|{{click|link=Battle of Jenin|image=Islamic_Barnstar.png|width=15|height=15|title=The WikiProject:Islam Barnstar: For "long-suffering" on Battle of Jenin.}}
|{{click|link=Battle of Jenin|image=Islamic_Barnstar.png|width=15|height=15|title=The WikiProject:Islam Barnstar: For "long-suffering" on Battle of Jenin.}}
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A descriptive header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.
Jaakobou, You have worked hard to attempt to improve wikipedia's Israel/Palestine related articles. You have made appropriate additions and changes, added sourced content, and dealt with the POV issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I believe you have at many times tried to promote improvement and NPOV in many wikipedia articles, and have greatly improved many articles. You have had to deal with some issues in the past, have faced at times controversial sanctioning, but when you were wrong, you have learned from your mistakes, and improved your editing, and since, you have become a very good editor. For all you have done, you have won my respect, and are in my opinion very deserving of this barnstar. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jaakobou. I see you've called into question the NPOV and accuracy of this article. I've responded on the talkpage that I think there's no way the article will ever meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia...the subject is as unnotable as Texas prisoners or Mexican prisoners or American prisoners or oh, I dunno, Israeli prisoners. The article itself however, is an example of crappy English mixed with POV-pushing and an inability to figure out what constitutes a reliable source, along with an unhealthy dose of synthesis. The article should just go. Unfortunately, I don't have time to nominate it for the garbage heap. Tomertalk14:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. JaakobouChalk Talk07:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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, Tiamuttalk17:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. JaakobouChalk Talk18:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 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.
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)[reply]
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).
Very apt choice of words Jaakobou (re: "the majority of the Arabs in my country"). I think that's a home run hit for you - congratulations! There is little point in carrying on this discussion. Cordially, Tiamuttalk22:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain exactly what is offensive about being referred to as an Israeli Arab, if that is in fact what one is? I in turn find it somewhat offensive that the national identity of the State of Israel is deemed as something which is found offensive to be grouped under. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 precision 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. 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 to 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 allege, in an incautious use of 'self-profess' that Tiamut was neither an 'Arab-Israeli nor who she has said she was, was the original offense, implying she had a dubious statehood (Palestinian though in Israel) and 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)[reply]
p.s. Jaakabou. Quite cute, those little bogey-characters you've attached ingeniously to your page. Are they clickable, or will succumbing to my temptation to open them send me spiralling into a dark hole like I was a Higgs particle in the Hadron thingamejig?:)Nishidani (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
"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"..."Secondly, if you read what I wrote there is absolutely no assumption of 'bad faith'. To the contrary, I attributed your deafness..." - Nishidani (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(click "[show]" to see full text)
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)[reply]
"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" - Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(click "[show]" to see full text)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. JaakobouChalk Talk15:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. JaakobouChalk Talk14:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Kite21:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. JaakobouChalk Talk21:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The header is misleading because it insinuates that any racism is being perpetrated purely by Eleland, when (a) any racism by him is debatable, and (b) there are racist overtones on the edits of both sides. At the very least, the header should be altered to reflect that. Black Kite21:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Black Kite,
Racism and two sides to every story: The racism by him is indeed debatable (as are most issues), and there are indeed racist overtones on the edits of both sides (though debatable). I fully agree with you on both points.
Original complaint and racist commentary: Changing a complaint made because a defender of Eleland disagrees with it is disruptive to admins who should be reading the complaint as it was originally posted. Both you and/or Nishidani have no prerogative to alter the title. It matters not if a couple editors think Eleland should be given leeway to call Zionists "Nasiz" if these Jews happen to annoy him with a mildly uncivil/insensitive comment about Palestinians.
Personal perspective: I found most of Eleland's comments -- as well as his usual style -- to be offensive and bigoted; and therefore, the original title should stay.
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)[reply]
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. JaakobouChalk Talk08:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC) clarify 08:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC) clarify more 08:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) makes the comments aired outrageously offensive. Now you edit-war over the claim that it wasn't.[3], [4] 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. JaakobouChalk Talk11:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Header
"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." - Nishidani (talk) 06:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(click "[show]" to see full text)
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)[reply]
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. JaakobouChalk Talk08:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. JaakobouChalk Talk11:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we might find it more beneficial to actually discuss your edits in the discussion page. The sheer volume of them doesn't allow for easy discussion of any one of them, buried in the middle of a dozen edits. Let's give it a try. - Arcayne(cast a spell)15:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've likely undone some of your ref work, and for that I am sorry. I have no issues with the referencing work, but rather the large amount of copyediting occurring amidst it. If you wish to replace the refs, I would not oppse it. Teh other stuff, however, we should discuss. The time for bold editing has somewhat passed, and some discussion would really be helpful. It is a little after 11 am where I am at, and will be out of the office until 2 pm. If you wish to discuss the matter at that time, i will be available to do so in a timely manner. - Arcayne(cast a spell)16:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we can compromise, but a full on revert is improper considering the volume of work. I've taken the time to tag each and every edit with a proper edit summary and I'm sure they can be reviewed and discussed. Let's pursue this on the article's talk page.
It was not a "full-on" revert. While some of your ref work was undone, that was unintentional, but could not be avoided, as the refs moved supported statements that should have been discussed. Many parts of your edits remain. Those parts where you purged or reqwrote matters require some discussion. You were reverted; the next step is not to revert back o your preferred version but instead to use the discussion page to achive a compromise and/or consensus. I am willing to work with you, but I tend to respond negatively to an unwillingness to use BRD in the spirit it was intended. I am removing - yet again - the info until we finish discussing thedifferences of interperetation. Please respect that dissent exists and use the discussion page to resolve it, and not by reverting.
After reading your post in the article discussion, it would appear that we need to discuss those edits which you find objectionable or undue weight. I am open to such discussion.- Arcayne(cast a spell)21:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment on DYK was exceptionally poor form, and had no bearing on the value of the DYK. I see it as an attack, and would like you to strike it, please. There are acceptable ways to interact, and that was not it. - Arcayne(cast a spell)14:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You kinda left me no choice. The DYK will occur in two days and you insist we discuss and achieve consensus to each and every change I've made even though you now state cleanly that most of them are fine with you.[5] I'd be happier off course to allow the DYK pass (I think I might get credit for that one as well) and this is not intended as a personal dig but rather a concern that Microsoft is getting a raw deal from Wikipedia. Things would go easier probably, if you would have broken down your edit with edit summaries for each edit rather than make a big one which is hard to follow. Perhaps you could, please, take the time to compare the versions and possibly go my way on a few issues. I'm sure we can resolve this before the two days are up - you don't have to take each of my comments as personal digs, I have no such intentions.
p.s. I did see that you went my way already on several issues, so don't take this comment as disrespecting your efforts. I'll return to review what we can do further in a few hours. Feel free to edit the article a little to possibly resolve some of the issues you think might be open. JaakobouChalk Talk15:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bluntly, there is always a choice, Jaak. There was nothing that threatened the validity of the DYK in any way, and yet your comment seemed designed to slow its approval down. I take exception to that, as it seems an action in very bad faith, of reprisal for the reverting of your mass edits. Your comment in DYK casts a shadow as to the verifiability, reliability or neutrality of the DYK - to whit, that the commercials were not made on Macs. They were, and its cited, and you apparently haven't any disagreement with that. It is quite reasonable to assume that the comment was made with less than neutral considerations.
Additionally, I do not disagree with your ref clean-up (which I guess renders as correct your statement that "most of [your edits] are okay with me"), but I do disagree substantially with many of your other edits. That I reverted the massive changes alongside a request to discuss the matter (whilst simultaneously keeping some of the changes and apologizing for undoing the ref work) was the 'R' part of the BRD model. I was pointedly asking you to discuss before re-adding the information and, for whatever reason, you chose to initially ignore that request. When you were reverted again, you then posted to discussion once before re-adding the info. That isn't how discussion works. I wasn't unclear as to why you made the edits, I disagreed with them - an important distinction when asked to discuss an edit.
And MS isn't getting a "raw deal" from Wikipedia. They ass-clowned themselves into a pickle, and it is encyclopedic to point out the error. No one is saying that Bill should be strung up from a light post in Redmond. They made a whopper of a mistake by trying to conceal their error, and its cited by several neutral sources. Ergo, no issue.
If you truly feel that we can resolve this, I would suggest that a retraction of your DYK comment would constitute an excellent step in that direction. Can you do that?- Arcayne(cast a spell)16:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine you were writing an article about your own company and tell me if language like "ass-clowned themselves into a pickle" sounds fair. Anyways, I'm in the process of answering your points from the article talk page and believe we'll solve this nicely.
p.s. I don't believe that requests for retractions work well on Wikpedia. It certainly didn't work when Prince of Canada asked you to revert your edit on the page - or did you miss that one?
Well, if I had said that in article-space, I would have deserved getting my ass handed to me as a blue plate special. As it was used in a user-talk page (and something similar was said in article discussion), its a moot point. I don't hate MS; I hate stupidity in the workplace, especially when it wastes time and/or money. I especially despise anyone who seeks to obscure their own stupidity and spin it. As the mistake forced MS to spend more money and waste more time responding to it, they qualify. As they then tried to conceal it, they doubly qualify.
And when i mean retract, I think it can be reasonably inferred that I meant 'strike through'. Are you suggesting that the DYK was inaccurate, and that it wasn't a reprisal? I await your reasoning on this, as I am genuineloy curious as to how you defend it. - Arcayne(cast a spell)16:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not bicker over what qualifies as a "reprisal" and try and work this out together. See my recent response on the article's talk page.
Um, are you purposely avoiding my request to address the DYK comment with semantics? Comparing my correct characterization of your behavior with armed conflict? Would retaliation work better for you? Respectfully, it should be rather clear to you that I consider this issue rather important, and while I can match semantic s with you, it isn't going to fix the underlying problem. It is going to affect how we interact, and I resent your avoiding the topic. I have asked you nicely to remove, redact, strike through the bad faith post. If you are not going to do so, say so, so I know what level you are placing our dispute on and can act accordingly, be it ANI or wikiquette. Your action was unacceptable, and you should glean from my repeated requests to address it how seriously I take it. Please be polite and professional, and address it. - Arcayne(cast a spell)20:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would not b e good form for me to do so, as refactoring the comments of others is seen as uncivil. If you are honestly of the opinion that your action was worthy of 3O consideration, by all means, move it there, and we can discuss it there. However, you are the one that needs to remove it. In short, you made the mistake, you should be the one to address it. And yes, it is important. I am rather disappointed that I have had to address this more than once, and that you did it in the first place. If you could remove it, i would appreciate it. It would go a long way to improving our interaction. - Arcayne(cast a spell)21:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a mistake as my concern remains the promotion of an unfair article to WIkipedia's mainpage. I am willing to have you shift my concern to a separate venue, but these concerns are very much there still and you don't seem to budge or suggest any type of compromise on any of them on the discussion page. Can we just continue this there and stop the accusations? JaakobouChalk Talk21:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not going to undue your attack; you have to do that. If you chose not to, I cannot force you to do so, but there will be repercussions.
Let me put it simply: Was there any part of the DYK that was inaccurate? It promotes the a hook into the article so that it can attract attention to and be worked on by editors - the stated purpose of DYK; perhaps you could review the policies and guidelines of that; at the very least, you should discuss with an admin before you do some of these things, to get an idea as to how they are going to be perceived. We disagree as to the fairness of the article, not the factual n ature of the DYK, or the NPOV of the comment, which your comment implied.
Put yourself in my shoes, and ask around: would you honestly try to work with someone who pulled such a stunt, or would you feel that they gamed the system in retaliation for being reverted?
Please do not think I am going to be forced to discussions about compromise before you initiate the process by doing so yourself and removing the retaliatory comment - that will not happen, and will foster an extremely poor editing environment. In short, by your comment, you made it harder to work together. I have given you several opportunities to address your mistake, please - take advantage of them. Otherwise, I have to take this to another venue that will be pleasant for neither of us. - Arcayne(cast a spell)21:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be offensive, but you're really treating this like I'm doing something wrong while you are doing something right. Your approach is a bit uncivil since you insist on irrelevant issues rather than resolve the content issue. In regards to your suggestion, I did, in fact, consult with a couple of admins before deciding on the DYK notice. If you don't want to resolve the issue and only wish to make demands and claim ownership over how the article should be written, then I believe we're both in trouble and not just me. Anyways, I gave you the option to move the comment to WP:3O - and that option is still open. I'd be happy to discuss things with you on the article and resolve the content issue. Cheers, JaakobouChalk Talk21:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My choice was essentially forced by your refusal to redact your comment; either report you to AN/I (where you might very well have been blocked yet again), or to WQA, where some other admins might help you understand that your behavior was offensive. It was offensive, and if you cannot see that, then this isn't going to be the end of your problems with other editors. The copy of the WQA complaint can be found here. Depending on how that progresses, I will follow the steps of DR until a satisfactory solution emerges. - Arcayne(cast a spell)23:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for I'm a PC
On 5 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated witha fact from the article I'm a PC, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
