove goyim like myself are intrinsically antisemitic. People laugh at the dhimmi status under Islam, and forget that, as Raul Hilberg documented, most of the Nazi laws restricting Jews, down to the star of David, were harvested from impeccable sources in medieval Christian law. As a friend of Mahmoud Darwish said to Uri Avnery. Israel made peace with Germany some 6 years after the Holocaust. They refuse to make peace with us, decades after our nakba. So if my Muslim bretheren are to wear an ontological black mark for the rest of their existence, I suppose I should suicide, since the sins of my cultural forebears are infinitely greater, though none to my knowledge were antisemitic. But there is no point to this conversation, for the differences are too profound. Book knowledge is feeble against links to net articles.Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I've misread some of your past comments, but should I understand that you are a Muslim Irish?? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Bretheren in English usage is anchored in the New Testament, a Jewish heretical document in which all men are brothers (adelphoi). The Chinese would justly affirm equal ownership to the concept, since the medieval romance The Water Margin constantly has the same refrain:四海之内皆兄弟, 'All men are brothers within the four seas' ( four seas being the world)Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Israel has been trying for more than a decade to have peace giving up on many of it's defenses and giving weapons ans concessions to people who just a short while ago poisoned Israeli exports and demolished Jewish historical relics. Your quote, can be described in your own words as "totally incomprehensible".

And, seizing Hajj Khalil al-Banna's huge citrus export industry, 24km of prime land, even after his brother pleaded with the family friend Weizmann to intervene, had nothing to do with ruining Palestinian exports of those products. Of course demolishing by bulldozer 680 odd Palestinian villages after 1948 wasn't a matter of destroying Palestinian historical relics.Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

p.p.s. Fighting for your life against the Arab League and the resulting deaths, injuries, property damages and the Jewish exodus cannot be diminished by the Arab 'Nakba' narrative. They ignore my plight just as I ignore theirs, only that they demand retribution.

You're a little behind the times. TheArab League at the 2002 Arab League summit in Beirut offered Israel a comprehensive and binding peace treaty, undersigned by all 22 Arab countries, within the 67 borders, and the offer was repeated in 2007 in the Riad declaration. Israel has never formally replied.Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC) (just for the record:'in the past the Palestinian demand of a right of return was a serious obstacle to a peace agreement. But the Arab League’s peace initiative of 2002 leaves no doubt that Arab countries will accept a nominal and symbolic return of refugees into Israel in numbers approved by Israel, with the overwhelming majority repatriated in the new Palestinian state, their countries of residence, or in other countries prepared to receive them.' H. Siegman, ‘The Great Middle East Peace Process Scam,’ London Review of Books 16/8/2007) Nishidani (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No Arab country seriously believes that an agreement of the kind suggested implies all refugees and their descendents must return to Israel. Palestinian violence? Is seizing land by manu militari and depriving people with title to it to work that land a modern variation of Gandhian tactics of non-violent expropriation? No Israeli reliable source would doubt that Havat Ma'on settlers, to name one of many groups, are extremely violent. They are armed to the teeth, their Palestinian neighbours,, shepherds, are shot on sight if they appear with a gun (to defend their land). It's the wild west, gun-toting settlers, and natives who at most have an occasional Apache in their midst. As I said, exchanges like this won't get us anywhere, and are best dropped.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Best I'm aware, the main problem is right of return demands as well as a few other less significant issues such as putting a stop to violence; something the Palestinians are reluctant to do - putting it mildly. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC) (update) Nevermind that we should not agree to any returnees (opening a back door for the enemy), that's just one of a few minor issues like incitement to violence and overt anti-semitism (also make note of the eventualism in their rhetoric)... give a look at that documentary I linked earlier - i.e. Blaming the Jews. Israel is expected to (A) trust when no trust has been established, (B) compensate where it's the other side who's supposed to be doing the compensation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, technically, that statement is called 'putting your foot into it', for in calling potential Palestinian returnees to Israel the 'enemy' you are saying that, for example, anyone, from pacifists to poets, people like Mubarak Awad, Hasib Sabbagh,Niz-r, Rosalind Nashashibi, Naomi Shihab Nye, Ghada Karmi, Ahmad Teebi, Rashid Khalidi, Naseer Aruri, Nadia Abu El Haj, Taha Muhammad Ali or Mai Masri, of Palestinian descent would constitute elements of an 'existential threat' to Israel were they to return and work there. As for the rest, there will never be trust until settlers stop stealing land, claiming Israel's security requires that local Palestinian land-holders lose their livelihoods. So far this year in the West Bank the Israeli military and police have recorded 407 violent incidents by settlers, far exceeding the statistics for indigenous violence against these intruders. The world is getting I think a little fatigued by these pretexts for crime, the Pavlovian recitals about an ostensible rise in anti-semitism, every time some bystander expresses concern that another 100 or 1000 dunams have been expropriated on the West Bank by gun-wielding squatters, the IDF and assorted carpetbaggers. As I said, let's drop it.Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Two-three points:

1. I don't see a plethora of Jews in Suadi-Arabia or any other Arab country... why should the only Jewish state on this world take in Arab (22 countries) nationals to be it's citizens? Show me one county who'd take in foreign nationals who are inherently opposing the official mark-up of the state as its citizens?
2. Jewish history in Arab land is dhimmitude for centuries and being kicked out with all their property stolen. You dare compare 100-300 hostile villages (depopulated) and a few angry settlers with the destroyed 2500 years old Jewish community? Are you aware that among the stolen property, stolen land is estimated at a mere 100,000 square kilometers - 4 times the territory of Israel. And you think I sould cry about a few hilltops and give compensation to the Arab molesters of the past and present? .. why not ask I compensate neo-Nazis because some of the Jews at Warsaw Ghetto dared to fight back. Compensate them because Oscar Schindler made bullets that didn't work. Sure, the Arab-Muslims weren't nearly as bad as the Nazis - but the systematic removal of Jews from their native land is similar in tone and color as my "Yellow belt" notes and the "Blaming the Jews" documentary help illustrate.
3. You should give a little look at the official language of the majority of the Arab world. The '67 markup is often described as a Hudaybiyyah treaty and icongraphy,[8] on top of rhetoric supports this official language. You see - there's the "official" language that you listen to, and there's the other official language as well... you know, the one you like to forget and treat it as a fringe issue. You're talking about the West Bank, but the Arabs are talking about a "Palestine" that replaces Israel in it's entirety.

Might do you good to check a few of the other Arabian narratives other than the "evil settler thieves" one you are infatuated with.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your respect, less so your disrespect for the complexities of history and the truth, which bear no resemblance to the comic-book stereotypes and caricatures you recycle in our conversation, such as that nonsense about 'dhimmitude' and 'stolen Jewish land' (from a highly dubious nationalist source, full of speculative mathematics, that no self-respecting scholar has ever underwritten). So, as I say, it is pointless to argue with you on these things. One often believes whatever it is convenient to believe, because it feeds one's anger, resentment and defensiveness, behind the barricades of a black and white, simplified picture of the world, where nuance is a sign of treason.Nishidani (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh. So your narratives are The Truth™ and the ones I mention are nonsense nationalism. I wasn't aware that "self-respecting" scholars were only the ones who write about Arab miseries at the hands of "evil" settler Jews.

No, again, for the fifth time in just this brief thread, you cannot grasp what I mean. You almost invariably reply to what you infer a remark might imply. Note how my light criticism of your habit of simplifying complex issues by ostensible facts that turn out to be gross caricatures, is reduced to an 'implication' I have a grasp on (capitalised') 'The Truth', as opposed to your nationalist nonsense. I said you disregard the complexities of... the truth (lower case) in history, which, properly understood, should be taken to mean, as such phrasings are usually taken to mean, that historical truth (getting both the facts and the interpretation in close proximity to each other) is a very complex matter. Far from implying that there is some 'Truth' to history, it implies, to the contrary, that truth is something extremely fugitive, that slips through the hands even of the finest historical minds. It is this inability to see what your interlocutor is saying, or implying, that I find troublesome in our dialogues. You manage, time and again, to suspect me of saying the opposite of what I have actually said. You can link, again, to some wiki article on 'cognitive biases'. I suggest, if the subject interests you, that you begin with a modern masterpiece, Karl Mannheim's Ideology and Utopia,(1929) 1936. It is a rather simple exposition but holding its contents in one's head is, probably, in the long run, more profitable than linking your thoughts to a wiki page synopsis.Nishidani (talk) 12:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Bernard Lewis might be your fav apologist but others, like Willem Adriaan Veenhoven, Winifred Crum Ewing, Stichting Plurale Samenlevingen, Liam Gearon, the self-respecting Bat Yeʼor, Miriam Kochan, David Littman as well as any self respecting scholar writing about Sharia might give out some different notes about historical instances relevant to any non-Muslim under Islamic rule.
2. The Jewish exodus from Arab land is indeed documented mostly by nationals, but I wasn't aware that Jews can't be self-respecting unless they attack Zionism. Wouldn't hurt you to read about or watch a few "propaganda films"[9][10] that are about the "other" natives who lost their homes due to the Pan-Arab/Pan-Islamic movements.
3. I have no qualms about the nuances of the conflict; the problem lies with you as you are able to only see one of many narratives which you've decided on to be the ultimate truth.

"It involves some rights, though not all, and is surely better than no rights at all" Lewis (1984), p. 62 (Editor's comment: Some is better than nothing? Yeepee!!!)

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Google up all the page snippets you like. You are only, as a great poet once wrote, 'baiting with the wrong request/the vectors of your interest', a congeries of interests of whose logic Mannheim wrote forcefully about.Nishidani (talk) 12:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

... we should probably end this debate - keep me posted on my initial question.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Such ripostes get one nowhere, they are easily dismissed. Attempts at lengthy reasoning likewise. I take your engagement with my remarks to be a serious effort, but the gap is simply too deep. Sorry. In any case, such extratextual issues are not what wiki work is about. As to yellow belts and Harun al-rashid, if I ever do come across such material, I would of course let you know. But classically, Muslims did not have an anti-semitic world-view in the sense in I understand that word.Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And now for something compeltely differnt

One of my King's Quests is to validate and add material regarding Harun al-Rashid ordering all Jews in the Caliphate to wear a yellow belt, with Christians to wear a blue one. A source is found here and another source for similar instances is found here and here. Let me know if you're interested in helping me out on this one. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Reading list

Sorry Nishidani I haven't been keeping up with events for the past few days/weeks, someone gave me a reading list, this led to having my head in a few books.

Books on Israel: V.1 By Ian Lustick, Association for Israel Studies Contributor Ian Lustick Published by SUNY Press, 1988 ISBN 088706776X

For the Land and the Lord: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel By Ian Lustick, LUSTICK Published by Council on Foreign Relations, 1988 ISBN 0876090366

Israeli Historical Revisionism: From Left to Right By Anita Shapira, Derek Jonathan Penslar Contributor Anita Shapira, Derek Jonathan Penslar Published by Routledge, 2002 ISBN 0714653799

Modern Jewish Mythologies By Glenda Abramson Contributor Glenda Abramson Published by Hebrew Union College Press, 2000 ISBN 0878202161

Shattered Dreams: The Failure of the Peace Process in the Middle East, 1995-2002 By Charles Enderlin, Susan Fairfield Translated by Susan Fairfield Published by Other Press, LLC, 2003 ISBN 1590510607

In Pursuit of Peace: A History of the Israeli Peace Movement By Mordechai Bar-On Published by US Institute of Peace Press, 1996 ISBN 1878379534

Now remind me where was I and how do you see the settler/Palestinian issue being incorporated?.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh stuff the finicky point. Just read away, son (excuse that, but). People who undertake to read books, rather than google the hoped-for gen, are a credit to the ideals of Wikipedia. Take your time, Ashley.Nishidani (talk) 10:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I speed read Nishidani. Only it leaves my head a bit fuzzy as I try to catalogue and assimilate what I've read...but what the heck the little grey cells have a need to feed.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Browsing books is where I get a bit ruthless, highlighters and notes get written in the book....Ceedjee thinks it's sacrilege....My copy of Reagan Diaries has more notes by me than Reagan entries....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be curious to know of course what you wrote in the margin of your copy of RR's diaries by the entry for May 17, 1986!

It's only sacrilege if the copy is from a public library or a friend's collection. Ceedjee's wrong on this, but I understand his point. The book is an artefact and must be respected as such. It was normal, however, in Renaissance times to scribble in the margins. William Blake's books are thickly annotated: the jottings increase the value. One could go on forever. If one has many first editions of famous writers, on the other hand, it is not wise to mar them. Cheers

My markings in RR normally follow the lines of *****(expletive deleted) see so and so for better analysis....;You can see the senility getting worse!!! or so and so in such and such says *blah blah blah***************............ and note this or that was occurring at this time ....they are my own copies.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Nick

I tried but he got mad and pretty much called me a collaborator/conspirator with Israel and not a true Palestinian. Oh well, at least I tried and I think he will get blocked soon. His behavior and insults are simply unacceptable. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Hebron

I've just been reading some of the given references and quite honestly the references contradict the written article. It's a case of which bit to alter first. The whole of the ottoman part needs a rewrite, just from the Yehoseph Scharz book....It appears that someone has been doing a bit of creative writing...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

sackage is bad English...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, not quite. Sackage is, at worst, vintage English with a distinct patina of the narrative style of 19th.century history-writing. You are no doubt right (I infer this is your meaning) that folks don't use it much these days (hence perhaps not quite germane to wikistyle). But 'spoil and sackage' comes naturally to my mind, not only because I'm in my anecdotage. Sackage is a fine Tudor period word (Walter Skeat, Anthony L. Mayhew, A Glossary of Tudor and Stuart Words: Especially from the Dramatists, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1914 p.843). Curiously, Shakespeare never uses it, while he is fond of both 'sack' and 'spoil'. As you have a military background you might be interested in the fact that Thomas Wilhelm's A Military Dictionary and Gazetteer, L. R. Hamersly & Co., 1881 p.502, glosses the word as the pillage and rapine that occur when a city is taken. My suggestion arose because I have a slight dislike of deverbal gerundive nouns (sacking) when a simple noun from the same root (sack) exists. This example from Southey is particularly pertinent:-

‘Some among us, says he, in this city, count from the sackage of the Jewry, when the people plundered and burnt it, after which feat the Synagogue was consecrated into a Church in the name of St.Christoval, and many Jews were baptized by their own free will, all of which was in the year 1391’ Robert Southey,Chronicle of the Cid, 1808 p.386

Nishidani (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Pillage; loverly word, redolent with feeling......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Was the step the 7th step (the highest that Christians and Jews were allowed)...I know I've seen the 7th step mentioned somewhere but can't recall where...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Offhand, I think there were originally five steps one could ascend, extended later to 7 (which is a mystical number, unlike 5). Still, I'll check around my files tomorrow.Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see your retirement was short lived...:-)...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Brief!!! I've been trying to niggle at your retirement for weeks...I'd had almost given up hope....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed the use of "Jewish community" where congregation (Askenazic Sephardic or Karaite) and Islamic where Ayyubid/Mamluk/Ottoman should have been used....the only way to be certain is to find the ref used then read up and correct where appropriate...It gets a bit tiresome at times.....but removing POV is a necessary hobby....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I though that someone would like the Shelomo Alfassa references and then he didn't reference Hakham Yishak Hilo!!!!....Stephen von Gumfenberg? who what and when?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As I think I norted on the Hebron talk page Shelomo Alfassa does mention at least Hakham Yishak Hilo, and his second mention adds details we cannot find elsewhere, suggesting he didn't just pick this off the Wiki site or some other fragile source. I'm waiting for someone out there among our colleagues to drop him a note and ask if he could provide sources. Anyone fluent in Hebrew, with access to decent biographical encyclopedias, should be able to clarify who Hakham Yishak Hilo is, what books he wrote, and in which of them he made that comment. This sort of thing is what takes roughly 10 minutes of one's time in any comprehensive public library.Nishidani (talk) 10:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My public library has no mention of Hakham Yishak Hilo....if Shelomo Alfassa could be enticed to give some choice bits of Sephardic history of Hebron (with citations), it would be extremely welcome....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see Ottoman Hebron getting a make over....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Levant or Palestine..I didn't know which to use...the actual towns referred to were those in the (later) British Mandated territory but those in the North came under Syrian sanjaq while the southern came under Jerusalem.....Talking about it as a single region is sometimes problematical...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to use Palestine, the term Western travellers used. Syrian Jews, like Christians etc., there, had significant financial resources, whereas the small Jewish settlements in Palestine were subject to endless problems in funding, hence the frequent missions abroad by emissaries, even as far as the US in the late 1700s, to get subventions.Nishidani (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It probably is best to stick to using Palestine. During the 1700s the main donors were from the Constantinople Vaads...The term Palestine was used more by Western visitors (1800s) until the early 1900s when Nationalism became more prominent when Filistin/Palestine started to be used in the region.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 07:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

PS..Did you notice the 1839 Sephadic census I included in the external links?......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

A>s usual, I'm instructed by your diligence. No, I didn't notice. Distracted by an extraordinary teapot in a tempest, which unfortunately will engage my tolutiloquence for another hour, and despoil time better spent reading up, also for future edits. RegardsNishidani (talk) 09:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Good work on "Qibrisli Pasha"! And I have added your 3 books to the sources-page, thanks! I´m logging out now, but will return to the Hebron-page in the near future (I hope). There is so much work needed there.. Btw, the "Mejr ed Din" in Robinson is the "Mujir ad Din" in le Strange (#24). His main work, "The history of Jerusalem and Hebron", from 1496, is unfortunately only available in French and Arabic, AFAIK. Regards, Huldra (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you can get an on-line version of the French translation of Mejr ad Din, I'll read it all, and translate the relevant parts. Thanks for your sterling efforts. No hurry.Tack så rysligt mycket Nishidani (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for kind words, wrt Mejr ad Din I have answered on the Hebron talk-page. What I have just put into Hebron is really just a "first draft"..I don´t like such long quotes myself, but it is a starting-point. (At least it is better than the false quote which was there earlier!) Please feel free do rework it any way you like. And yes: we do need more on Tamim al-Dari (Al Ameer son started the article a couple of hours after I requested it ;-D ) Regards, Huldra (talk) 11:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Left you a little note about an insulting insinuation you made

I saw a couple of really uncalled for comments you and Eleland made on his talk page and left you a comment. Eleland, being the great diplomat that he is, called it 'bull****' as he reverted a note that he shouldn't call Jews "master race". I figure you should give a look to my comment as you've made quite an insulting insinuation yourself. Eternalsleeper (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summary "Antisemitism ain't cool" was entirely inappropriate, Eleland did the right thing by deleting it and calling it bullshit. Imad marie (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw it here, Eternalsleeper, and was suitably impressed by your somnambulant inability to read. I know people have forgotten what it means to construe a sentence for its various meanings, but I find it rather tiresome, this gusto for distortions of what people say, or for misreading what people mean, and developing huge threads of incomprehension out of misprisions. For the record, Eleland expressed distaste for someone trumpeting the idea that the Jewish people are eternal, while the Palestinians are dead historically. May they both live long in the records of the world. As for myself, I made a Joycean pun, to introduce some levity and console Eleland, who was in the wrong, admitted as much by his quick revert, and was, several hours later properly warned about his language. This much is obvious, and I find comments attributing either to myself, or to a fellow editor with a fine record, the idea that we entertain antisemitic sentiments, instead of a healthy intolerance for ethnic cant, symptomatic of a dangerous frivolousness. If I hear antisemitic cracks I tell people to eff off in private life, and loudly, even in 'polite' company. The same goes for inane cracks, by idjets with a superiority complex, if they put down any other group, esp. those as unjustly tormented by history's winner-take-all impetus as the Palestinians. It's called par condicio. Enough of this nonsense. Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I find this junk fascinating (once more, another unknown editor reveals that he has been following several of us closely, without whispering a word, and muttering to himself 'anti-semite' at every edit he observes), and wish to conserve it here for further reflection:

'Sure, and there's nothing wrong with an established editor who calls Jews "master race" or another calling them "horn-blowers" when many edits both make tries to portray Jewish Zionists as the crux of the world's problems. As no one makes a big hoopla of the Islamic occupiers of Eretz Israel, I find your commentaries offensive and racist. Eternalsleeper (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)'

"history's winner-take-all impetus"

Can you explain what you meant by this precisely? --Einsteindonut (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I won't Nishidani (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Doesn't seem to be anything anyone's ever said before[11] --Einsteindonut (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, brilliant. You can't recognize an allusion, and I have to stop watching a Paul Newman movie to give you a leg-up, to save you the sweat of more refined searches via google? If you believe anything that has been said or written or thought can be accessed lazily by punching a few words in a search machine, you've a lot of work to do. Try just reading good sources, preferably those thingamijigs, what were they called in the good old days? uh, . .., yeah, books. Nowadays, the readable ones can be found in places called libraries. Then try editing. That's what we're here for. Good luck.Nishidani (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Learn to answer a question and spare me the condescension. Do not speak for my beliefs. You're really not all that, so get off your high horse and spare me the insults. I have a feeling of what you meant by that statement, but I merely AGF to ask you directly before asserting it. My point is that it was clearly your own statement, and therefore I rightly turn to you to explain it. I've read plenty of books, even scrapbooks. --Einsteindonut (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I answered your initial question. You asked me: Can I explain what I meant', and I replied that I could, but wouldn't. If you dislike condescension, don't punish yourself by fishing for it on my page, where, notoriously I condescend, even to myself. Your message in the link that I should g** f***** is duly registered, but I'm afraid it's directed to the wrong identity, since I'm not the passive type. Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You misinterpreted that as a message to you. You said that I should read more books, I just sent you to a link of one I like. You really need to AGF. --Einsteindonut (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It's nice that you conclude your intrusion on a further comical note, i.e. '(Nishidani) get fucked and assume good faith.' Please edit, and elsewhere. I take this encyclopedia seriously, and have no time to waste on trivia and pettiness.Nishidani (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You take it so seriously that you cannot answer a simple question (due to your own pettiness). I'll edit when and where I please, thank you. --Einsteindonut (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I don't answer questions posed by people who consider wikipedia an ideological hotbed of prejudice, and who when turned down in their fishing expeditions, tell one to get fucked. I assume good faith when I see it actively, in hard work on books and quality edits. So far, I see no sign of this in your own interactions with me. Feel free to look around for the kind of interlocutor who sees something I don't.Nishidani (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop putting words in my mouth please. There's good reason why you didn't answer my question and you know it. The fact that you will not answer it has nothing to do with me whatsoever. I see no signs of "hard work on books" or "quality edits" from you, either. So again, please stop talking down to me and to others. You're really not so wonderful, especially if you have to dodge questions. --Einsteindonut (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I see no signs of "hard work on books" or "quality edits" from you, either.

The essence of your remark lies in that either, which constitutes an admission that you don't do the hard leg of book-reading required to contribute to the encyclopedia, and that you have not made quality edits. As to my contributions: one can judge it objectively by examining the list of 200 pages where I have edited. Not enough, of course, but a sign of editorial commitment and good faith in the encyclopedia's aims.

I don't dodge questions. I dodge people who plug away asking silly ones. So drop it, and do some legwork for serious editing.Nishidani (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not dodging me, you are dodging the question. And the use of "either" is only an admission that, "I see no signs...from you..."EITHER." You mentioned something about "hard leg of book-reading required to contribute..." - are you out of your mind? Anyone at any level can contribute to this "encyclopedia" (game) - However, that is really wonderful, your 200 pages of editing and such. Perhaps you should put that on your resume or CV, I'm sure people in the real world care. Do you want a "barnstar?" Do you really think your easily-reverted "contributions" to this encyclopedia game impress me (or anyone for that matter)? In that you've wasted so much time, perhaps. It's humorous how seriously you take this and yourself. Most serious scholars aren't wasting their time here. --Einsteindonut (talk) 08:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, all this won't work. My equanimity in what I do is such that all this petty drivel is water off a duck's back, an acquatic metaphor which reminds me to repeat: engage in fishing expeditions elsewhere. I have work to do. This is my last comment on your badgering, off-topic, intrusions. Thank you Nishidani (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing could have been avoided, had you answered the question, AGF, and not dodged it, but to each their own. It's bizarre that you mistake an innocent question for some "fishing expedition" for some reason. Now, duck hunting is a whole other story. No worries, Nishidani, I know exactly what you meant, I just wanted to hear it straight from the horse's mouth. --Einsteindonut (talk) 09:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't assume good faith until I see it. No aprioris in my world, whatever this means wiki-wise (perhaps cause for a complaint?). As to the horse's mouth, well, frankly, I rather figure myself in the mould of Billa'am's ass.Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the case may be, you should perhaps consider the fact that no one treats the "Palestinians" worse than their own leaders and brethren. I know many Jewish doctors in Israel who treat them quite well, actually. I also know many Jewish leftists who do the same. And trust me, if winner wanted to take all, we very much could, but it's not all about what you learn from your biased sources. No other country in the world hands land away won in defensive victories for--not even a false promise of "peace." So hush your kvetching about said "torment" and "injustice", because no one has seen anything yet. If the world keeps pushing, Israel can and will push back harder (ie. the left will go right, the Jewish doctors will stop treating Arabs, all Jews will lose all compassion whatsoever toward their sworn enemies, etc.) and all the false allegations in which the world wishes to "damn" Israel with today will ring more true than ever imagined tomorrow. In other words, you haven't seen "winner-take-all." You have not seen torment, nor have you seen injustice until Israel is pushed to the brink of seriously having to become the true winner and take on the "take no prisoners" mentality. Unfortunately today we don't just take prisoners, but then we release child killing terrorists (Kuntar) in exchange for dead corpses. That's all going to change one day. --Einsteindonut (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to post this several hours ago, in reply to the absurdly pseudo-paternalistic victimised tract above. Please consider it our final exchange. I wish to concentrate on serious matters

The state released a child-killing member of the IDF for pumping bullets to, as they say euphemistically, 'verify the kill', into the head of Iman Darweesh Al Hams, a terrified 13 yr. 'old' girl just trying to get to her school, when he had already verified she was not a threat and lay wounded. He was not only absolved of the crime, but sued the State for recompensation, which he duly got, along with a military promotion from captain to major. That if the difference between us. I am a universalist, and equate Samir Kuntar's smashing in of the head of an Israeli child, Einat Haran, with Captain R's finishing off Iman Darweesh al-Hams. You are a nationalist, and think there is always some redeeming specificity to mitigate the force of one’s critical judgements, if someone in the ranks of your own ‘people’ are called to order. The former is called ‘purity of arms’, the latter, ‘terrorism’. Both are acts of terrorism. Yet compare the two wiki articles. There is none of the intense outrage at Captain R’s release, and much hullabaloo about Kuntar’s release and reception. Arabs note these things, and rightly complain of double standards.Nishidani (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

War is ugly. Get a helmet. Do you want me to bore you with tales of Jewish children killed or with shrapnel lodged in their brains from Islamic terrorist attacks? I am not a nationalist, actually. Nor am I a "pseudo-paternalistic victim" (whatever THAT means.) One thing that is clear though is that you are a moral relativist. Given the full context of the situation (ie. war) and the fact that children throughout the Arab and Muslim world have been brainwashed to think martyrdom is a good thing as well as used to hide behind, carry weapons, etc. compounded by Israel's security needs, what we have is a very complex situation vs. a very simple one. The fact that you see both as equally as bad is telling, but then you probably compare Israeli settlements to terrorist attacks as well. If the Arab world does not make noise about Captain R's release, then that's their deal. No double standards apply here. Jews have every right to make noise about the release of a terrorist. If you feel that there is some problem in WP, then fix it. It seems to me one of the main differences between Jew and Arab is that Jews typically find more constructive means of protesting injustice vs. rioting in the streets and promoting terrorism, etc. While some Jews do awful things and make terrible mistakes, we certainly do not promote these things in our culture. Most Jewish people value life, as opposed to the majority of our enemies who celebrate death. Frankly, the Arab and Muslim world is just upset that Israel still exists (despite how many proclamations that it will be destroyed?) Seriously, one would think that world would have much better things to do than to wish for the destruction of an entire nation and the ~6 million Jews living there. Oh wait, never mind, there's the "Big Satan" (America) to worry about after that. (Not to mention all the other conflicts in the world which centers around Arabs and Muslims.) Can you send me some good stuff from "Counterpunch"? - I haven't been misled in many years. --Einsteindonut (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a Jew and no such thing as an Arab. There are Jewish and there are Arab people. The infamy of this talking style is to wrap up, 17 million people or 1 and a half billion people, into a unit 'the Jew/Jew' and 'the Arab/Arabs', and treat them as interchangeable clones. Antisemites just love talking about 'the Jew', and anti-antisemites all too often reverse the game and love talking about 'the Arab'. I have never met a 'Jew' or 'Arab' who is as you describe either. I suggest you read in sequence the novels of Isaac Bashevis Singer, and then get back to me and tell me what is the common trait that you distilled from his vast panoramic depiction of the immensely diverse Jewish world and its many extraordinary figures and cultures. I'd be delighted to discover what several decades of reading and contact with the world have failed to reveal to me, i.e., a person who fits his national stereotype.Nishidani (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There most certainly is such a thing as a Jew and such thing as an Arab. If not, perhaps you should mark both those articles for deletion. Oh, I wanted to share this with you because certainly the situation of IDF soldiers simply trying to DEFEND people is the same as people plotting and scheming to commit an act of murder. I've read quite a bit of Singer and, in fact, I met his assistant. A Jew is a Jew is a Jew. You want to know what all Jews have in common? It is that all Jews (who are not converts) have Jewish mothers. That is the only requirement to be a Jew. I'm surprised you didn't learn this throughout your "several decades of reading and contact with the world" but I'm happy to reveal it to you now. There are other spiritual commonalities regarding the Jewish soul, but I highly doubt that would be of much interest to you. There are also common genetic links. Here's more on that, if you're interested. Regarding Arabs, I do realize they come in all shapes, colors, religions and sizes as well. That said, just because I might express something a certain way it does not mean that I am stereotyping. You were claiming that Arabs complain about double standards, yet apparently do not manifest their complaints on Wikipedia? --Einsteindonut (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

'all Jews (who are not converts) have Jewish mothers. . .I'm surprised you didn't learn this'

I'm not surprised you don't know your own faith's complicated rules. All this superficial remark shows is that you define Jews as the Conservative Orthodox rabbinate defines them, in terms of halakha rulings, and not as Reform Jews define them,(more in conformity with the Biblical-historical identity of Jewish people with patriarchal descent). Keep it up. I'm amused by your lack of knowledge.Nishidani (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the recent Reform movement and its complication of non-complicated matters of Jewish identity which have been in place for many years. Thank you. Just because some Jews saw fit to water down and alter certain Laws it does not mean they are correct in doing so. At this rate it won't be much of a concern for much longer. I'm still amused by your excess of cats compounded by the fact that you still see fit to look down at me. Just because one doesn't talk themselves up constantly it doesn't mean that they are the morons you think they are. Your smarts would be much more appreciated and respected if you stopped feeling what appears to be the constant need to brag about them. --Einsteindonut (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If you were well aware of it, why did you make a remark that assumed I was ignorant of a distinction your generalization overlooked, in order to snipe about an ostensible gap in my knowledge, which turns out to be an oversight in yours?:)Nishidani (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I assumed nothing. There is Jewish Law regarding Jewish identity. Just because a relatively recent movement comes along to change the Law as they see fit, it does not make it so. The majority of Jews throughout history have defined Jewish identity this way. I don't believe that someone is Jewish if their mother is not Jewish. Besides, there are other things (DNA and the Jewish soul) which binds all Jews. Oh, there's also that connection to the Land, which all Jews have, whether they are aware of it or not. --Einsteindonut (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes you did. Have you a WP:RS for that generalisation about the majority of Jews throughout history? As to the connection to the Land, this is patently false. Most Jews given the choice preferred to migrate to Europe or America. We're all the richer for it. My own nephews don't know it, but they are, in your sense, as Jewish as David, whose great-grandmother was Ruth the Moabite. One of my future self-assumed functions as an uncle will be to instruct them in this.Nishidani (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't. Regarding my generalization, all one needs to do is a) consider how recent the few movements which support patrilineal descent are and b) consider how rare of a minority those few movements throughout history which supported it were. Just because some Jews made choices to not migrate to Israel, it does not mean there is not a connection to the Land. How are we "all the richer" for those decisions? I'm sure most of those Jews who didn't migrate to Israel became part of groups in Europe and America which are very strong advocates for it (in which I'm am sure you take issue.) That's very sad regarding your nephews. You will do a great mitzvah to inform them of this. Not sure if this tidbit makes you Jewish or not. If so, L'Shana Tova. Or, L'Shana Tova either way since it's really just celebrating the birthday of mankind. (And here this whole time I thought you were an old woman with cats...didn't see that one coming, Sir.) --Einsteindonut (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Our differences are, by appearance, irreducible, but elementary, if Kantian, courtesy obliges me to reciprocate with sincerity, and thus, yes, كل سنة وأنت طيب

שָׁלוֹם עֲלֵיכֶם Nishidani (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice. It's been "real" but I must get some rest. Take care. --Einsteindonut (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Your wishes

Not at all, Nishdani, thank you! -- Avi (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, Nishdani. I was trying for a respectable, yet accurate, term, and I must admit to my ignorance of Joyce's use of that juxtaposition -- Avi (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm really suprrised

I thought we had this whole smearing thing behind us, but apparently you don't mind bringing up old issues to make me look bad. I apologize for complaining about you in response, but I felt your initial comment was totally uncalled for.
Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I felt this comment was inappropriate -- considering the topic discussed and that it was already noted that this terminology is offensive -- so I've removed it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite within your rights to remove it from your own talk page, though it was improper to suggest I was advocating the use of Nazi terminology. It was not offensive. Be assured that whenever I remark something that may appear to you to be controversial or 'offensive' (to Jewish or Israeli sentiments), 99% of the time I have a specific literature written by Jewish or Israeli authors in mind, which informs my thinking on this and many other issues. I have in any case put the material you deem to be advocacy (of hate language and racist jargon) below under Eleland -discussion with Jaakobou, just so the record is absolutely limpid, and beyond equivocation, should I be called on this at any time in the future.Nishidani (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that you have some valid references. Please consider the suggestion that you should avoid forcing all your points through minor samples of Jewish political violence (even when it's irrelevant) and then you will have a legitimate claim when others reciprocate by making points with general accusations towards Arab political violence or by suggesting that Israel is occupied. Really, you're pushing all the hot-buttons worse than anyone here and then you complain that people accuse you "unjustly" and that no one understands history as well as you. Just stop it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

'Minor samples of Jewish political violence' is a grievous oversight, for 'Israeli'. I would remind you that the two words are not coterminous, synonymous or interchangeable. Secondly 'minor' is moot, since the literature abundantly documents that, even at an extremely reductive reading, violence cannot be considered as less than on a level of parity. In the last year, IDF and settler violence has markedly exceeded whatever one can list from Palestinian activities. I have no interest in 'Arab political violence' since the term is meaningless, and I find the idea that Israel is occupied absurd. So the 'hot-buttons' don't exist, and really, perhaps we should drop it, and get back to edits. I have a large backlog to do, myself, and I'm sure you do too. Nishidani (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"99% of the time I have a specific literature written by Jewish or Israeli authors in mind" = "I'm not an anti-semite, some of my best friends are Jews!" = "I have no problem with Jews, just Zionism and the state of Israel." --Einsteindonut (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Moronic remarks, esp. from pseuds from pseud corner's quarter-baked quarterbacks militating in a tinpot operation like the JIDF, are not welcome on this page. Piss off. There! Happy? You've finally managed to make me violate WP:AGF. Report me, and drop an email to David Appletree telling him you've struck another blow to save Israel from an antisemite.Nishidani (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Unlike the majority of people on WP, I don't feel the need to "tell" on people for their rudeness. No clue what you mean by "from pseuds from psued corner's quater-baked quaterbacks militating." I just find your rationalizations and your flowery language meant to try to veil your own bias to be interesting, is all. Who knows whether or not your an antisemite? All that is obvious to me that you think you're the only smart person with wisdom and who reads on WP and you put down nearly everyone with whom you disagree through your condescension. I'd much rather have you call me or my remarks "moronic" than to witness you hiding the fact that you do, in fact, feel that way. At least it is nice that the truth of the matter has come out here. I just made the point that coincidentally every hater of Jews uses the same technique to rationalize their hatred. If it touched a nerve for some reason, sorry. --Einsteindonut (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That I'm infinitely better read than you is obvious. That I am very much small fry, a pedantic, rather verbose old hack in Wikipedia, where the intelligence, breadth of technical, literary and scientific mastery by thousands, of admins and co-workers, and their selfless dedication, day in day out, to achieving the ideals of this encyclopedia are constantly in evidence, is also self-evident. You sneered at that from day one in here, and that is what disposes me to treat you with condescension. This generosity of spirit of the young here is what convinced me, against all sane reasoning, to chip in at my late age, to help in the area that is one of the most difficult to edit, when time is not willingly wasted in often unrewarding labour.

No, this stuff about touching a raw nerve won't wash with me. Unfortunately for your parti pris, I simply lack, not by some inner virtue but by the fortuitous influences of family background and rearing, the obscure instincts that drive many to ethnic hate. Before I even understood these things, my first elective friends at school were chosen among the tiny minority of Poles, Dutch and Italians there, not my fellow-countrymen. I won't in your case complain further about your conviction I am an anti-semite. I leave it, privately, for my many Jewish colleagues in here, to make their own personal judgements on this, if they happen to read our exchanges. Even if some may happen to believe my mode of thinking on these questions stirs a shadow of doubt, this has never troubled what has been, whatever our differences, a productive virtual relationship informed by collegial esteem and in some instances, I believe, of mutual regard. At least, that is what I feel, and I don't feel the need for testimonials. Were it not for your neurotic badgering on the issue, I wouldn't even feel the need to say this. If I did, it would mean I was unsure about my self on this. I am not. Goodbye.Nishidani (talk) 06:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

For someone who claims to be "infinitely better read" than I, I'm surprised you'd jump the the conclusion that I view you as an anti-semite. I only brought you some patterns and made some associations. You chose to jump to the wrong conclusion and to neurotically respond to all of my said "neurotic badgering." Not sure why you feel the need to make yourself appear small and let me know that you befriended certain people. Bizarre. You talk such a massive talk that I just find it amusing. I suppose you only enjoy corresponding with the virtual friends with whom you agree. I wonder if all those Poles, Dutch, and Italians read as much as you and if you felt the need to tell them that you are far "better read" than they are every moment. I wonder if you conduct yourself this way in real life or just here. The only reason why I ask is because you seem to be a real character. How many cats do you own? --Einsteindonut (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

People don't own cats. They are owned by them, I by four.Nishidani (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha!!!!!! --Einsteindonut (talk) 07:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

AGF

Your accusations of double standards are not constructive. Please work more effectively within Wikipedia process and AGF on the part of others. If you find abuse, report it, but do it concisely and please try to minimize the drama. You've been warned about AGF before. Consider this a formal warning. Continuing this behavior will find you blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Note to self. Ignore this.Nishidani (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Have a nice day. Toddst1 (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Book(s)

Thanks for the new book-title! I will add it in a moment. Oh, btw, I was taught "never to wrestle with pigs", as "you both get filthy, and the pigs enjoy it." Some people are simply not worth a block, if you see what I mean? I hope we can get Eleland back before 3 months. Anyway, take care, Huldra (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't offend me! I like pigs, and would gladly have one as a household pet (only I don't trust the cook!), like the snakes I gather from frightened neighbours, reptiles I lodge in my gardens. Human wisdom began when we listened to a snake, as I think Harry Potter understood. The more something is hated or feared, the more I feel obliged to take an interest in its welfare, since more often than not, it is the victim of our irrationality.Nishidani (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Ok, ok, I´m backing off! ..btw, I have several times seen people out walking their pigs in the centre of the city here...it´s true!! ;-D Ok, not the BIG normal pigs, but something I think they call Chinese pet-pigs, (or something like that). Not my cup of tea, I´m afraid, (I am totally a cat-person myself.) As for snakes.. <shudders>...let´s leave that discussion for another time. Meao. Huldra (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Done. Regards, Huldra (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Eleland. Discussion with Jaakobou

Reference to the Eleland ban

See my comment. I did not cite that for the content, nor to reflect on you, but to highlight a disparity in treatment. Please note that I recognize Eleland must suffer a ban. That is the way the rules work, and he himself knows this. Our disgruntlement is purely over the fact that two idiots who maliciously engaged in smearing us and Palestinians, are being ignored, as is the fool who told me to 'get fucked' on my talk page. I don't make complaints, and I dislike people who do. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the linked diff does not mention "Zionists", how is it racist? Eleland is using "Nazi" to describe someone's editing habits, not their race. This is disruptive. Black Kite 21:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Mind the question, but have you read the thread in question where Eleland claims his right to call others Nazis came from? What I personally find disruptive is Nishidani's WP:OWN attitude towards the thread and the suggestion that your edit was not disruptive while mine was. Please do not remove the word "racism" from a thread which discusses racist comments and suggestions among other issues. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I could provide a reading list for the fact that calling Israelis within Israel 'Nazis' is commonplace among settlers. Eleland did not call anyone a Nazi, he called a self-affirmed true believer in 'ethnic supremicism' someone who, by definition, believes in a master race, and the point was ironical, to shame him into realizing that such boasting is unacceptable, particularly to anyone who takes the Holocaust's many messages seriously. I own nothing here. And my insistance on defending Eleland from a smear is a matter of principle. I didn't say your edit was 'disruptive'. Since these arbitration issues imply a requirement to be precise in one's charges, I simply called for the elimination of a word in the header which the plaintiff refuses, even now, to document by diffs, or justify, despite being shown that his deduction is based on a very serious misreading of Eleland's remarks. I say this as someone who can be relied on to call for a perma-ban on anyone who even makes the slightest anti-Semitic remark in Wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 08:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If people disrespect the memory of the Holocaust, it does not mean that you, Eleland, or anyone else should do it as well. I have not seen proof that anyone (espcially Jewish) here on Wikipedia earned the title "goose-stepper" btw. You're going to have to learn to recognize antisemitic commentary before you can make your empty promises. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC) clarify 08:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC) clarify more 08:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you fail to see that the Holocaust is not a Jewish property. Its overwhelming import constitutes a universal admonition about ethnic triumphalism. I see Gypsies treated as scum every other day where I live. They had half of their people exterminated in those same death-factories.Nishidani (talk) 09:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The title "goose-stepper" is offensive to most people everyone I know and I saw nothing that justifies the title being given where you and Eleland decided it should be. Zionists, Settlers, Irgun members even are not Nazis - period. And using terminology that works for all Jews (horn-blowers, Torah nationalists*(see note) makes the comments aired outrageously offensive. Now you edit-war over the claim that it wasn't.[12], [13] It's clearly not your place to say when a comment is offensive to Jewish people since you repeatedly make such comments. Allow the uninvolved to decide on the merits of the claim themselves please rather than violate WP:OWN and WP:3RR.

p.s. If you can prove to me that the person truly thinks he's the supreme race and all should bow to him, I might agree with a small portion of your perspective, but he has not -- and the reaction by you and Eleland was indeed bigoted and offensive even if he has since you used general Jewish symbolism. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Jaakobou contests my removing on my page his link to direct readers of the phrase 'Torah nationalists' to Judaism. In his mind, apparently, the word Torah nationalist refers to Judaism, whereas,(and I will dredge up the link) the phrase alludes to a remark by Saxophonemn, who railed against atheist liberals, and declared his religious nationalism, based on the Torah. I'm a goy, but I am offended that one should gloss the phrase 'Torah nationalism' by one pro-settler religious nationalist with a link to Judaism, which has a rich and variegated tradition, religious, civil, nationalist, antinationalist, with deeply religious people opposing nationalism and others supporting it. Torah nationalism is not Judaism, it is a minority position within Judaism, and thus the link consisted, in my view, in a deception, a misprision that manipulates the original argument subliminally. Jaakobou is welcome to contest my reading of this, but should not revert the text on my page, for his words linking Torah nationalism to Judaism are a thorough distortion of the thread relating to Saxophonemn where both Eleland and I were critical of Saxophonemn's 'Torah-based nationalism' but said nothing of Judaism. To affirm this is to deliberately insinuate our critique of Saxophonemn was based on a hostility to, or mocking of, Judaism. Crap.Nishidani (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: To use words in a careless manner can lead to and entertain dangerous perspectives. It's a shame you repeatedly dismiss the notion and insist that what you meant is how it should always be understood regardless of the situation and the people involved. Your interactions basically suggest that Jews are not allowed to be offended by improper commentary... we're allowed, and you are allowed to apologize if you've missed something which might be offensive rather than adorn your humanist cape and claim to be "defender of the weak". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarification response. I rarely use words in a careless manner, and if I do, I acknowledge the slip without deleting it. (2) Look Jaakobou, have you ever read deeply in the scholarly history of the psychology and sociology of anti-semitism? You are not a spokesman for the Jewish world any more than I am a spokesman for anyone of the several cultures I've lived within. Everything you say I take as 'Jaakobou's opinion', not as 'Jewish opinion', just as you should take what I say as Nishidani's opinion. I'll repeat Theodor Adorno's famous aphorism, (in his Minima Moralia): 'To say 'we' when you mean 'I' is the most recondite of insults'. Why? because in saying 'we' (Jews, Americans, whoever) you are making out to your interlocutor that whatever you personally say is what anyone who shares your ethnic, national or cultural background would say. This is 'totalitarian'. And, for the love of Mike, drop this stuff about offensiveness. Grown men shake the dust off themselves after a bunfight and shake hands. Here, a kiddie mentality of screaming persecution at the slightest misprision is once more at risk of setting down roots into our collegial atmosphere. We know each other long enough to refrain from jumping at everything said by an adversary with a sense of complaint, or a suspicion of malevolence. Einsteindonut in a careless remark said something I regard as deeply ominous. I let it pass. Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Entertain this question and remind me where you've "acknowledged a slip" once an editor here suggested a comment of yours was offensive. Please. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Dozens of people in I/P wiki have thought what I regard as a normal comment to be 'offensive'. If I started up and reacted personally to everything I read (in the intimacy of my mind) as offensive, I'd be carted off screaming to the rat-house. Most of the mainstream world's information is, to me, contemptuous of most things I hold dear. Not for that do I make a lifestyle, or a career, out of whingeing. The world is violent. One hopes simply to not figure in the large list of offensive beings when final accounts are made. Of course, there is no such thing as a final accountancy. Good night, and, though I am totally and heatedly opposed to many things you believe in, I hope you will not doubt my sincerity in concluding this exchange with a L'shanah tovah. Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

One comment earlier you were talking about shrugging off the opinion of only one person because it doesn't represent general perspectives and now you say dozens of people and you still refuse to get the point. Your commentary tends to be crude when Jewish people are involved - that is not my opinion alone and you've basically admitted that just now - albeit I'm sure you'll claim admitting to nothing. When prodded to show examples of your claim to 'correcting the (rare?) slips', you've amounted to dodging the question entirely suggesting nothing but contempt to the dozens of people who complained to you. Correct my misunderstanding and remind me where you've "acknowledged a slip" once an editor here suggested a comment of yours was offensive. Please. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't, certainly among settlers on the West Bank. It is thoroughly documented that they customarily resort to Nazi analogies to describe not only the Palestinians, but members of the IDF, or police forces, called in to restrain their violence, not to speak of their abuse of Israelis back over the Green line. Many of them think of anyone who opposes them as 'Nazis'. Criticize that, and you can perhaps criticize Eleland and myself, who are all too familiar with the phenomenon. It has nothing to do with Jews, or Israelis. A thug is as a thug behaves, a Nazi is as a Nazi behaves, be he yellow, black, white, Chilean, Tibetan, American, Jewish as the case may be. Morality may be provincial, ethics are universal and ethical rules cannot be tailored for special circumstances. I see the figure of the hounded 'Jew' in every minority that suffers discriminatory violence. I suppose this perspective is incomprehensible to you, but serious people can think this way. Many Israelis and Jews happen to agree with me.Nishidani (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the point that I would have made, had not Jaakobou eliminated as advocacy (which it is not) my comment on the thoroughly documented settler use of Nazi jargon to question the behaviour of Israel's military and police forces, and which I asked not to be 'pocketed', would have been the following two quotations from Idith Zertal.

‘For several of the founders of an early contributors to Nekuda, the very appearance of the paper was reminiscent of the publication of a Jewish paper in Teresienstadt or Auschwitz. Israel, with its mighty army, was equated, in various ways, with Jewish ghetto communities during the Holocaust, and incumbent governments were identified, as required, with the Nazis themselves or with their collaborators, both Jewish and non-Jewish. The settlers perceived themselves, on the other hand, as the only true ”Jews” of the world and of Israel, whose endless persecution and victimhood, and the Holocaustic situation in which they were living, defined them. They saw themselves as the last fighters on the wall, the handful of ghetto rebels, expecting their lonely doom in an ocean of nazi-like hatred shared by the entire world, Gentiles, Arabs, and non-settler Israelis included. “I see an Israeli prime minister who reminds me of Marshal Pétain shaking the hand of the chief Nazi and handing over the Jews of his country,” writes a woman settler after the signing of the Oslo agreement in Washington.

‘Around us I see the barbed wire fences and guard towers which are being erected and threaten to sequester us in a ghetto . .at the demonstrations in which I took part, I saw abnlack-booted mounted Jewish policement beating a Jewish child with his truncheon . c.whether they wish it or not, (they) will return to our side in the fight against the SS from Gaza who will do battle with us armed with blue-and-white weapons.’

The world, the settler’s rhetoric went, has reverted to being a world which preserves its Jews only to be able to hate and persecute them, a world where the Jews are scapegoats, atoning for the sins of the world.

‘No modern Western country can exist without Jews. It requires them as the objects of discrimination, feelings of superiority and contempt . .Even Germany, whioch killed the Jews, and Poland, valley of the same death, two countries in which there are almost no Jews, have not yet found a substitute for the Jews . .The jews of the State of Israel are those who wear skullcaps, who carry arms, and who live beyond the Green Line, in short, Gush Enumim. Their center is Kiryat Arba, the most slandered city in Israel and in the world.”

Another Nekuda contributor pondered the emotional need of the settlers’ opponents to exploit images from other times and other circumstances: “It is difficult to plumb the depths of the hatred, the malicious need to slander tens of thousands of people and to use blatantly Nazi images with regard to them.” He was speaking at a time when Nazi and Holocaust images –aktziya, yellow badge, Judenrein, Judenrat, SS, Auschwitz, and Hitler – were being enlisted by the Nekuda writers themselves as weapons in the ultimate battle for their Eretz Israel. In their world, where meaning is turned inside out, which projects on to the others, the conquerors become conquered, the persecutors are turned into persecuted, wronmgdoer into the victim, and this inverted order received the supreme seal of Auschwitz.’ Wrote Elyakim Ha’etzni, chief ideologist and contributor to Nekuda.Idith Zertal, Chaya Galai, Julia A. Clancy Smith , Israel’s Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood, Cambridge University Press, 2005 pp.191-192 Nishidani (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)’

Just a note on our disagreement re the 'Header', Jaakobou. There is an elementary distinction to be made between ethno-cultural solidarity and human solidarity. The former is the natural condition we are all born to, the latter is what is called, in the West, a humanist perspective. In the former, a primary angle in anyone's mind is, the interests of my fellow-believer-citizen or ethnic brother are attacked, and I will come, whatever the case, to their defense. There is nobility in this, it is the basis of much morality. It is part of the machinery of our biological survival. The liberal or enlightenment perspective is best espoused in English by John Donne's sermon, 'No man is an island intire of itself . .but part of the main'. In other words, it is fellow-feeling extended without reserve to humanity at large, and does not take account in any particular way of the ethno-cultural side of sympathy. You don't have to share this perspective, but it is important to understand than many do, and call a spade a spade, irrespective of the ethno-cultural background of the individual concerned. What one looks at is the behaviour or words used by an individual. One does not constantly check out to see if, in this case, the person is, say, a Jew, and therefore I cannot use certain language, because in that case, the person belongs to a group persecuted by Nazis. What Eleland (and myself) find abhorrent is any form of ethnic triumphalism, and we little care about the ethnic origins of the person expressing it. There are strong reasons, also, why one objects to this sort of language in a person of Jewish background. They above all other peoples have suffered from the ethnic supremicism of a dominant majority. You don't need to share our belief, but I think it important to understand it is well-motivated, historically and ethnically.Nishidani (talk) 06:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It was quite clear that the person is a Jew who already felt bullied by a couple of editors and responded inappropriately -- by suggesting that those who promote the Pan-Arab/Islamic "Palestinian ideology" (I'm phrasing it like that as a mirror to the offensive way you're treating the Jewish "Zionist ideology" on my page and elsewhere) of replacing Israel will not succeed. Eleland turned this comment into a "Ceaser salad" calling the man out for "racial supremacism" and exauberent "Nazi goose-stepping" and demanded the right to call him "cunt" all over wikipedia -- when it's clear that the person is Jewish and never claimed supremacism over anyone let alone created hell on earth. I believe it was clear to you as well that he is Jewish as you yourself made a couple of offensive comments - i.e. "horn-blower" and "Torah based nationalism". I trust the first was an honest mistake (though I have not seen an apology), but I don't know what to make of the second comment as I'm certain you will call it another "speed reading" misunderstanding and claim rightgeousness as usual. You see, just recently you argued on my page that I'm not sensitive enough to offensive language and it seems you should take a note from your own critique as you not only repeatedly make offensive comments (and stand behind them regardless of the offense they make) but seem to have a penchant for defending others who suffer the same problem. That's decent and humanist and moral... and is a good catalyst for the people who accuse you of antisemitism. Please take a moment to reflect on the off chance that you are repeatedly disrespecting the people you claim to be defending. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd gladly reply with a simple quote, rather lengthy if you can assure me it won't be pocketed. I like your pocketing, it's a neat device aesthetically, but on this, the quote requires to be read in full, plain text.Nishidani (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't you make your point succinctly without needing 10,000 chars minimum to make it? I can't promise not to pocket entirely unnecessary text; this is still my user-interaction space and I need the ability to follow what's going on it without scrolling my life away. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, forget it, then.Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC) (see citation subsequently posted above on thoroughly documented, removed by Jaakobou from his page as 'advocacy').

(All of the above reminds me why I stay out of anything to do with nationalism as a topic on WP.) Just came here to notify you I started a subsection on the AN/I about reducing the length of the block. As a complete aside, 13 members of my family from what is now the Czech Republic were wiped out in the Holocaust, and I was born in Northern Ireland and lived there for most of my early childhood - enough to make anyone see the folly of valuing one's blood or birthplace over human life, regardless of whose it is. Orderinchaos 03:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind post on my talk page. :) I think the sooner people realise they are world citizens and that diversity and difference is a good thing and reflects the creativity, personality and intelligence of the human species, the less stupid wars we'll have over things like this and the less divisions we'll have in society. Sadly, old habits die hard, and I fully recognise I am something of an idealist (some would go further and say raving leftie. :)) Orderinchaos 11:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Judaism and Nationalism

Saw one of your recent edits which said "Judaism has nothing to do with nationalism," and that is actually 100% false. The Torah defined the Jewish people as a Nation. --Einsteindonut (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me of an argument I had with someone over a political biography in Australia where the interesting assertion was made that because the guy's autobiography said he wasn't corrupt, claims of corruption in the article were wrong and should be removed. Orderinchaos 23:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, lemme see, BH? Nishidani (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, Einsteindonut. I commend your reading the 'Torah'. Less so your apparent insouciance to academic works on the history of Judaism before and after Ezra's reforms, of Zionism, nationalism, and even, let us say, Chaim Potok's novel, The Chosen. All such varied sourceds support my generalization, which is not controversial except for amnesiacs, or those who fail to understand that, by 'nationalism' I mean the phenomenon discussed by Ernest Gellner, Eric Hobsbawm, Peter Alter, Benedict Anderson and hundreds of other academics.Nishidani (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the fact that so many of your references felt the need to go to such great lengths to try to separate the two does, in fact, suggest that the two actually do have something to do with one another. "The stone the builder refused.... shall always be the head cornerstone...." --Einsteindonut (talk) 11:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We really shouldn't be using wikispace to play pilpul, but I'll end the game with an allusion punning on the two sources your proverb refers back to, 'κἁγω δὲ σοι λἐγω ὄτι εἲ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταυτῃ τῇ πἐτρᾳ οὶκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἑκκλησἰαν'Nishidani (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks Greek to me. Feel free to translate and explain. Something about Peter and a Church? --Einsteindonut (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Nafez Assaily

Thanks for the kind words. Anyone can deprod, and it can still go to AfD. But I don't think that it would fail, despite the prod2 from David, the reigning emperor of inclusionists, which would give anyone pause. Regards,John Z (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

yes, one of my mistakes--it would be at any rate too controversial for Prod. And of course afd is too variable for anyone to really predict a particular AfD. DGG (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Note

PalestineRemembered is in a peculiar situation. I won't use this space to bring about any complaints towards PR since I believe he's been following some bad examples of his peers. However, certainly a defender of antisemitic comments and one repeatedly accused of anti-Israel/Jewish bigotry should not play (neutral) advocate to PalestineRemembered's off-topic commentary.
Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

My comment is, as usual, strictly related to what was said, who said it, and who misconstrued it. What PR wrote is uncontroversial. We should be editing. I find a lot of comments, edits, articles here deplorable. I try to be patient and not scour around to score points. Much of our time has been wasted in these trivial pursuits these last few days. Let's think of the articles, which are not written by duellists in an etiquette supremacy stakes. I say this to 'my' side, as to yours. Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record you are here registered, notwithstanding a deep discussion over two years with me, as asserting that I am, 'a defender of antisemitic comments' and of being someone repeatedly accused of anti-Israel/Jewish bigotry. I won't report the former, but it is malicious defamation. The latter is true, and reflects to my credit against the credibility of those who have team-tagged to spread the slander.Nishidani (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Both assertions are quite correct as you've defended (/justified even), for example, Eleland's calling a Jewish editor "Nazi" and "goose-stepper" -- by citing as example incidents where idiot Jews did the same to Israeli officials who vacated them from their homes -- as well as other comments who's sole purpose was being provocative like PalestineRemembered's commentary on Benny Morris and Tiamut's commentary about Israel. It matters not if you find these comments incorrect, as there seems to be a clear consensus on the matter,[14] through your own admission as well.[15] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC) clarify 12:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's drop it. I refuse to play the victim to other people's inability to understand precise analysis and reasonably nuanced prose. If you wish to live in the house of jargon, chum up to platitudes and jigger about with stereotypes to find one to lynch an adversary with, that is your right. Could I prevail on you to be courteous enough to keep the hallucinations off this page, dear Jaakobou. If you find my intellectual goosestepping sanctionable, by all means go to Arbcom. I won't even put in a defence. That should make things easier. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, some friendly help. You are sometimes too subtle, and your nuances too fine. I've learned to avoid anything that requires careful reading to get it right. (though it still takes careful phrasing in the writing: I first wrote "intelligence" but changed it to "careful reading", which implies that people here could read more carefully if they chose to slow down a little, not that they are too stupid or uneducated to read). I enjoy reading what you write for its own sake, but some of those involved in the issues you discuss may not have the patience--to talk effectively, one must talk to the audience, however lamentable that may be. If a writer is misunderstood, it is almost invariably his fault (assuming he write to communicate.) DGG (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

JIDF

The specific link is andre Oboler without whom the JIDF is a husk.....A specific link is unnecessary...there is no specific link to Honest reporting or CAMERA....in most cases of see also there is no specific link....Unless of course you're thinking of asking for the removal of all unspecific links throughout wiki articles relating to Palestinian subjects? Which I don't believe the pro-Israeli crowd would approve of...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the JIDF was featured by HonestReporting here and here, and CAMERA articles are all over the JIDF site. I see how Oboler is externally linked to the JIDF (in no official capacity other than the fact that he has provided a bit of commentary here and there in articles and on his site) but do not see where Oboler is linked to "Hasbara." --Einsteindonut (talk) 12:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

ESD has JIDF got any direct link to HR and C. ...no....the Hasabra link is more substantial than any HR or C links...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess you missed my point above. Yes, direct links with HR and CAMERA (in the sense that HR has "linked" to and covered the JIDF and the JIDF "links" to both HR and CAMERA, but that is more of a link to Hasbara, which has never mentioned the JIDF, nor has the JIDF mentioned it. --Einsteindonut (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Your link was to HR about a Jpost article hardly JIDF....therefore no point...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

JIDF are a tu'ppenny ha'penny operation that, without Oboler, are nowt but a husk...as ESD points out JIDF are a marginal extremist group that is between 3 and 10 strong....ESD Oboler withdrew due to CoI...Oboler is not an aspiring academic, he's an aspiring political activist using student bodies as a launch pad......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I see you make as many false assumptions about people as you do anything else.

TPKTKB syndrome. Einstein, sign your posts, at least on my page. Though the probabilities are extremely low the two of us would be confused (well, one of us looks confused, an'it ain'ìt me), not-signing here means others might attribute your remarks to me. Thank you Nishidani (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I really wish you would stop calling JIDF a fringe organization. It is a wonderful mainstream organization fighting garbage like the groups it broke up on Facebook. Now, I gather, it is fighting the attempts by neutral Wiki editors to keep articles on Israel and its conflicts neutral. Calling JIDF fringe is biased and pure POV. I am not defending anything Einsteindonut has said or done, but there are way too many people on Wiki saying groups like JIDF and CAMERA are biased, when they are actually fighting bias and telling the truth. Einsteindonut's desire to fix Wiki is 100% correct IMO. His methods however are 100% wrong and his language and decorum should have him blocked for longer than 72 hours.Sposer (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not use that language to offend, Sposer. I think it a precise term to denote the infrastructural reality of the JIDF. We are told it is a grassroots thing, started in 2000. No evidence, for this. It appears to run on a shoe-string, as a virtual organization of computer techies. I have read one or two of D.Appletree's essays. I can't use this space to analyse them, but they represent an extremist ideology, and have nothing mainstream about them. I must admit I do not follow the details. I find mainstream newspapers disconnected to reality: virtual tabloids, even wiki articles, set my teeth grinding. The devil, the German saw says, is in the details. Anyone can trot out huge generalizations. Secondly, wiki has thousands of intelligent people, most of whom have no particular take on I/P issues. They are mainly committed to a non-ideological presentation of relevant facts. We have no need of ill-informed ideologues, apparently attuned to scooping material off POV sites to stuff into articles, barging about to 'reform' wiki. If anything, we need people with a good university education, well-read in academic and specialist studies, who wish to write to the article, not twist an article to suit a national POV, be it Israeli or Palestinian.

The JIDF's operation on FACEBOOK came about, if I understand the reconstruction in wiki, from a sequence. (a) A group tried to delist 'Palestine is a country' from Facebook (b) A retaliation occurred, with a group forming to push for delisting 'Israel as a country' from Facebook. (c) The casus belli was ignored, and (b) was considered to be proof of anti-semitism. Anti-semites may well have been behind it, I don't know. Whoever was behind it was challenging the prior move to delist Palestine. Of this, no one speaks. It is as if only (b) were significant, and its immediate antecedent was trivial. In all of these things, I suggest one look coolly, as historians are do, at the whole complex chain of events, and simply not elicit those facts, occurrences and circumstances which favour one's personal beliefs.Regards Nishidani (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be glaringly obvious that articles entitled "A Study in Palestinian Duplicity and Media Indifference", containing such material as "despite copious evidence of their blatant lying ... refuting their fictitious 'massacre'" have no place in the reference list of an enyclopedia. PR^talk 18:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but Sposer is entitled to disagree. Nishidani (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nishidani. Not looking for fights. Started to write a longer response, but don't want to start a pointless back-and-forth on your talk page. We will agree to disagree.Sposer (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

Einsteindonut. For the record, I would have dropped a note advising a reduction (no where near what you got. You deserved a month, just as I personally thought Eleland deserved 2 weeks), only my morning was spent shovelling crap out of road grates, with no time to check in here. My opinion? Puttyschool should be severely warned by an administrator never to attempt to source anything in Wikipedia, even on a talk page, to a visibly anti-semitic site, even if his attention was drawn to it (proof itself that Putty does not find these things off his own bat, as though he were prepossessed with proving a Jewish conspiracy) by Michael Safyan a month ago. Secondly, that, your whole record here has been one of ideological militancy, with no evidence of a commitment to Wikipedia’s goals, and when Puttyschool relinked to the site Michael had earlier directed him to, the fact appears to have fallen like manna into your hands. You finally, eureka, had the evidence youìve been scouring Wiki for, for some months to reinforce your bunker mentality. You posted a correct remonstration at 5.47, and after 6 minutes, at 5.53 you added this: Real nice---you fucking antisemitic idiotic piece of Egyptian shit schmuck. (put that in your ANI board peace pipe and smoke it.

What went on in your mind in those 6 minutes is evident. You made a judgement to recontest the Eleland decision, by what you thought was a clever imitation of Eleland’s remark, with one fatal (to your desire for a congruent analogy) difference. Eleland never said Saxophonemn was a Jew, never spoke of a nation, but told that editor to shove his ethnic supremicism, and that he was a ‘cunt/douche bag’ for vaunting his sense of racial superiority on Wikipedia.

Your remark to Puttyschool was to to take a broad swipe at him, his people, and his nation. In doing so, like Saxophonemn, you used racist language (see the quote from Tolstoy on your page, which you’ve put there, in solidarity I assume with Saxophonemn’s use of a similar remark by Mark Twain). The two of you have been confused, and despite your denials, you appear to be doing everything possible to confirm that suspicion (I don’t care either way). You then placed a challenge to me. Challenge to Nishidani

I.e. you want a rerun of the Eleland decision, with yourself, mutatis mutandis, in Eleland's position to see if I might 'offer a large context of intricate rationalizations for my statement (as (Nishidani) provided for Eleland)'.

In other words, since you assume I, and not the community, got a pro-Palestinian editor’s permaban reduced to a week, you appear to wish to put my attachment to universal, humanist values to the test. If Eleland was a victim of an injustice, you, by provoking a foreseeable administrative sanction, wished to see whether I would use my time, with ‘intricate rationalizions’, to overturn a comparable ‘injustice’.

One takes each case on its merits. The only thing your case shares with Eleland’s is a ripe use of abusive language. The differences are notable.
(a) You imitated Eleland
(b) You employed racist language, he did not.

(c) Unlike Eleland, you hold wikipedia in contempt, think of it as a bastion of anti-semitic prejudice and general disinformation, you do not edit articles broadly, but appear to trawl for ideological battles. Unlike him, you confess you are a supporter of an extreme fringe group whose obsession is to hunt for antisemitism on the net. You assert your purpose nhere is to come and protect that organization (Sept.6) Unlike him, you believe Wikipedia is a fertile hunting ground for you to exercise your venatorial skills. Unlike him, you have no edits to your credit. Unlike him, you appear to wish to make enemies. A suspicion exists that you were a sock-puppet, or acted in tandem with another user who shares, down to small details your outlook. No such suspicion exists in Eleland’s record. Unlike Eleland, you boast not only that ‘Wikipedia is a cesspool of misinformation’, but also that you have returned to ‘get much LOUDER’ You insinuated that one of our finest, most neutral editors in the I/P area, Malik Shabazz runs round in an ‘effort to butcher articles about Jewish organizations’, and that suspicions of racism and antisemitism should hang over him because of his handle (Aug.30. Your user page). You imply that anyone who reverts you is a ‘jerk’ (Sept.1), that Wikipedia is worse than Goebbels (Sept.1), taunt Wikipedians sardonically to ‘overwhelm you with (their) rules and wisdom’ (things you evidently hold in contempt.(Sept.6). You assert that there are editors in here who ‘work tirelessly to defend the work of holocaust deniers’ (Sept.6). Most grievous in my view is that you complain of people not using correctly English, and consistently write poor English

I do not not go into articles about organizations in which I do not agree (and trust me, there are PLENTY OF THEM) and start taking out key information and facts, because that would be destructive, not constructive.’ (Sept 20)

Actually you do. Nafez Assaily is not an ‘organisation’, but immediately after the conclusion of the Eleland case you tracked my record, and tried immediately to wipe off a page (plea for deletion) of an article I wrote on a Palestinian pacifist, as ‘not notable’. I.e. one should not have noted on Wikipedia that there are Palestinians who are pacifists. I read this in the light of your earlier complaint about not being able to edit effectively the Hebron article. Presumably, that call for deletion was politically inspired, since Nafez Assaily has lost most of his family land as a result of its illegal seizure by Hebron settlers. It is similar to your wiping out a section of the Iman Darweesh Al Hams page, after I made an analogy with her fate and that of the little girl murdered by Samir Kuntar. You immediately went to that page and deleted a section which showed that the IDF officer in the former case, was promoted and given compensation, though he murdered the Palestinian girl. I.e. to edit to elide information you dislike as showing problematical sides of Israel's, here, use of double standards.

You then start compiling an on-line profile of wikipedians who are ‘supporters of Eleland’ whom you think is anti-semitic), and by implication cast suspicion on experienced wikipedians, and administrators who were simply doing their job, which is collegial. The innuendo was obvious.

In short, you support the JIDF, which is your private right, but it is an extreme fringe organisation, apparently with strong Irgun sympathies, which trawls the net not only to identify anything faintly interpretable as evidence for anti-semitism, but seems eager, to gather from its webpages, to promote an extremist-alarmist impression that the Jewish world is under threat from Wikipedia. Your presence here from day one has all the appearance of being that of an agent provocateur, i.e. to actively provoke people within Wikipedia in conflicts that will then be used to feed the JIDF with ‘proof’ Wikipedia is as you assert it to be, a hive of anti-semites building a ‘cesspool of misinformation’ about Israel. CJCurrie was singled out by the JIDF, Malik Shabazz was sneered at, you were hyperactive to try to prove Eleland was antisemitic, and finally here you jumped at Puttyschool, whose link was deplorable, as though you had found finally what you were looking for. Put aside even the abuse you threw at Puttyschool’s nation and people, and examine only what you have reiterated, and the conclusion is your self-perceived function here is not ‘encyclopedic’ but that of stirring up a hornet’s nest by provocative, ideologically-fueled statement to feed back to the JIDF. despite these many provocations, both editors and administrators have clearly understood the tacit game you are playing here, and have intelligently refrained from applying sanctions many others would have been hit with if they had this kind of track record. Israel's case and interests are strongly supported by numerous editors who find no need to adopt these tactics, not vaunt their contempt for the encyclopedia. Unless you learn the ropes, and accept the rules, your presence here is a waste of our time and your own. Nishidani (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I won't reply to ESD's remarks on his page. Any one who says he 'stumbled on' by chance, a minor article never edited by anyone but myself virtually, only to suggest its immediate deletion, is not, even when speaking on his own behalf, a reliable source. I would only note another forecast, for the record.

(a)

Unfortunately today we don't just take prisoners, but then we release child killing terrorists (Kuntar) in exchange for dead corpses. That's all going to change one day. --Einsteindonut (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(b)'

I'm here just doing my thing. Everything will start changing around here soon (with or without me being here.) --Einsteindonut (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Fun JIDF stuff

Just so you know, you've been mentioned in a posting at this website. (permanent link) Let me know if you experience any problems regarding this. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I guess JIDF isn't perfect. I disagree with what Nishidani calls neutral and reject some of his equivocations and defenses against actions in Israel and the territories by terrorists and such, but I would not consider Nishidani an anti-Semite. I usually disagree with his politics, and still consider JIDF a wonderful, non-fringe group, but they need to do look more carefully at editing practices before throwing the anti-Semite label around.Sposer (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I do appreciate that, Sposer. Our interactions, despite a pronounced disagreement on most of these issues, has been courteous. I think however you should review things a little more deeply. We have a very strong, and gifted community of Israeli and Jewish editors in here, with experience, knowledge and a solid respect for the given rules. No one on either side is satisfied with the state of most I/P articles, there are deep rifts in perceptions. To complicate this delicate balance, which is mostly conducted in mutual recognition and respect, by an overtly partisan militancy, as are those connected to the JIDF appear to be doing, is unfortunate. It makes, I suggest, the work of those who may share some of those perspectives, far more difficult, because of the atmosphere of innuendo, witch-hunting, and political scoring this kind of inside-outside feedback is creating. In short, whichever way you look at it, this is very much counter to the very interests the JIDF pretends (in the French sense) to be defending. Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I get where you are coming from. Also misread the page, which does not use anti-Semite, but uses anti-Israel. I am not sure I would agree with that either, although we mostly disagree on the subject. You are a courteous editor for sure and try. We all have our biases that are difficult to get around, and do not always realize when we are pursuing such bias. I also have a problem with the attack methodology, such as promoted by Einsteindonut (and which I've admonished him in the past). Like I said, I do not consider them to be fringe, and think the Facebook actions were perfectly justified. Attacking individuals on Wiki is a bit over the top IMO. Although some on their list I would agree with the label, but I am not sure what good it does.Sposer (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

For some of them, it is the same difference. In any case, my own take is that this is an attempt at herostratic fame - burn down the temple of Artemis (flame wikipedia) to get yourself noted. The Greeks understood the motivation, destructive activity in order to get one's name in the history books (like Laszlo Toth's attempt to destroy La Pietà), and took measures to ensure the arsonist's name was never mentioned. Unfortunately Strabo several centuries later slipped up, and said it was a certain Herostratus. I take this as a baiting expedition, and hope the Greek rule is applied. Nishidani (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The website explicitly states "Please note, we are not labeling anyone an "antisemite" - we just want to explore the bias on WP and feel some of these names and their contributions offer a good start." I agree with Sposer, that you are not antisemitic, but I also note that they have not accused you of being so. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It also works the other way. We must be doing something right to get our names put up in lights.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you regularly and reliably edit from an anti-Israel POV, as described. Jayjg (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Ashley, you regularly and reliably edit from an anti-Israel POV, as described; that, no doubt, is why your name was placed on that list. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

On this, as in many things, you are not a reliable source, but the rumour-mongering is duly noted as one you share. For the record, I regularly and reliably edit on behalf of a point-of-view that strives to ensure that a land occupied by Israel in 1967, and its people, have the relevant facts of their history, culture and world properly represented, as required by NPOV. If, in performing this duty, in your view and that of the JIDF, I am 'anti-Israeli', I can only understand this adjective as denoting someone opposed, not to Israel, but to its occupation of foreign ground, and entailing, by the same token, the implication that those who hurl the insinuation, as you do, my way, are supportive of the occupation and annexation. Nishidani (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually on this, as in most things, I am an extremely reliable source, and I use "anti-Israel" in its conventional meaning, not the straw man one you have proposed. However, the comment you are responding to was directed to Ashley kennedy3, not you. That's why it was directly under his comment, and indented one from his, though I see now, based on his wording, how you might have thought it was directed towards you as well. I've re-worded somewhat my statement to him, to make that more clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've had to rewrite this three times because of continual reediting as above. For the record.

In any case, Jayjg is wrong. I have not accused anyone falsely. It's the usual problem of people writing and reading too fast. Jayjg did not construe his own words in context . For the record, Ashley used a collective 'we', which becomes the subject. (b) Jayjg used 'you' which in English can be singular or plural, but, in a context where the the reference is to a 'we', the ambiguity is resolved in favour of reading 'you' as a plural, esp. since this comment is on my talk page, and we were both called 'anti-Israelis'. I see, having written this, you may have reworded. But I am replying to your original remark. I hope we can leave off these puerilities. I have never brandished 'anti-Palestinian' around as an epithet to score points against Israeli or Jewish colleagues, and I fail to understand why it is so chic here to 'hurl' accusations of 'anti-Israeli' around at people working to ensure a proper representation of Palestinian realities. Zeev Sternhell is a self-declared 'strong Zionist', and everything he deplores in the Occupied Territories I deplore, in good part because of what I learnt in reading his and many other mainstream Israeli scholars' books. People who disagree with me are disagreeing with a strong tradition in contemporary Israeli thought and scholarship, not with some weirdo goy's personal perceptions. I don't have anything original to say or edit in. The thought analysis and work has all been done by Jewish and Israeli mainstream scholars. Let's get back to editing.Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What have these straw man arguments regarding "the Occupied Territories" have to do with me? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not the right place to have a three way conversation using Nishidani's talk page but .. I too am of the opinion that those who support the Israeli occupation of the West Bank are doing something that is not in Israel's best interest and that demographic should rightfully be termed anti-Israeli......I'm pro-Palestinian....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Chomsky likes to play that kind of word-game too, where he insists he is a Zionist, because real Zionists didn't support a Jewish state. Whatever. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That only shows you've never read Chomsky or Zeev Sternhell or Uri Avnery etc.,etc., all confessed Zionists of the old school. Come now, if we must take up wikispace, at least let us anchor our opinions in reliable sources (of which Chomsky is one), and show we do actually read books, which is what editing correctly to articles requires.Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, the "old school" = Bizarro Zionism, where up is down, left is right, good is bad, and Zionists don't support a Jewish state. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, you are not at all familiar with the literature on Zionism, but only with a very restricted variety of it. Still, no hard done. Quite funny actually.Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Umm, no. Chomsky quite openly states that his version of being a Zionist involves "the same ideas and concerns are now called 'anti-Zionist.'" He may certainly claim, as he does, that being "opposed to the deeply antidemocratic concept of a Jewish state" was "a position that was considered well within the mainstream of Zionism", (see Peck, James (Ed.) (1987). Chomsky Reader, p. 7) but, again, that's only in the Bizarro world. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I permit myself to comment here. Chomsky is of course not' a reference about Zionism. Zionism is a matter of historians and sociologist (Not politicians or even less activists). The formers are prevented to work properly (or better said to communicate properly) due to interferences linked to the I-P conflict today.

My personal interaction with you (Jayjg) lets me think that what you know on the topic is biaised by your "natural" (and respectable !) involvement in issues related to the current political issues. On which, you cannot be criticized (from my point of view).

I am (was...) personnally in favor of Arik Sharon's policy in the current conflit and am pro-Israeli and pro-Zionist. Nishidani and even more AshleyK do not share at all that perspective and are rather on the other side. Well. Ok. -> but that doesn't prevent them (us) to write on the historical issues of Zionism a neutral way and in taking references in scholars'work not influenced by current political issues.

To see their name quoted in JIDF website is not acceptable. It is an unacceptable way of pressure that makes me think of list of Jews written at some black period of our common History.

My mind is that these so-claimed-Jews betrays Jewish traditions. They'd better think about the profound meaning of Lashon Hara rather than becoming far-right wing young fascists. And they should certainly not cry when they are compared to Nazis. Because they are not compared to Nazis because of what happens in the occupied territories (which is a drama) but they are compared to Nazis because of the way they are thinking and because of their mind's structure...

You should not try to find excuses for them.

Ceedjee (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That you link me to a comic strip, to make an association as bizarre as its title, is itself comical. Chomsky's position, as one of the few American secular Jews of his time raised with Hebrew as a virtual mother tongue, has deep roots in his background, his father and mother's world (see Jacob Goldstein, Abraham Cahan, Jewish Socialists in the United States: The Cahan Debate, 1925-1926, Sussex Academic Press, 1998, passim for the 20s milieu , and for his immediate family background Elsie Chomsky).

That you got as far as page 7 of a book of excerpts ain't that bad for starters, I suppose. Only the young, or those who do not read, could fail to see the continuity between his secular socialist Zionism and that of many, even of figures like Nahum Sokolov and Nahum Goldmann.Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Nahum Goldmann, rather unsurprisingly, I contributed to Wikipedia's article on him on the first day it was created. He supported the creation of a Jewish state (alongside an Arab state). As for Sokolow, he was one of the key figures who worked towards the Balfour Declaration, and demanded that a "Jewish commonwealth" be established after World War I. They were real Zionists, not faux-Zionists playing word-games. Linking to a comic strip was an entirely appropriate response to your claims about a Zionism which is against a Jewish state; the notion is both comic and cartoonish. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, both pages show scarce depth. As I say, you do not know what you are talking about, and since you appear to believe the same of me, there is really no point in wasting each others time, especially when your points of reference are comic strips and wiki articles. I'd never checked the wiki Nahum Goldmann page. That's quite comical for its startling omissions. Those who edited it, well, they edited it out. An extraordinary man, as admirable in his way, as an exemplar of the finest in his cultural tradition, as is Chomsky, and sharing (Chomsky is on record as expressing his esteem for the man and his vision, but I won't trouble you with the details) many of the same values. Nishidani (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Err, no, my comparisons of Chomsky's views of Zionism (and your own) are to comic book concepts, as is entirely appropriate. My "points of reference" are not, however, "comic strips and wiki articles", though, as always, you cannot resist the construction of straw man in a feeble attempt to bolster your logorrheic prose (argumentation being too complimentary a word to describe it). Jayjg ^(talk) 22:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad you got that off your chest. Feel better? To be concrete and practical, I suggest you get your Chomsky fixation off the agenda, and simply go and fix up the numerous errors and lacunae on Nahum Goldmann's page. You don't have to worry that there are several key points where Goldmann's understanding of Zionism is identical to the 'comic-cut Zionism' you conjure up from what little you know of Chomsky's thought. The problems are several-fold, even like making the spelling of his name consistent (Nahum Goldmann, not Nachum Goldman). The para. on his and Wise's obstructionism of Hillel Kook, makes Goldmann look as though he were a 'powerful opponent of intense rescue efforts to save Europe's Jews' (the passage beginning 'Protocol of' lacks a definite or indefinite article, and the note itself should be in a footnote, not the text), an absurd caricature, that ignores Goldmann's own chill forecast at Biltmore in the spring of 1942 before a sceptical audience, and before the Final Solution got thoroughly organized, of what the Nazis really might do. There is no mention of his suggestion that the declaration of Israel in May 1948 be delayed to give time for a diplomatic agreement with Arab leaders, which he thought possible. The German wiki alludes to this at least:

In der Nachkriegszeit trat er für einen arabischen und einen jüdischen Staat in Palästina ein. Obwohl er mit David Ben Gurion aktiv für die Gründung des Staates Israel eintrat, hielt er die Gründung für verfrüht und warnte vor einem arabisch-israelischen Krieg, als der Staat Israel unmittelbar nach Abzug der britischen Mandatsmacht proklamiert wurde.

No need I suppose to add that he thought Begin had a 'Galut mentality', or Ben-Gurion a 'will to power' complex, or that Israel on the eve of the Lebanon war, despite significant achievements, was hampered by a 'radical distortion of the Zionist ideal'. These are too Chomskyian. But, at a minimum, fixing grammar, spelling shouldn't take too much of your valuable time.

Which reminds me, 'logorrheic' is properly written, 'logorrhoeic'.Nishidani (talk) 08:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised by the lack of references on the Goldmann article and no mention of his split/antagonism with Zionism in the last 15 years of his life....it appears that the article was a conversion copy of the German wiki article with minor input from the translators..... Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Same impression of conversion, that's why I pointed out the oddness of some of what the German text has being apparently elided. Inter-Zionist politics were far more complicated in the 1900-1948 period than they are today. There were many distinct positions, and thus it is nonsensical to speak of a 'Zionist' perspective tout court. I've admired Nahum Goldmann: he basically stuck to that strain of Zionist thought which thought of Israel as a refuge for the persecuted, accommodated to a diplomatic entente with the Palestinians and Arabs that would assuage their offended dignity at what was an aggressive if, for Zionists, necessary indwelling in their land, so that it would be, as some of its original proponents dreamed it might be, a site for a renaissance in Jewish civilization, which would enrich what would otherwise remain the Jewish diaspora. In any case, it is a poorly written and organized article, that doesn't do his complex life justice. Perhaps, if nothing is done to improve it, one should go there in a few months and work on it.Nishidani (talk) 09:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm dusting it with references at the mo...this should have been done at the time of translation....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to add it to the bibliography.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I probably always will forget. It's Neil's fault. He made me feel I had a guardian angel, always ready to clean up any messes I made.

I'm old!

I wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled

And can't quite rememba

To fix notes at the enda

The edits I make,

So gimme a break.Nishidani (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

How long did you have to work on that excuse?.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The time to type it. Of course, if you'd have preferred a sonnet. . . :)Nishidani (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

How's your hacks and tracker status? Have you had the same flurry as I have had recently?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

??? More specific? Twice, after making a delicate edit, I was blocked from accessing wiki for some hours. Not that that worried me. Is this what you allude to? Nishidani (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Biltmore

have you seen Biltmore Conference? to read it is to assume it was all about setting up Israel rather than trying to establish ways of saving European Jewry....the main point of the conference is completely missing.....what group is supposed to look after those type of articles?....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The irony of Biltmore was that the revisionists were excluded from it, and yet the decisions taken more or less underscored a victory for the revisionist line. As far as I recall, from Berman and Laqueur, the central thrust was to impress American Jewry with the importance of pressing for the creation of a Jewish commonwealth in Palestine as the only rational settlement for the havoc to European Jews underway in the war. You have to look at it in terms of the diplomatic rifts caused by any one line. Still, I try to read as few wiki I/P articles as possible, for the sake of my health.Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You jumped on the Goldman miss spelling damn quick....I pushed the button and before I could put if right low and behold it was done as if by magic....the tart up seems to be going well...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I gotta keep you under surveillance. You're a wild man, trooper. Next spelling mistake, and you get an afternoon of square-bashing, (for going AWOL on orthography) and I don't mean by that a licence for leave to go out thumping conservatives! ;) ps. 'lo and behold'. 'Low and be hold', sounds too much like that custom Robertson Smith talked about on the physical manoeuvers required for taking oaths among men in Arabia!Nishidani (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

square-bashing was for others (max of 10 hours in total), my time was doing word 6, not your average soldier. and I was a sapper (RE's) not a trooper...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I suffer at times from a George Pattern complex. Now that I have elicited this bit of info' . . . . .!! My father was also a sapper, from Benghazi through to Jerusalem and Syria, WW2. Ear-infection swimmming the Suez canal for a bet put paid to his prospects of joining his mates in Crete, and a German lager. (not notable for wiki, they'll scream). Nishidani (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that there are articles on German lagers, Crete, Syria, Jerusalem and Benghazi?..looks like you could write an article to link them all....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully the nuances and controversies that made up Nahum Goldmann come across a bit clearer...a solid 20 plus references...makes a bit of an improvement....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Pats on the back all round ...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I'm Sad Sack with the slops bucket there, pal. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(We discussed some changes I wanted to make at Mohammad Amin al-Husayni but I can't remember what they were - but I've put a bit in anyway, tell me if you approve). PR^talk 20:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani please look at the correct pages next time....Tundrabuggy unfortunately incorrectly noted the page numbers as 22-23 whereas the number I gave (look in history of article) was 22 and 31-33,....The statement was not inaccurate nor misleading....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not contesting your edit. For the past 2 days most of my time has been spent travelling to, or, hanging round in hospitals. There are many things I note, without rushing to edit. I made that call on the basis of a glance at the material against many other sources I remember. I'll discuss it when I have some free time. There are many RS I know which I don't use immediately because even RS represent one interpretation, highly informed, but not for that, if used selectively, spot-on. I trust you on sourcing from your record. It's the nuancing. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If the quota system was working why the voyage of the damned of May 1939?....Just the right time for a propaganda coup....what was the American Jewry response?....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If I may intrude, the response of American Jewry was vigorous. The Joint and (parts of the) State department, while unable to reform American immigration laws (an obstacle which is easy to underestimate, and very often is, with prescient but forgetful hindsight) worked hard to rescue these refugees - and while unsuccessful in bribing the Cuban government, they were successful in getting all of them asylum, so they were safe for a time. What killed the 254 (of the 936) of them who perished in the holocaust was Hitler's Blitzkrieg succeeding beyond his own expectations, something that no one could have predicted or did predict at the time.John Z (talk) 09:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Almost missed this, JOhn. I will post it on the Nahum Goldmann page, with your permission. Thanks indeed.Nishidani (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I never said the quota system worked. My views on the overall internal contradictions in the politics of Zionism are more or less those of Lenni Brenner's Zionism in the Age of the Dictorships. All was lost, for me, in the failure of the WZO to organize a massive world boycott of the German economy in 1933-4. The aftermath was inevitable, at least in hindsight, which we have, they didn't.Nishidani (talk) 10:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

PS I hate the medical profession....There always seems to be less of me after they make repairs....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep the Evian conference came and went to be replaced by global inertia...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The inability to see the obvious is what much of education sets about improving'.Nishidani (talk) 11:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

One gets the impression that the Israeli government treated him so shabbily in his death was because of that very point...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the President of the State Yitzhak Navon turned up, but Begin snubbed the ceremony, so it wasn't the state, as much as his adversaries, then in government, who refused to honour a great Zionist, one like Chomsky. There were a good many Zionists like him, who knew that there were, unlike much contemporary 'wisdom', limits to whatever one desired, which stopped at the backyard of those whose rights were infringed by unrestrained appetite.Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

In desperation

I have been trying to fathom out why the Post WWII section is indented...It is really annoying...can you please have a look at it to find the problem....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Done Nishidani (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you....I was chasing commas, full stops, semi and full colons and getting nowhere..,Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Robert's a close relative. As said, my real vocation here is as Sad Sack (Shakespearean sense) with mop and a slops bucket!Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

POV issues, potentially quite serious ( Western Wall)

This article should raise alarm bells on POV. For instance, the events of 1929 are treated in a seriously distorted fashion, the article currently says:

On August 14, 1929, after attacks on individual Jews praying at the Wall, 6,000 Jews demonstrated in Tel Aviv, shouting “The Wall is ours.” The next day, the Jewish fast of Tisha B'Av, 300 youths raised the Zionist flag and sang the Zionist anthem at the Wall.[30] The day after, on August 16, an organized mob of 2,000 Muslim Arabs descended on the Western Wall, injuring the beadle and burning prayer books, liturgical fixtures and notes of supplication. The rioting spread to the Jewish commercial area of town and was followed a few days later by the infamous Hebron massacre.[33]

Even the most highly regarded Israeli historians give a much more nuanced impression than this - Benny Morris in "Rightous Victims" says that the Muslims long feared a violent take-over of the Wall - p.112 "the Palestinian delegation to Mecca during the hajj, or pilgrimage, of 1922 had declared: "the Holy Places are in great danger on account of the horrible Zionist aggressions".

Morris doesn't mention any attacks on "individual Jews" on Aug 14th 1929 (and I don't see a reference for this). Rather, he infers that organised and/or mass violence was brought to the Wall (and for the first time?) by the Zionists, starting the following day with: "hundreds of Jews - some of them extremist members of Betar, carrying batons - demonstrated on the site". Benny Morris (a very, very long way from being a friend of the Palestinians!) says things like: "In 1928 the Muslims sought British confirmation of their traditional rights at the Wall, after all, they owned the Wall and the adjacent passage where the Jews worshipped.[226 Porath, 1976] ... Right-wing Zionists began to demand Jewish control of the Wall".

I'm also very alarmed at statements like this "In October 1928, the Grand Mufti organised a series of provocations against the Jews who prayed at the Wall. He ordered new construction next to and above the Wall, with bricks often falling on the worshippers below. The volume of the muezzin was turned up while the Jews were praying.[31]" being referenced to "The Case For Israel", a polemical work that, amongst other things, appears to justify torture and communal punishment. There seems no doubt that the construction work did interfere with worship - but we should be absolutely sure of our facts before claiming it was done provocatively to damage race relations. The Mufti, for all his faults, has too long been used as a propaganda bogeyman with the most absurd exaggeration of his influence. We reference the distinguished historian (who specialises somewhat in Israel) Martin Gilbert - but only for the trivial statement "The rioting spread to the Jewish commercial area of town and was followed a few days later by the infamous Hebron massacre.[33]". Again, alarm bells ring - where's his real scholarly input? I defer to another scholar, Nishidani, if any of the facts or conclusions I'm giving you are wrong. PR^talk 09:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If one took for alarm bells everything deeply problematical in many Wiki articles like this, then one would prematurely anticipate Beethoven's late auricular condition. Of course, what you note is irresponsible POV editing. I haven't done much editing on the Western Wall because there are a dozen related articles, and most of what I find wrong with them links back to the early image of Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. By slowly redacting that article, I hoped to give an NPOV perspective on the 1920s and 30s, on episodes like al-Aqsa, rioting, and the like. If you read the relevant section in his article, you will see a relatively balanced approach to the background behind the Wailing Wall incidents (of which much more can be written, though I haven't yet included that material, too detailed). I suggest therefore that the proper approach is to concentrate one's efforts on one specific article, familiarize yourself or master all relevant reliable sources bearing on it, and work on it, without what Shakespeare called 'swift haste'(pleonasm) or patent disgruntlement. And then move on to contiguous articles. If you mean by 'The Case for Israel' Alan Dershowitz's hackwork diatribe (look at p.56 for the frivolous use of academically dead opinions he harvests for his polemic, for example), then evidently, on an historical topic, he is clearly not reliable, being a lawyer, and public polemicist not an historian.

Learn something from Morris' temper. Handle grievance with a certain nonchalant detachment, at least as an editor here. Much of what we read, from sources, has been driven by competing resentments. The factual record is more than sufficient to establish for readers an informed basis to contest the commodified clichés that pass for knowledge in the contemporary world. Everyone can get emotional, outrage, while justified, comes cheap. Intelligent insight into the documentary record is rare as it is expensive of unpaid time. But in the end, the latter is what wins an argument, as opposed to bullying through a POV. If you've even run long distance, you will know that after several miles one can get a severe stitch. If you keep thinking about it, and allowing the pain to alter your rhythm, you end up throwing in the towel. One just has to ignore it, and run through to the end, irrespective of the twitching starts of pain, which, mostly, just disappear as one gets a second wind.

By the way, Martin Gilbert does not 'specialize somewhat in (on)Israel'. He made his reputation on his multi-volume biography of Winston Churchill. Unlike many, he does not deal with abstractions, but forages in contemporary newspaper and archival accounts. He has a strong Zionist POV, just as Chomsky or Finkelstein have a strong POV. Both schools bring to bear on any argument much that is otherwise missed. Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Benny Morris calls Gilbert an Israeli propagandist....You need to check what Gilbert is using as the source...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Nahum Goldmann

I have that as page 591 not 590. (But nice find for the citation I've been hunting high and low; but not in Israel in the Middle East, obviously)...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)