User talk:Nishidani

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

The West Bank/Judea and Samaria Problem

Personal work section notes. I get headaches and am as slow as a wet week, in dragging up diffs, and even have a geezer's trouble in following these arguments all over several pages, so I can't really make an adequate case. So I'll have to make my contribution in the next few days, according to the fashion I normally work after, when I did work, in the real world. Reflecting from principles, through to the problem, the evidence and conclusions. Apologies to anyone reading this. It's written to help myself get some order into this chat, not to guide others.

• An editorial split between those in favour of using 'Judea & Samaria' to designate (a) parts of, or (b) all, or (c) all of the West Bank and parts of Israel, and those who oppose the usage, except on those specific pages devoted to (i) Samaria (ii) Judea (iii) the administrative territory known in Israel as 'Judea & Samaria'.

• The 'Judea and Samaria' school holds that (a) these are geographical and historical designations predating the West Bank (b) used in a variety of sources published in Israel and abroad to denote the territory, or parts of it, known as the West Bank (c) and that opposition to the employment of these words in wiki constitutes an 'ethnic-based discrimination' against both Israeli and Jewish people.(d) specifically, that MeteorMaker, Pedrito and myself have conducted a campaign to denigrate or deprecate Jewish terms in the I/P area, a kind of ethnic cleansing of nomenclature, in a way that lends substance to fears our position is motivated by, well let's call a spade a spade, anti-semitism.

• The 'West Bank' school asserts that (a) these terms have an intrinsic denotative vagueness because they refer to different geophysical, administrative and political terrains depending on historical period, and that to use the terms of the territorially bounded and defined area known internationally as the West Bank creates cognitive dissonance (b) that these terms, as documented, were used under the British Mandate, then dropped for 'West Bank', which has remained to this day the default term of neutral usage internationally and in international law and diplomacy (c) that, after the Israeli conquest of the West Bank, in 1967, the terms 'Judea & Samaria' were pushed onto the political agenda by an extremist settler group, Gush Emunim, then adopted by the Likud government in 1977, and imposed by government decree on the Israeli mass media, which suppressed the international term, West Bank (d) that, as documented, the terms 'Judea and Samaria' have a potent ideological charge as appropriative nomenclature, renaming Palestinian land presently occupied, annexed or expropriated illegally by Israel (ICJ judgement 2004), over which Israel has no sovereignty, where Israel is establishing illegal settlements at least half of which on land with private Palestinian title, and with its own Arabic toponyms, and erasing the traditional native nomenclature by creating a neo-biblical toponomy (d) that reliable secondary sources explicitly define the term as partisan, even in contemporary Hebrew and Israeli usage (e) that the evidence for usage overwhelmingly documents the prevalence of 'West Bank' (northern, southern) in neutral sources, whose neutrality is affirmed also by the very sources that otherwise employ the words 'Samaria and Judea' adduced by the former school, (f) that if explicitly attested partisan Israeli toponymy and administrative nomenclature is allowed on non-Israeli territory, then by WP:NPOV criteria, automatically this would mean the corresponding Palestinian toponymy and nomenclature, often covering the same areas, would have to be introduced (g)that in this whole debate, the West Bankers have not even represented the Palestinian side, which is absent, invisible, while the Israeli side is being treated as though its national naming were on terms of parity and neutrality with international usage (h) that wiki criteria, WP:NPOV, WP:Undue, WP:RS, WP:NCGN etc. require that neutral terminology, particularly as evidenced by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, be employed. (i) If we are to allow Israeli terminology to be generally employed in denoting territory over which Israel exercises no sovereignty, but is simply, in law, an occupying belligerent, a very dangerous precedent, with widespread consequences for articles where ethnic conflicts exist, would be created.

(ii)Note on language, naming as an appropriative act of possession and dominion.

'According to the aboriginal theory, the ancestor first called out his own name; and this gave rise to the most sacred and secret couplet or couplets of his song. The he 'named' (tneuka) the place where he had originated, the trees or rocks growing near his home, the animals sporting about nearby, any strangers that came to visit him, and so forth. He gave names to all of these, and thereby gained the power of calling them by their names; this enabled him to control them and to bind them to his will.'

Wa’-yitser’ Yĕhôwāh’ (Adonai) ĕlôhīm’ min-hā'ădāmāh’ kol-‘ha’yath’ ha’-sādeh’ wĕ'ēth kol-ôph ha’-shāma’yim wa’-yāvē ‘ el-hā'ādām’ li-r'ôth mah-yiqrā-lô’ wĕ-kôl ăsher yiqrā-lô’ hā'-ādām‘ ne’pfesh ‘ha’yāh’ hû shĕmô. (20) Wa’- yiqrā’ hā'-ādām‘ shēmôth….

‘And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them; and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20. And Adam gave names.. .'

Wa-‘allama ādama l-asmā’a kullahā,

'And He taught Adam the names, all of them.’ Qu’ran 2:31.

In Thomas Pynchon's novel Mason & Dixon, the narrator Cherrycoke recounts, against the huge backdrop of seismic shifts in the political and scientific world of that time, the story of the eponymous figures who have undertaken to draw a scientific map of the wilderness and terrain between Pennsylvania and Maryland:

‘what we were doing out in that Country together was brave, scientifick beyond my understanding and ultimately meaningless, - we were putting a line straight through the heart of the Wilderness, eight yards wide and due west, in order to separate two Proprietorships, granted when the World was yet feudal and but eight years later to be nullified by the War for Independence.”

Late in the novel, the Chinaman of the piece remarks:

‘To rule forever, . .it is necessary only to create, among the people one would rule, what we call . . Bad History. Nothing will produce Bad History more directly nor brutally, than drawing a Line, in particular a Right Line, the very Shape of Contempt, through the midst of a People,- to create thus a Distinction betwixt’em. –’tis the first stroke.-All else will follow as if predestin’d, into War and Devastation.’

The dispute here in wiki, like the historical reality it refers to, has its ‘Bad History’. In the novel, the apparently empirical task of defining boundaries is found unwittingly implicated in the later travails of American history, with its exceptionalism, erasure of native peoples, of possible alternative worlds, of Frostian paths never taken. American innocence and pragmatic realism, in the innocuous work of two surveyors, is swept up in the torment of power: cartographic principles embody an Enlightenment’s reach into the unknown, while, applied, to the ends of order and control, they inadvertently engender violent confusion and disarray. What is the ‘right line’ to take on nomenclature, when history’s line demarcating Israel and the West Bank was drawn by war, then the West Bank was occupied in the aftermath of war, and the world of Israeli settlers begins to redraw the map? One thing that happens is that the complexities have drawn editors into a minor war, as Pynchonesque as it is Pythonesque. There is one difference: most the cartographers say one thing, and Israel, the controlling power, asserts a different terminology. So what’s in a name?

Before the world was tribalized and invested by the collateral damage or fall-out from the Tower of Babel, God assigned to the mythical forefather of all, ‘man’ or Adam, the faculty to name the world, though God himself had exercised this right in naming the light (or) day (yom) and the darkness (hôshek) night(layĕlāh) (Gen.1.5) There was only one name for each thing, and in later European thought the primordial language employed in this taxonomy was to be called ‘the Adamic vernacular’. The thesis was that the pristine jargon employed by Adam, being pre-Babelic, represented the true name for every object: every thing had a proper name intrinsic to its nature. The Greeks, as we see in Plato’s Cratylus, were much prepossessed by the philosophical crux of the correctness of names (ὀρθότης τῶν ὀνομάτων): did names have an intrinsic relation to, or represent, things, or was the link arbitrary.. The Confucian school’s doctrine of the Rectification of names (zhèngmíng: 正名). In the Bible itself the Hebrew text is full of the magic of words, of the power of words themselves to alter reality, a belief testified to in Isaiah:

'So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please.'

Modernity, especially after Ferdinand Saussure (1916), has opted, correctly, for the latter position, and disposed of the magical force of naming. But nationalism, another product of modernity, reintroduced it, via the backdoor, in a new sense. Naming was an act of assertive territorial control, of defining ethnic rights over land, especially as Anthony Smith argues, ethnie are defined also by attachment to a specific geophysical reality, the ‘homeland’ that defines in good part their identity ). Since national identities are a political construct, the inculcation of a uniform language, and the use of its lexicon to define or redefine the landscape, are crucial instruments in forging a national sense of common tradition. Nationalism demanded toponymic unison, and linguistic conformity.

John Gaddis, glossing James Scott’s recent book on North Dakota roads and maps, remarks on maps that they reflect

‘what states try to do to those portions of the earth’s surface they hope to control, and to the people who live upon them. For it’s only by making territories and societies legible – by which he means measurable and hence manipulable – that governments can impose and maintain their authority. “These state simplifications,” he writes, are “like abridged maps.” They don’t replicate what’s actually there, but “when allied with state power, (they) enable much of the reality they (depict) to be remade.”

The idea of a nation as a territorial unit speaking one language over that territory is a parlously modern ideology, one engineered by nation-builders into a plausible if specious semblance of commonsense. As Massimo d’Azeglio is said to have remarked at the dawn of the Italian Risorgimento, ‘we have made Italy: our task now is to make Italians’, 95% of whom could neither read, write and nor often even speak ‘Italian’.

Imperialism, venturing into terra incognita to appropriate foreign land and incorporate it into an empire, went side by side with nationalism, which was a form of internal colonization over, and homogenization of, the disparate cultures that made up an historically defined territory. For the natives, their indigenous naming is ‘essentially a process of asserting ownership and control of place and landscape’

Daphne Kutzner, in her analysis of the role of Empire in classic children’s fiction, looks at the question from the perspective of the intrusive Empire and its refraction of imperial renaming as reflected in popular books, notes that

‘Naming a place gives the namer power over it, or at least the illusion of power and control. Colonial powers literally transform a landscape once they rename it and begin reshaping it.’

Terra incognita is the foreigner’s name for an ostensibly empty landscape which, had they taken the trouble to learn the local languages, would have revealed itself to be replete from every rocky nook to crannied gulley with ancient toponyms. The tendency was one of erasure, and, as with introduced fauna and flora , the landscape was consistently remade as it was renamed to familiarize the alien by rendering it recognizable, a variation on the landscape settlers came from. The new mapping, as often as not, represent as much the settler’s mentality, as the queerly new features of the foreign landscape under toponymic domestication.

Australia is somewhat the extraordinary exception, and broke with the gusto for imperial nomenclature. There, following the pattern set by the earlier land surveyor Thomas Mitchell and his assistant Philip Elliott that “the natives can furnish you with names for every flat and almost every hill” (1828), native names were adopted in a standarized English form for both euphony and their characteristic relation to the landscape, and indeed a resolution was passed as early as 1884 which established the priority of native names in international usage.

Often imperialism and nationalism go hand in hand. Napoleon’s troops, in 1796, could hardly communicate with each other, such were the grammatical, semantic and syntactical rifts between the various provincial patois at the time. By 1814, Napoleon had formed a European empire, and millions of provincials spoke the one, uniform language of the French state’s army. When two nations, or ethnie, occupy the same territory, the historical victor’s toponymic choices, dictated by the victor’s native language, and as articulated in bureaucratic documents and maps, usually determines what names are to be used. However, the presence of two distinct ethnie on the same national soil creates fissiparous tensions in nomenclature. Speaking of French and British conflict in Canada over areas, Susan Drummond, remarks that, 'Symbolic appropriation of a territory is a critical index of control’, and notes that, as late as 1962, the Québec cartographer Brochu, invoked the political dimension of place names as important, in the conflict with the majoritarian English heritage of Canada over the naming of the northern Inuit lands.

Again, in another familiar example, Alfonso Pérez-Agote notes that Spain has its Basque Autonomous region, Euskadi. But the original force of that name covers an area beyond the administrative and territorial units of Spain, and Basque nationalists evoke its symbolic territory, comprising also the Basque area of Navarre in France. Euskadi has, on one level, within Spanish administrative discourse, a ‘territorial political objectification’, and on another level, in Basque nationalism, a ‘non-administratively objectified’ territory extending into a neighbouring country.. The analogy with Israeli and Palestinian nationalism is close. In Israeli discourse, Israel or Eretz Israel can denote Israel and its outriding West Bank, while Palestine, which is the favoured term of West Bank Arabs for the land they inhabit, also can refer to the whole neighbouring territory of Israel as well.

The anomaly, in comparative terms, is that history has settled the question, whatever local separatist nationalisms, revanchist or irredentist, may claim, except for such places as ‘Palestine’. For there, while Israel is a constituted state, it emerged the victor, manu militari in a conflict that gave it control over a contiguous land, but has no recognized legal right, since that land is defined as and ‘Occupied Palestinian Territory. Acts of unilateral annexation, the extension of administrative structures, settlements, toponymic remapping, and widescale expropriation of land in Palestinian title, is not only not recognized, but judged ‘illegal’ by the highest international bodies of law. All major encyclopedias (Encyclopædia Britannica, Encarta etc.,), except Wiki, maintain a strict neutrality, and, in recognition of the fraught difficulties, adopt the neutral toponymic convention of ‘(northern/southern) West Bank’ in order to avoid lending their prestige to the partisan politics of the parties in this regional conflict.

(iii)The specific instance of Palestine and the West Bank

When the British wrested control over Palestine from the Ottomans in the First World War, and established themselves there to administer the region, Selwyn Troen notes that, 'naming also became part of the contest for asserting control over Palestine'.. As early as 1920 two Zionists advising the British Mandatory authority on everything regarding the assignment of Hebrew names, fought hard for the restoration of Hebraic toponymy, and when, with such places as Nablus, or indeed 'Palestine' itself, were given non-Hebrew names, they protested at the designations as evidence of discrimination against Jews. The point is made by the Israeli historian and cartographer Meron Benvenisti:-

'When the Geographical Committee for Names, which operated under the aegis of the Royal Geographical Society (the only body authorized to assign names throughout the British Empire, decided to call the Mandatory geopolitical entity “Palestine” and the city whose biblical name was Shechem, “Nablus” these Jewish advisers saw this as an act of anti-Jewish discrimination, and a searing defeat for Zionism.'

One pauses to reflect. We are being accused here of 'anti-Jewish/Israeli discrimination' for refusing to insert Israeli toponyms into the West Bank. Nothing is said of the logic of this POV-pushing, i.e. that a Palestinian reader might well regard a Wiki endorsement of suc h foreign nomenclature as a 'searing defeat', and adduce it as proof of 'anti-Palestinian discrimination' both by Zionist editors, and Wikipedia itself.

Since Zionism took root, and especially since Israel was founded, the making of a people, living in a defined territorial unit and speaking one language, has followed the universal pattern of modernity. The landscape, full of Arabic words, had to be renamed, often according to Biblical terminology, but, more often, by the invention of Biblical-sounding names. To do this, a good part of the 10,000 odd Arabic toponyms collected by Herbert Kitchener, T. E. Lawrence and others in surveying that part of the Middle East had to be cancelled, and replaced with Israeli/Hebrew terms, to remake the landscape and its topographic songlines resonate with historical depth. Hebrew is a ‘sacred tongue’ (Leshon HaQodesh:לשון הקודש), the Bible describes the conquest of Eretz Yisrael, and the dispossession of its indigenous peoples, who were not part of the chosen: the pattern is repeated in modern times, down to the renaming. The revival of Hebrew, with its potent shibboleths, understandably exercises a powerful hold over the new culture of the country.

The problem is, as Steven Runciman pointed out in the mid-sixties, that the part assigned to Israel by the UN deliberation of 1947 was the western, non-Biblical part, whilst the part assigned to a future Palestinian state, what we now call the West Bank, is precisely the area most infused with Biblical associations cherished by the Jewish people, with sites and names redolent of the founding myths and realities of their ancient forefathers. Israelis, in their secular land, mostly dwell where the Philistines dwelt. The Palestinians dwell where the ancient Jewish tribes once settled. The tensions simmer between the secular Israel, which thrives in its new Mediterranean world, and the religiously-identified Israel that aspires to return to a geophysical space where origins and the present, the sacred nomenclature of the Bible and the modern world of Jewish life, might at least, once more overlap, in an ‘Adamic’ harmony congruent with the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

(iv)The Negev Precedent With the foundation of Israel, and in the aftermath of the 1948 war, the vast Negev and part of the Arava were captured, and Ben Gurion duly established a Negev Names Committee to ‘hebraize’ the landscape’s features, its mountains, valleys and springs. The area already had a rich Arab toponymy, and some on the committee thought these terms might be preserved as a ‘democratic gesture towards the Arab population of the new state.’ It was not to be. The nomadic Bedouin who dwelt throughout the area were rounded up and expelled by force. They had terms for everything, but with their uprooting and displacement, Benvenisti notes, ‘an entire world, as portrayed in their toponomastic traditions, died.' Ben Gurion wrote to the committee setting forth his view that:-

We are obliged to remove the Arabic names for reasons of state. Just as we do not recognize the Arabs’ political proprietorship of the land, so also we do not recognize their spiritual proprietorship and their names.

Political pressure and ‘the influence of patriotic arguments’ prevailed over those who, like S.Yeibin, thought the erasure of Arab names, many of which might preserve an archaic Hebrew origin. Yeibin thought this a disaster:-

‘With a clap of the hand they were wiping out an entire cultural heritage that must certainly conceal within it elements of the Israeli-Jewish heritage as well. The researchers did indeed endeavour to identify all those names that had a link to ancient Hebrew ones in an attempt “to redeem, as far as possible, names from the days of yore.” <

Any Arabic toponym in short only interested the topographers in so far as it might provide a clue to reconstructing the hypothetical Hebraic original that might lie behind it. This consideration, however, often created a mess of concocted pseudo-traditional names. The hebraization of such Arabic toponyms did not restore the historic past, but invented a mythical landscape, resonant with traditionalist associations, that had, however, no roots in Jewish tradition. The most striking geologic formation in the Negev, Wadi Rumman was rewritten as if that word disguised an ancient Hebrew Ram ('elevated'), whereas the Arabic term it was calqued from actually meant 'Pomegranate Arroyo', for example.

Reflecting on Benvenisti’s account in his larger study of language conflict in the Middle east, the Palestinian expatriate scholar Yasir Suleiman makes remarks that,

’By assigning Hebrew names anew to places on the map, the committee was therefore ‘redeeming’ these places from the corrupt and ‘alien’ Arabic names that they have acquired over the centuries’

and likens this process of linguistic erasure of Arabic and the reconstitution of Hebrew metaphorically to the nakba:-

‘The cartographic cleansing of the Negev map of Arabic place names and their replacement by Hebrew names is an enactment of the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from their homeland’

The record is therefore one of a linguistic cleansing of Palestine of any trace of its long Arabic history, and, as we shall see, an attempt to remodel Arabic usage in the territories Israel conquered and controls, to conform with Hebrew. Toponyms can only retain some semblance of an Arabic form, if that form is suspected to camouflage, in turn, an original Hebraic name. Adapting the reborn Hebrew language to the alien realities of the Palestinian landscape, the obvious problem was that the nomenclature for much of the flora and fauna, not to speak of the landscape itself, was infused with the very language, Arabic, a revarnished Hebrew had to compete with. As early as 1910 Jacob Fichman, a member of the Language Council, stated that Hebrew:

‘will not digest the new names of plants, especially those which have been taken from the Arabic language’ and that these borrowed names ‘will always be like atrophied limbs’ for ‘despite the fact that the Arabic language is our sister language in the family of Semitic languages, it has no foundation in our |psyche ’

Hebrew was thus to be programmatically sealed off from Arabic, to prevent atrophisation, and cultivate purism by means of a fake Biblical antiquarianism. Theodor Adorno, writing in the melancholic aftermath of the Holocaust on the effects of cultural purism, once remarked on the purging of foreign words from German undertaken by nationalists intent restoring an ideal of cultural authenticity. He saw this as part of the pathology of nationalism in Germany. Foreign words were treated as if they were 'the Jews of language' (Fremdwörter sind die Juden der Sprache). In expunging the landscape and the human world of Palestine of its Arabic language, of landscape and culture, Zionism likewise treated Arabic as German or French linguistic purists treated loan-words in their own languages, or, later, actual Jews in their midst, as foreign bodies to be expelled, or expunged if a proper 'foundation for an authentically Jewish psyche' were to be successfully engineered. One would call this ironic, were it not so tragically melancholic in its unintended resonances.

(v)The West Bank. History and Naming The relationship between demographic displacement and the loss of one's landscape through the erasure of its traditional placenames in Palestine has been remarked on by Paul Diehl.

‘The exclusive attachment to territory is reflected in the naming and renaming of places and locations in accordance with the historic and religious sites associated with the dominant political group. Not only did the outflow of Palestinian refugees bring about a change in the Jewish-Arab demographic rations, it brought about the replacement of an Arab-Palestinian landscape with a Jewish-Israeli landscape. The names of abandoned villages disappeared from the map and were replaced with alternative Hebrew names . . Israeli settlements throughout the West Bank have taken on biblical names associated with the specific sites as a means of expressing the Jewish priority in these places and the exclusive nature of the territorial attachment. Modern Israeli and Palestinian maps of Israel/Palestine possess the same outer borders, but the semantic content of the name is completely different.. The means by which new landscapes are created to replace or obliterate former landscapes is a good example of the way in which metaphysical and symbolic attachment to territory is translated into concrete realities on the ground.’

In 1950, when King Abdullah, of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, unilaterally annexed the territory he had conquered in 1948, he changed the name of his country to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which incorporated the remaining fragment of Palestine as aḍ-Ḍiffä l-Ġarbīyä, or 'the West Bank' of that kingdom. The usage is still current in German (Westjordanland). Though only Britain recognized his annexation, the word itself found ready acceptance in, and was not, 'forced on', the international community, as Binyamin Netanyahu argued.

In 1967, Israel conquered what the world knew as ‘The West Bank’, the Biblical heartland, and a decree calling it ‘Judea and Samaria’ was issued by the Israeli military on December 17 that year with the explicit definition that it would be identical in meaning for all purposes to the West Bank region to replace the interim terms 'Occupied Territories' (ha-shetahim ha-kevushim), and ‘the Administered Territories’ (ha-shetahim ha-muhzakim) in use since the immediate aftermath of the June war. The term 'Judea and Samaria' however was rarely used until Likud took power. The Labour Government never enacted a settlement policy, though Gush Emunim, an extremist settler ground with a fundamentalist ideology, pressed settlement, and propagated the terminology ‘Judea and Samaria’. When the Likud party, the maximalist, expansionist party with strong ties to both religious and ultra-Zionist groups and traditions, was elected in 1977, it imposed Samaria and Judea as the vox propria in modern Hebrew on the mass media, expressly forbidding the use of the international term West Bank. Notably, the government's imposing of these terms on Israeli usage was seen as a prerequisite for an envisioned settlement policy, since accepting the terms would predispose the public to accepting the policy.

Gideon Aran describes the achievement:

‘The importance of changing names in the process of conquering territory is well known. Assimilation of the name “Judea and Samaria” in normal and official language, as well as in jargon, attests to G(ush)E(numin)’s political and cultural achievements.'

The Camp David Accords negotiations of and the final agreement, in 1979, only underline how great was the linguistic rift between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin's position and the American government intent on brokering an agreement.

‘Begin consistently proved to be the most extreme member of his delegation, insisting on seemingly innocent terms such as “autonomy” as opposed to “self rule,” on the labelling of the West Bank as “Judea and Samaria” in the Hebrew text, and on the use of the phrase “undivided Jerusalem.'

A huge amount of wrangling between the American negotiators and Begin revolved around this term.

‘for what must have been the tenth time, he (Begin) objected to the term West Bank, giving a lesson to the president on the geographic and historical appropriateness of the term and the importance of using the words Judea and Samaria.’

Begin refused to back down from his ‘rock-hard’ intransigence on using ‘Judea and Samaria’ and at the Camp David signing ceremony, (March 26,1979) several interpretive notes were required to be added as annexes to the basic documents, one specifically dealing with the West Bank, which President Carter annotated with his own hand with the words:

‘I have been informed that the expression ‘West Bank’ is understood by the Government of Israel to mean ‘Judea and Samaria’.

An ambitious programme of colonising settlement, toponomastic Hebraisation and cultural Judaization was undertaken, and indigenous Palestinians were shifted off their land, in a repetition of the Negev programme, which forms the precedent. The programme took wing especially after the unprovokedinvasion of Lebanon in 1982, whose key political objectives included ousting the refugee Palestinian resistance in the para-state on Israel’s northern flank from Lebanon, where the PLO projected a 'state in waiting' image that threatened Israel’s plans for long-term control over the West Bank. The war was, the head of the IDF said at the time, ‘part of the struggle over the Land of Israel. It aimed to further the isolation of Palestinians on the West Bank by depriving them of close support, halt the rise to political respectability of the PLO, which embodied Palestinian nationalist aspirations, and deprive that body of its claims to be a political partner in the peace process for Israel’s normalization of its relations with the outside world. One calculation, a minority view entertained by both Ariel Sharon and Raphael Eytan, however, was that, expelled from Lebanon, the PLO would be forced to return to Jordan, topple king Hussein, and establish a Palestinian state there to satisfy Palestinian national ambitions that Israel would thwart on the West Bank.

Changing the realities of occupied territory by the manipulation of language, Hebrew, Arabic, and in controllable sources like the global Wikipedia, became a programmatic goal. The settlers were in fact 'colonists' in the old sense, but Israeli English usage has here prevailed in the politics of the culture wars to determine how the international community perceives the dynamics of that area. The corresponding Hebrew usage is complex (see Israeli settlements), but continuity with the biblical setlement of Eretz Yisrael is evoked by referring to Jewish settlers as mitnahalim. The root *n-h-l directly evokes a passage in the Book of Numbers where each tribe is assigned its portion on entering Canaan, or the Land of Israel, particularly as ' in the pledge by the tribes of Gad and Reuben that they will fight on the west side of the Jordan river to help the other tribes take possession of their assigned portions' Settlers, qua, mitnahalim are not colonizing anybody's land, in this usage: they are simply taking up their 'assigned portions' as those were marked out by God to the Chosen People.

Rashid Khalidi has remarked how the Israeli authorities themselves try to engineer the way Palestinians think in Arabic by tampering with that language's natural idiom in the Arabic broadcasts they authorize. Over Israeli Arabic channels, one does not hear Jerusalem referred to, as it is customarily in Arabic, and by Palestinians, as Bayt al-Maqdis ('The House of Sanctity') or Al Quds al-Sharif ('The Noble Holy Place'). Arabic usage as sanctioned by Israel speaks rather of Urshalim ('Jerusalem') or Urshalim/al-Quds ('Jerusalem Al-Quds'). The purpose is to diffuse a variety of Arabic names for places that are calques on the Hebrew terms chosen for the area..

This goes right through the bureaucratic language, a form of linguistic colonization that reinforces the physical occupation of the west Bank by cultural re-engineering. A new travel permit was imposed on the colonized Palestinians in the West Bank in 2002, and required of any of them wishing to travel in that area. This was issued, printed and released by Israeli authorities who call it in Arabic Tasrih tanaqul khas fi al-hawajiz al-dakhiliyya fi mantaqat yahuda wa al-samara. ('Special Travel Permit for the Internal Checkpioints in the Area of Judea and Samaria.'). Here, Palestinians who must travel in the West Bank, for them 'Filastin', are required to obtain a document which requires that area to be referred to by the settler term, 'Judea and Samaria'. It is this form of Arabic which they are expected to use in negotiating their way with Israeli authorities through checkpoints. But West Bank Palestinians simply abbreviate it and refer to their tasrih dakhili (Checkpoint permit), , thereby eluding the settler term imposed on them.

Michael Sfard indeed has spoken of Hebrew being mobilized to lend itself to the national emergency of occupying Palestine, and denying the Palestinians the liberty to be themselves. They are passive subjects of an activist language that wraps them about in bureaucratic euphemisms.

'It has been tasked with providing a soothing, anesthetizing name for the entire project of suffocation, for the blanket system of theft we have imposed on those we occupy . . Thus extrajudicial executions have become “targeted assassinations”. Torture has been dubbed “moderate physical pressure”. Expulsion to Gaza has been renamed “assigning a place of residence”. The theft of privately owned land has become “declaring the land state-owned”. Collective punishment is “leveraging civilians”; and collective punishment by blockade is a “siege,” “closure” or “separation".'

A proposal is now being made to apply the principle of Hebraization, as of 2009, even to those places within Israel which the world designates by traditional toponyms, such as Jerusalem (Yerushalayim) Nazareth (Natzrat) and Jaffa (Yafo).

(vi) Analysis of Ynhockey's suggestions

‘Mapmaking was one of the specialized intellectual weapons by which power could be gained, administered, given legitimacy and codified’

'Mapmaking is not, however, solely an instrument of war; it is an activity of supreme political significance – a means of providing a basis for the mapmaker’s claims and for his social and symbolic values, while cloaking them in a guise of “scientific objectivity.” Maps are generally judged in terms of their “accuracy”, that is, the degree to which they succeed in reflecting and depicting the morphological landscape and its “man-made” covering But maps portray a fictitious reality that differs from other sorts of printed matter only in form.'

After 1967 ‘Cartographers . .had many options, which tended to reveal their political proclivities. Those who were sympathetic to Israel labelled the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, and Sinai as “administered territories” and used the phrase “Judea and Samaria” for Jordan’s former West Bank. They also included all of Jerusalem within Israeli territory,. Mapmakers who were ideologically neutral generally referred to “occupied territory” and maintained the term “West Bank”. . . In the post-1993 period a Palestinian Authority has been established in the West Bank and Gaza, yet there is no actual independent state of Palestine. Most international maps have stayed with the terms “West Bank” and “Gaza” but maps published by the Palestinian Authority describe these areas as “Palestine.” Furthermore, Palestinian Authority maps usually leave out Israel and assign its territory to “Palestine,” with the added designation that it is “occupied territory.”Arthur Jay Klinghoffer, Harvey Sicherman, The power of projections: : how maps reflect global politics and history, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006 pp.37-8

We are dealing with a defined territory and its naming. User:Ynhockey would make tidy distinctions, define the bound geographical territory (CIA Factbook) as just a political reality, and use Judea and Samaria for all other contexts. In his own work on Wiki, much of it admirable, we find many maps. Examine the following map he authored and uploaded, and which is employed on the Battle of Karameh

The central colour, a washed acquamarine tint, allows one to highlight the field of movement in the battle, and blurs the neat territorial division between the West Bank, and Jordan. But note that, in a wholly unnecessary manner, Israel is stamped in large bold characters and made to overlay the West Bank, which is placed diminutively in parentheses. Willy-nilly, the impression is that the West Bank is some territorial hypothesis or province within Israel. Whether Ynhockey meant to give the reader this impression or not is immaterial. Maps, as one source already quoted noted, reflect the cognitive bias of the mapmaker as much as an interpretation of a landscape, and here the bias is that the West Bank is under Israel, behind Israeli lines, a subset of that state. It is a fine example of what many cartographers and historians of cartography argue: the making of maps, and toponymic nomenclature in them, serves several purposes, to clarify, as here, a battle landscape, for example, but also to impose or assert power, or claims, or blur facts. Objectively, User:Ynhockey has loaded wiki with a map that cogs our perceptions, tilting them to an annexationist assumption. Indeed, unlike the Israeli government so far, his map actually looks like it has the West Bank annexed.

Further reading:- Mark Monmonier, No Dig, No Fly, No Go. How maps restrict and control, University of Chicago Press 2010

Reverting

• • List of editors who have used here, in my view, their IR option with a patently spurious claim about policy observance, or who don't either bother to justify their revert.

At Azzam Pasha quotation

• User:Shrike

At Al-Aqsa Intifada

• 2602:304:6F77:6E99:A97A:A327:B58E:72EB
• User:Eat memory

At Izz ad-Din al-Qassam‎

• User:No More Mr Nice Guy
• User:Brewcrewer
• Ruby Tuesday ALMWR Blocked almost immediately and indefinitely as a suspected User:NoCal100 sock, which was obvious from his first edit.

At Judaization of Jerusalem

• User: Plot Spoiler here. All that was required was to remove the quotation marks, rather than revert. This is an example of a total revert of a substantial edit from RS simply because you object to a minute element not in that source. The right thing to do after controlling the source is to copyedit the minutiae you object to, or shift the passage elsewhere. Objecting it doesn't belong to the lead is subjective. The article's lead is thin, the source very high quality, and the remark by Dore Gold is absolutely appropriate, in a thin para dealing with whether such a policy exists or not. Nishidani (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Plot Spoiler returns to revert my edit, which restored reliable information, by two international jurists, deleted from the lead by AnkhMorpork here, describing independent jurists incorrectly as UN personnel. PS used the extraordinary edit summary 'POV well-poisoning'. Apparently you cannot summarize in the lead the content of later sections if the material is negative. You can summarize in the lead material that is positive, so that PS leaves untouched: 'Justus Weiner and Dan Diker, have objected to the entire notion, writing that the lack of any significant change to the demographic balance of the city undermines suggestions that it is government policy and renders any such discussions moot.' I guess leaving that in is 'sweetening the well'. Nishidani (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

At Hebron

• User:Brewcrewer, with the edit summary bad writing replete with typos. please try again and be more careful repeats his use of the revert option. What was he reverting? My edit, removed a photo introduced by an anonymous IP, quite probably a sock (and expanded a text on the passage the photo illustrated.

My edit summary was:'Removed Beit Hadassah snap (1) misleading (2) not notable, unless we want several hospitals in the photos (3) added an eyewitness account by Perera to the takeover. Text to help editors check in notes.'

It's fascinating that one can revert a text on the grounds that it has a typo in it, or because you disapprove of the syntax. Correct it. But a revert on these grounds suggests that these are pretexts, and one just wishes to remove the matter added.Nishidani (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• At Yanun

AnkhMorpork challenges Foundation for Middle East Peace as RS. It is used on quite a few pages, Oslo Accords, Roadmap for peace, and is stable there. In 16 odd edits in a few hours I doubled the length of the page all sourced to RS, esp. academic books which say exactly what the FMEP says. AnkhMorpork trails me to this page, which he hasn't edited, and tries to be a nuisance. The discussion starts on the talk page. Within a few hours, he reverts all references to it before even trying to define why this eminently good RS does not fit wikipedia's criteria. Again, there is no serious motivation, just a personal feeling and an incomprehensibly counter-intuitive reading of WP:RS. Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Shrike once more steps into the breach, to simply revert without discussion what I and another editor were discussing. This is the second time he has done that, showing up from left-field in a surprise strike(-out). As discussion continues, he blankets my 16 odd edits that raised the content of the page from 6kb to 12kb. The edit summary runs:-

'rv all the recent editions as violations of WP:NPOV.Usage of bad sources are against the policy especially in Wikipedia voice per WP:ONUS explain why those source should be accepted at all.'

All of the recent editions (?)!!

Actually Shrike didn't even read my edits. He saw my name there and mass-reverted. Otherwise one cannot understand how he could challenge my edit to this nonsensical phrasing he restored:

Local farmers have lived in Yanun since the 18th century.

That means that the farmers of Yanun have lived for 3 centuries. There is no evidence that they enjoy such extraordinary longevity.

I rewrote it:

'Yanun's Palestinian farming community has worked its fields for three centuries.'

I.e. communities exist over time, local farmers, individuals do not normally survive a century, let alone 3.

WP:RS Sources. Shrike contests my using the following sources:

• David Dean Shulman, Dark Hope, University of Chicago Press
• Sean McMahon, The Discourse of Palestinian-Israeli Relations: Persistent Analytics and Practices, Routledge, 2010 The author is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the American University in Cairo.
• Edward Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine and the adjacent regions: a journal of Travels in the years 1838 and 1852 , Murray, 1856. This remains cited, but the additional material I added from the page was removed.
• Belén Vicéns, L'Orient Mitjà en el punt de mira, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 2005. Belén Vicéns is an Arabist. her book was published under University imprint. It's in Catalan, and based on her field research as an academic specialist in the Arabic language and Muslim-Christian relations.
• Tanya Reinhart, The Road Map to Nowhere: Israel/Palestine Since 2003, Verso
• Robert Blecher, 'Living on the Edge: The Threat of "Transfer" in Israel and Palestine,' in Joel Beinin, Rebecca L. Stein, (eds.)The Struggle for Sovereignty: Palestine And Israel, 1993-2005, Stanford University Press, 2006. Robert Blecher, holds a PhD in Syrian history. He is an academic, an Arabist, and now works with the International Crisis Group
• Sarah Irving, Palestine, Bradt Travel Guides, 2012 (A perfectly respectable, well-reviewed source for non-controversial material on the environment and ruins of Yanin.
• Palestinians 'forced to abandon village,' BBC News, 21 October 2002. Extraordinary how, when I use the BBC as an RS, its reliability is questioned.
• Anna Baltzer, 'Outposts, Settler Violence, & the Village of Yanoun,' in her Witness in Palestine: A Jewish American Woman in the Occupied Territories, Paradigm Publishers, 2007. An activist and author, with two books to her credit, and published by a respected educational publisher. Far better qualified as a source than Sandercock whom Shrike accepts. See below
• Settlers Force Desertion of Yanun Village,, Settlement Report | Vol. 12 No. 6 | November-December 2002], Foundation for Middle East Peace. This is a respected American, Washington based think tank whose balanced reportage has been praised by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Admiral William J. Crowe, and which prints opinions and research by established scholars in the field (a short list here. It has been adduced, and not challenged, on several wiki I/P articles, at Road Map for Peace and Oslo Accords, for example. It's acceptable to the top American political and military brass as a source of insight into the Middle East but not to Shrike or AnkhMorpork if Nishidani uses it.

Shrike is troubled about sources?:) One of two preexisting sources I checked and corrected as wrongly quoted has been left in. It is

• Josie Sandercock (ed.) Peace Under Fire: Israel/Palestine and the International Solidarity Movement, Verso, 2004

Josie Sandercock is an activist, she has no academic background in the Middle East. Verso, however, is a perfectly respectable publisher. This was added and rightly so by User:Al Ameer son 3 years ago (July 2, 2009). He made a technical error, since he quoted the editor Josie Sandercock for what on checking proved to be a short paper by Hussein Khalidi, 'Yanoun.' I corrected the slight oversight, and Shrike wiped it out. His edit was therefore based purely on the premise that my edits are objectionable, and do not require close evaluation for the errors they may correct to the preceding state of the article. It's completely irrational use of the revert technique, indifferent to policy, erratically motivated (NPOV for Shrike practically means here that the content added should be neutral! and not describe what is reliably reported as happening!) and based, apparently on personal dislike of my work. Nishidani (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

At Israeli Settlement 10 July 2012

• I read in Haaretz.

For 45 years, different compositions of the High Court of Justice stated again and again that Israel's presence in the West Bank violates international law, which is clearly opposed to Levy's findings. This is a colossal turnaround, which I do not think is within his authority. He can tell the government that he recommends changing legal status, and that's all," said Sasson.

I paraphrase for the Illegality section of the article:

According to Talia Sasson the High Court of Justice in Israel has consistently held that Israel’s presence in the West Bank is in violation of international law.

I am then reverted by Fred Bauder with the edit summary:Content of the paragraph is not supported by the reference cited.

This is totally mysterious. Was it 'consistently held', my abbreviation of '‘for 45 years stated again and again’? If so, then a revert was not needed. All the challenger needed to do was adjust the words to 'repeatedly stated’.Consistently however does encapsulate the source's 'different compositions of the High Court of Justice.' Nishidani (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

email

check it please, nableezy - 06:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

A/E

Hello Nish. This is just to inform you that you are mentioned here. Your comments are, of course, welcomed. -asad (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip-off. I didn't report Shrike, as he requested, and I was tempted after the 3 blanket revert because I dislike recourse to these punitive venues. I've dropped a note on my position. As long as Shrike begins to actually study the policy pages, instead of citing them erroneously, desists from automatic use of his 1R option, and stops following me to do so, I won't press for anything stronger than a rap over the knuckles. We should only use A/E or A/I when exasperation at repeated poor editing or behaviour, or the inevitable sock's presence, gets beyond the point of tolerance. Regards Nishidani (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nishidani. You have new messages at Al Ameer son's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Al Ameer son (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ankh

See User talk:Sean.hoyland#Ankh. Same question addressed to you. nableezy - 14:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't help much, and far too many do this. It's not just him.

Since I banned him from my page in early May after his tagteaming with Luke 19 Verse 27, apart from his editing my archived page to add a know-all addition to a remark of his I had buried there on seeing it, he's only proved a nuisance once in turning up on a rare page he could not have known about except by trailing my contribs, when I began to edit at Yanun. He found STiki to play with since, and in doing so, during my 1 month ban, seemed to have largely kept off I/P articles. He did insinuate, by a link, that I would (metaphorically) sodomize him, implying I was paederastically inclined, were he accept my note that I’m happy to tutor him when his edits show a failure to understand policy, the same sort of insinuation he made to Sean (can’t remember where), but Sean will perhaps recall it.Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Whatever you can remember from just him is great, otherwise Ill spend the time looking into it myself. Was hoping for a shortcut, but depending on an old man's memory was probably not the wisest thing to do. nableezy - 16:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies. It took me 1 hour 10 minutes to find those 3 diffs. It's not a matter of memory - I recall often the words used in many exchanges, just as I still recall passages read in books - it's just I'm a mental cripple in searching wikipedia for diffs. That's why I started making a section on my page of revert behaviour when it hits my edits irrationally. I think for the moment, it's enough to notify, and register the problem, and see if the behaviour (Sean.hoyland's being hounded is pretty obvious) continues.Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Dont worry about the diffs, I can track those down in the time it takes you wipe the old from your eyes. Just articles that you remember him showing up shortly after you did. It just happened with me, so Id rather deal with it now than continue to let it occur. nableezy - 17:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a tool that looks for edits within a short time that are made by people in a specified group. The results for articles only are here, and for all pages are here. Click a timeline link (probably while holding down the Ctrl key) to see interactions for that specific page. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Jeepers cripers, that's extraordinary. I think a superficial glance shows me just pipping him at the post. That tool is invaluable, though I'll be comprehensively ****** if I'll ever use it. At pogrom, which I'd bookmarked long ago, I followed the reverts and arguments extensively without intervening, and admit that when I thought what appeared to be a ganging up against one editor was excessive, dropped in to make an edit, and then made some comments, but refrained from the page because I dislike the unproductive atmosphere. AnkhMorpork was there before me, nonetheless. The Dickens and Yanun case are rather exemplary. To me, what counts is simply evidence (a) someone turns up on a rare page you decide to edit or (b) the intensity of edits one does to build a page, only to find that same person turning up there to object, without making any significant contribution. Context for me is everything. Diffs never tell what's going on, unless you go back and forth to reexamine the whole flow.Nishidani (talk) 11:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Randi GA nomination

I saw your contributions there and thought you should know, if you do not already, that I am reviewing the good article nomination of the article and have raised concerns on the review page. Any help in addressing these concerns would be welcome.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Cat

To gather from recent edits to Joseph's Tomb, we need 2 corresponding cats, to accommodate the vast destruction Christianity has wrought on cultural remains, and idem for Israel's destruction of Arab historic villages and sites throughout Israel and the Occupied Territories. Or better still, trash that cat, which is inflammatory alone, and only serves to brand as an exception Islam.Nishidani (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Shrike

Shuki isn't Shrike, Shrike's only edits to Migron, Mateh Binyamin are the revert and the self-revert. Should correct that. nableezy - 18:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Duly done, thanks Nabster. You must feel at times like a young nurse in a geriatric hospital for the dopey and incontinent, the way you clean up here.Nishidani (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I feel like a fuckin moron for wasting time on a place that hasnt yet kicked out people that routinely lie about sources and make shit up out of thin air. I need to get back to that project, youre more than welcome, as always, to join me. nableezy - 19:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It's pa for the intercourse in the I/P area. As to the complaint, Horace in his Ars Poetica wrote: Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus, which is what the closing verdict was. I enjoyed Blade's allusion in his closing statement. I made a hillock, and Shrike bulldozed it flat, and any complaint about the levelling (playing field) is only making mountains again. Builders should keep mum (sustaining the oedipal metaphor in 'pa'). One must accommodate oneself to the logic of demolitions" The whole incident reminded me of the shenanigans in the post-war comedy I'm All Right Jack, with commie shop stewards putting a spanner into the works. I felt some sympathy for the character John Le Mesurier played there, the time-and-motion man. We need that in the I/P area, but I suspect motions in support of efficiency and an optimalizing of time spent would only get the mover doing time in wikiporridge. It's hard for people who think the world complex, to play in the kindergarten sandpit that is the I/P area of wiki. Yeah, gimme a few days and I'll start helping out on that page.Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ali Abu Awwad

Hello! Your submission of Ali Abu Awwad at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I never nominate any article I write, but thanks to whoever did it, and esp.thanks to you Yoninah, for excellent editing and improvement.Nishidani (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Nishidani, thanks. So it goes. talknic (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm disappointed, but could see it coming. The WP:TLDR, perhaps with reason, weighs on admins, who don't deal with you, or me as individuals: those guys have to cope with a monstrously boring motherlode of tendentious bullshit, vast diff sequences over numerous articles, in industrial quantities, and to survive, have to develop a sense of the essence, and don't like having truth claims in long paragraphs thrown their way. I say this because the error of your defence was precisely the one I too was prone to.

I think you have a very thorough, impressively tenacious approach to fundamental problems, and a proven comprehensive grasp of relevant materials. It's just that, well, the I/P area requires, if one is to survive, some talent for stepping aside from one's passions, an empathetic diplomacy, and patience in quiet incremental work, what the Palestinians call sumud. It certainly can't cope with intensity of purpose. Shit happens, and above all, don't think badly of the admins. I think you had a fair chance of coming out with a lesser penalty if you'd just kept it brief. I got a permaban, and my verbosity helped those who got me up on otherwise trivial (in my view) charges.

I do hope you just work around wiki, in a few other areas, quietly, perhaps with less sacrifice to other interests, and can come back in several months, and ask for a review. If you do, I'll certainly do my best to back you. If you do entertain other interests in wiki, and would like a handout in areas you think I might have something useful to do, by all means drop me a note here. Regards. Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

谢谢

Readers ought be warned before entering the I/P area. talknic (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll close this with a true story that has a deeper logic than what it appears to say. Tolerance in diversity is one of the key boasts of the modernist racket. In the good old days, before the huge machinery of Western power obsessions began to grind east like Godzilla, and mangle its way mercilessly through dozens of traditional worlds, demanding they take sides, kill each other ad majorem civitatis gloriam, adopt modernizing ideologies, and be useful to London, Paris, Berlin Washington and Moscow by yielding up their dowry of oil, really odd things (not really) would happen that are inconceivable in our embittered, rankled world now. Ignác Goldziher would certainly have understood it. A devoutly Christian ancestor of Anthony Shadid, to cite one unforgettable example, lived in a Greek Orthodox village, Marjayoun just north of Palestine, side by side with a small but devout Sunni minority, and on occasion the fellow would ascend the minaret and do the muezzin a favour by sharing the burden and singing out over the town the prayers of his Muslim neighbours. His voice was famous for its sweet, powerful euphony, and the gesture, lending his gift to the faith of a minority, secured a conviviality we can no longer imagine. Nishidani (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that admins should think very hard before complaining about the volume of text an editor has written in defence of himself. If the complaint is being made because the defence could have been expressed far more succinctly without compromising it, that is reasonable and, in those circumstances, the complainer should state that they think that is the case. Sometimes though, defending yourself fully means writing an essay. In those cases, pushing editors into the quandary of not expressing parts of the case because doing so would involve producing a lot of prose is a form of unfair trial. Admins unwilling to make the effort to read the defence in those cases should be told to find themselves another hobby. I always suspect when I see someone maing a WP:TLDR reply that there is someone who probably thinks that they're illuminating the Wiki-cosmos with their own musings.     ←   ZScarpia   00:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw the case although I know nothing about it (I was watching the case immediately following, which concerned astrology). The problem for the author of a statement at AE is that by definition (since it's at AE) the matter is complex and third parties find it hard to ascertain what is the "right" outcome, and the third parties would far prefer to be elsewhere. Consequently, the author needs to have a compelling first paragraph, which must be brief. Third parties will study the first couple of sentences and the first few diffs—if they convey a compelling argument, the third party will feel inclined to continue reading. If it is compelling, great length is redundant (and can be seen as evidence of conducting a battle). If the first para is not compelling, leave it out, and do the same with each following para. I know that's easier said than done, but that's how third parties see it. In particular, it is very irritating to click a diff and find, after waiting interminably for the diff to display, that the incident is old or unimportant or off-topic. Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. If your defence is going to be a long one, I suppose it would also help to write it in a summary-explanation form.     ←   ZScarpia   11:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious about something. Did you look at talknic's contributions outside the one discussion we had at 1948 Arab-Israeli war? He's exactly the sort of POV warrior that you often rail against. One who's not familiar with even the most basic scholarship and who plays fast and loose with policy. I'm wondering why you're supporting him, other than the fact you share his POV on a specific issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I did, and it worried me. I balanced it against what he was suggesting. Generally I stay off those pages because to fix what I see as a conceptual tilting would take a huge amount of work and, in the absence of Pluto2012 or GHCool, I have neither the time nor confidence much can be done. I assessed Talknic's suggestions against my own understanding and found a fair overlap on key points. He may not be familiar with much of the scholarship, but I didn't find him playing fast and loose with policy. I did read through your links (thanks by the way) on previous discussions, and all I saw there was a head-on-head argument where Talknic lost on the numbers. What made me throw my hat in the ring was his point one, which, I thought, was more than just. You yourself conceded the point.

I don't share a POV with anyone. That doesn't mean I won't object to be identified as someone who works to ensure the Palestinian perspective is given its due weight. As one of my mentors said,'if you find someone agreeing with you, you'd better take it as a hint to rethink the idea over, since persuasion leads to complacency, and consensus only means you'll have to start arguing with yourself again. At least there, you're assured of a hostile audience of the kind all thorough thought requires'. No one could be farther from my worldview than Haj Amin al-Husseini, but the text I was asked to look at was so loaded with absurd caricatures I spent years trying to fix it, not to 'improve his image'. My POV is quite simple. I have a lifelong interest in minorities, and the way dominant discourses overwhelm the way their history, culture, or experiences are interpreted. I don't like global or national homogeneization, we don't like it with food, and I don't like it with thought. The 'truth's always perspectival, and contextual. Talknic was eccentric, but I listen to eccentrics, being one myself, and tend to nod off when normal people are chatting away.

By the way, I just posted a note over at List of Israeli assassinations. That title violates a lot of principles, since more than several are alleged. Could you help out there and eventually, if there's consensus, which I expect there should be, change the title?Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If all you saw was a head-on-head argument, you weren't looking closely enough. The list of editors who rejected talknic's multiple repetitive proposals includes, but is not limited to, Zero, Pluto, Itsmejudith and Anonmoos. All fine editors, I'm sure you'll agree. In fact, before you came along I don't think there was a single editor who agreed with him on anything. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that way. I remember Talknic insisting the Mufti lost that title in 1937 and meeting a wall of irrational opposition. He was right (as I knew from a source in a non-RS Jewish newspaper of the time) though I didn't intervene on this. I think I was permabanned at the time, and had reduced my bookmarked articles from 600 down to a handful, and didn't follow much of what was going on. When I examined his recent work, I noted, as said, useful points, and what you ignore is that, once I supplied in a few hours academic support for his contention, you yourself agreed to it. I believed that you were reading with a sense of exhaustion at what you took to be a settled case of wilful WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, and given what you say, that was understandable. I came to it with fresh eyes, and saw some merit, and one point he made passed the test. It's as simple as that. I've had more than one occasion to agree with quite a few editors on the other side I regard as, generally, obnoxiously bad - I won't name them - and have adopted their suggestions. It wouldn't be the first, and won't be the last, time I disagree with zero, pluto and co. They are better editors than me by a long stretch, but just as they edit independently, so do I. You can always thresh good wikipedians from bad from (a) examining the quality of information they add to articles and (b) their independence and wariness of anything resembling lockstep support for an identifiable POV irrespective of context and merit. Nishidani (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your last point which is why I was surprised you'd be supporting such an editor. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Just in closing. If I see someone cornered in an argument, wherever he's coming from, and in deep shit, I have an instinctive irrational tendency (判官贔屓) at times to see if there's some merit in what he or she's so passionate about (socks and the rest apart). By the usual coincidences that are daily with me, I read this today, concerning Menachem Froman. Coming from an authoritative voice in Tekoa the image of settlements he employs, as fingers, and the kind of company he keeps (terrorists) has left me thinking much of the afternoon. But I won't WP:TLDR you. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Successfully preventing information being "added" by having an editor banned, appears to have left someone disappointed. Odd too after being thanked twice now, there's no acknowledgement of who did actually provide the links to the eight prior NPOV discussions. "The list of editors who rejected talknic's multiple repetitive proposals includes, but is not limited to, Zero, Pluto, Itsmejudith and Anonmoos" ... Partial list of editors who eventually conceded to the multiple proposals to address a blatant breach of NPOV No More Mr Nice Guy and; as none of the aforementioned editors have rejected the final outcome ...... go figure. talknic (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies if I wrongly attributed the links. Private hugely time-consuming circumstances prevented me from doing a thorough review of this very complex matter. At least the issues have been raised, remain on record, and that is no small result. Wiki works very slowly.Nishidani (talk) 10:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani .. No apology necessary. You weren't to know. However NMMNG knew they weren't his offering and did nothing correct your impression talknic (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The good thing about edit warriors on "our side" is that they keep the edit warriors on "the other side" busy so that proper editing can be done somewhere else. (But of course the concept of "sides" is the real problem around here.) It's a pity you chose the mufti as an example, since Talknic was dead wrong about that. The British government never ever stated that he was dismissed from the post of mufti (not in their widely published 1937 announcement or anywhere else), continued referring to him as "the present mufti" afterwards (I posted three examples from Hansard where the Secretary of State for the Colonies called him that in the Commons), and in 1943 made a detailed official statement on it (answer to a Question on Notice). Being wrong is no crime, but arguing endlessly after being proved wrong, as Talknic did, is. That said, my opinion of Talknic is not entirely negative and I think some of his work led to significant article improvement. Zero^talk 02:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Zero, as usual. I've always used 'side' in inverted commas, since I think it is pretty misleading, but unfortunately it's useful shorthand for the way 95% read. My father was stationed in Gaza in WW2, and sent back letters. On return he'd occasionally refer to the 'mufti', as did other soldiers, in a generic way as the big bad man. It was the standard title, kept in memory, by most men involved at low or high levels, in that period, and I suspected this was what accounted for its retention. Because I had come across once an article in a Jewish newspaper of, I think, 1938 saying the mufti had been stripped of his title, and that is what stuck in my mind. Still, as a fellow 'atheist' (actually 'indifferentist' is how I'd describe myself regarding theological theories) I'll take your word her as bible, and flagellate myself, in a residual acknowledgement of a Christian monastic upbringing, with the details you supply.Nishidani (talk) 09:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There is, on examination of your link top Hansard, a very nice, if implicit, distinction between de jure and de facto. In the sense that Stanley is saying de jure no action was ever taken to strip him of the title, and therefore technically he is still mufti of Jerusalem, but only because no legal machinery exists to deprive him of a purely religious title. The importance of this technical point is 'reduced' because he will not be allowed to return and assume whatever functions are associated with the exercise of the role of mufti. Having heard Stanley out, Hammersley follows up and takes the clarification to mean that de facto Hussein is no longer mufti.

'Will my right hon. and gallant Friend give an assurance that no nominees of the ex-Mufti will be appointed?'

In saying that, either Hammersley is being stupid, or he is taking Stanley's assertion to mean that to all extents and poiposes the office of mufti is de facto void. Nishidani (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

My interpretation is that Hammersley's question on notice had two parts including the second sentence with the "ex-mufti". So it was composed before the answer to the first sentence was given. But I'm not sure about this, the Hansard is unclear on the sequence. Nobody doubts that Husayni was mufti in name only. My position was that "the exiled mufti" would be an accurate and balanced way to refer to him during that period. Zero^talk 11:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Zero -- I'm not on any 'side' other than providing readers with information so as to have a comprehensive understanding of the situation as it stood and as it stands today, sans Weasel Words, chronologically incorrect statements, breaches of NPOV etc. As for Haj Amin al-Husseini and the1948 Arab-Israeli war, today the two articles (from memory neither entirely edited to their current status by myself), stand almost identical to my original suggestions, which seems to indicate that the length of the discussions was generated by those wishing to prevent what they simply don't want readers to see, instead of collaborating from a NPOV. ('scuse the strike out, I'm not supposed to discuss) BTW my last two TBANs were not based on NMMNG's 1st level complaints, but on administrators defaulting to prior judgements, sometimes their own, after completely failing to look at ample instances of the complainants duplicity. talknic (talk) 06:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Editorializing

Hello Nishidani, I noticed you removed some material I added to Israeli settlements. You called it "editorializing". I am confused because I don't see any subjective opinions in the material, just a list of objective facts sourced directly from the well sourcedIsraeli settlement timeline article. Could you please point out which parts of the material you believe are guilty of editorializing? I am genuinely bemused by this, so an explanation might be helpful. Also, are you sure it's a good idea to remove the whole "History" section? If nothing else, that graph is a fantastic visualization of the growth of the settlements over time. Eptified (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The graph's fine but.

Everything you wrote in para 1 is misleading, incorrect or used dubious language.

• (a)Israel did not 'autonomously annex these areas,' (West Bank, Gaza, etc)
• 'autonomously annex' is frightful English. An act of annexation is never consensual, and by 'autonomous' I think the intention is to refer to 'unilateral'
• The only ostensible annexation was over East Jerusalem, however Lustick showed that no such annexation took place.
• 'Did not offer citizenship or residency'
• This ignores the complex original offers to Palestginian East Jerusalemites.
• 'enormous international controversy' (enormous is laying it on thick with a trowel, and happens to be untrue.) Seeing that alone made me think 'editorializing'.
• You didn't write a history section, of the kind you get from Gershon Gorenberg's Accidental Empire. You just added the UN resolution after confusing territorial conquest in war with the legal process called annexation.

I had a bad day yesterday 8 hours correcting a uni thesis in a foreign language on bondage, queers, trans, etc., and reverted your work as I checked the diff much as I had corrected hundreds of things in that manuscript. So I could have done this differently and asked you to rewrite it. This morning, I've reverted myself, and hope you can adjust/trim/edit out the loose language, hyperbole, and misleading statements yourself.Nishidani (talk) 07:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the memories

Wow, I can't believe you still remember me and actually tracked all the way back to 2009 for this. --Shuki (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Shuki, I think that you're pushing the boundaries of your ban a bit far, to say the least. You've commented on an ARBPIA AE case here on Nishidan's user talkpage, you commented on an ARBPIA AE case on Seraphimblade's talkpage, you edited part of an article related to the I-P conflict here and you edited an article connected with the I-P conflict here.     ←   ZScarpia   00:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Shuki, I won't even check Scarpia's links before writing this. I checking contribs to an article to see if Shrike had been there before I edited it, I was surprised to see Ist edit Sh(uki) 2009. This told against my theory he was tracking me, since that was earlier than my own edit. I duly noted the exception. Nableezy dropped a note here telling me I had confused Sh(ri)ke with you, Shuki. The error just reflects my utter boredom and impatience with checking into people's background, which others, miraculously, appear to do with effortless fluency. I rewrote that section of my case, which had nothing to do with you. Now, I'll look through Scarpia's links to try and figure out what on earth has causes you to worry about such a trivial confusion. Nishidani (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record I did not even know you were banned, and am not going to check to see what's going on. I hope Scarpia's suggestion to be more careful is duly noted, and that people stop commenting on admins. Nishidani (talk) 08:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nishidani. You have new messages at Al Ameer son's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Al Ameer son (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Nishidani. You have new messages at Al Ameer son's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Al Ameer son (talk) 05:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

At

Hello, Nishidani. You have new messages at Al Ameer son's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Al Ameer son (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Nishidani. You have new messages at Al Ameer son's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Al Ameer son (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Nishidani. You have new messages at Al Ameer son's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Al Ameer son (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Athletes who died in war

If I decide to allocate the time to creating this page later, I just had a few questions.

1. How would you organize it? Based on nationality? Ethnic group? Country? Religion? The war?
   1. I'm still confused on the notability of Olympian athletes who didn't die in the Olympics, but rather in a war.

Thanks.

Also, about your comment that you feel the article has some work to do... Feel free to drop me a comment with suggestions so I can look it over and we can agree to these things beforehand, rather than have people just edit and then someone yell about that edit and then heated arguments, like on so many similar articles. I have no objections against good edits that improve the article. --Activism1234 17:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, we work with the long view, and I certainly don't want to drop what might prove to be a considerable workload your way, since like everyone you must have quite a bit on your plate. I don't know of many outside WW2, other than Katz. I think you could have a general section WW2 with just one sub-section Olympians killed in the Holocaust (that was the motivation after all, though some commies got killed just because of their opposition to Nazism), which would provide the largest part of WW2. The majority were Jewish, but as I noted there are some exceptions to this. They should go together in any case, since the same racial venom, whatever their ethnicity, accounted for their murders.

I'll do some research on it, but, again, don't worry about rushing into things. There are some pages one works on that take months, if not years.

As to my suggestions, I just put them there for your consideration. As I said, I prefer to give an article creator a lot of time to figure out how to expand, trim and work his article before risking messing with it. Not a small number of people get trigger-happy and shoot down things before they get an overview of a new article. The main point is to fix the issue that the request was for the 1 min silence at the opening ceremony, and not for just some ceremony marking the occasion while the Olympics got underway (as it turns out is and will happen). As the article stands the false impression is given that the IOC and Rogge snubbed the request: actually they or at least Rogge did and will do what is possible, outside the opening ceremony, to come to a compromise. Buon lavoroNishidani (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Okey dokey. I like your suggestion about how to organize it as well, and I don't know how far back it'd stretch in terms of history, as Olympics haven't been going on for centuries either, but we certainly have enough info on WWII. And I wouldn't seperate it on ethnicity or religion either, but like all fatalities, it'd probably be listed next to the name. And I saw what you wrote about the opening ceremony, and I included it in the lead. You can ignore the rest of my comments for now, since you've explaiend it here. Thanks. --Activism1234 18:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, a bit later today I'll work on something in regards to Rogge's refusal for opening ceremony but statement about going to other memorials in the lead. At the time I wrote it, the Olympics didn't happen yet, and there was the chance he would change his mind, so I didn't include it, but now there's no reason not to. Thanks. --Activism1234 18:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I updated the lead to include IOC's decision. Hope it's better. --Activism1234 18:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about clearing things with me. I'll look over it again in a few days. Take it easy.Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well you were the one involved in the discussion, so I naturally felt an obligation to inform you that the changes were made, and see whether you find them suitable. But sure, take your time, don't worry, it's not a pressing article that's being constantly updated and viewed by thousands. --Activism1234 21:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I was doing some searches on Wikipedia for the article we planned on. It appears that such an article already exists though. It contains people you mentioned like Luz Long, and contains "war" (or the battle) as the reason for their deaths. It doesn't contain a lot of the people you mentioned, so maybe we should just add them to that article rather than create a new article. --Activism1234 21:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What is your opinion on this? --Activism1234 21:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back quickly on this. Busy screwing up an article- At a glance, I'd say one could set up a subsection there on 'Athletes who died in the Holocaust'. There's only one mentioned, but like Luz, he was a combatant. Perhaps we could have Olympians who died in the Holocaust/ or Olympians who died in WW2 with a subsection on the Holocaust? If you agree, then we could add the names in alphabetical sequence, with nationality, religion and some sentence of how or where?Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice idea. Maybe we should take this to that article's talk page first? I don't imagine much opposition to it, but always better when making an entire new section to do that. I'll comment on their talk page and you can join in when you get a chance. Thanks. --Activism1234 17:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry. We'll get it in, even if I have to come out shooten, but I doubt that will be needed. It's a sensible way of improving the page, a neat angle. Nishidani (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Haha well I don't use guns. I'm Batman in disguise. --Activism1234 19:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Jeepers, that's double jeopardy, because Batman is already in disguise, so you're disguising your disguise. Looks like you're a Matryoshka dude or doll, ID-wise (even if having an ID is not wise).Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting... Well anyway here's the section on the talk page I opened. --Activism1234 19:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing has happened so far. Maybe we should just start a sandbox with it and then move it into the article when it's done (shouldn't take too many days). --Activism1234 01:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead info

Please see talk http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Olympics_one_minute_of_silence_campaign&pe=1&#Lead_info page which concerns you. It's not anything too controversial, and I hope it doesn't turn into an argument either, as that's not my intention.

Thanks. --Activism1234 16:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Shlomo Sand

Eran Elhaik's[1] paper is uploaded to The arXiv. It isn't peer reviewed. And it doesn't mention Sand although it uses some papers he wrote or contributed to. Therefore it's surely OR to say that it does or doesn't back Sand? So I see an RD problem as well as OR. I'll take this to the Sand talk page shortly but I'd like your thoughts as you replaced it. Dougweller (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Busy and didn't see the talk page discussion. I'll chime in there. Dougweller (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec):Doug, I'll always defer, without obsequiousness, to your judgement, which over the years has struck me as acutely informed on RS and policy compliance. When I saw WP:REDFLAG waved though, bells rang. Golden's work, to name but one, shows that this is absolutely not fringe, and secondly, Sand's book, independently of its merits (I think he overdoes it on each specific conversion case), is very good as a metacritique of inhibitory factors in the historiography dealing with the issue (much like those classical scholars who were honest enough to see that while Martin Bernal's theory was nonsense, his vol.1 critique of racism in classical 19th century scholarship was an invaluable adjunct to the historiography of classical blind-spots and prejudices (since corrected by M. L. West, Walter Burkert et al.), and accepted as a productive metacritique).

My interlocutors didn't raise WP:OR. You have and I immediately see your point. If you have a full copy of the paper (or anyone else reading this) I'd appreciate a copy. I have a slight worry about the mass of Sand+geneticists poo-haaing his theory on that page. As it stands, it is unbalanced, but, as you'd no doubt reply, in terms of policy, that's the way it perhaps must stand until wiki criteria are met, unless one can note Elhaik's point without connecting it to Sand directly? In any case, haste is always a bad thing here, and if we have to wait for peer-review, which will come, that's fine by me.Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I don't look at every comment on your talk, but seeing Dougweller's name on my watchlist made me curious. I thought I would be bold, and in case you don't notice, you might like to check what I did to your comment at Talk:Shlomo Sand. Johnuniq (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Haven't looked, but more or less same comment re your own judgement, so I doubt whether I would object. But I'll look now.Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I wondered how to do that. I did learn it once, and immediately applied it, and it redlinked, so there you go. I'm a complete fucking duffer who can't learn the simplest tricks of this wiki trade. Thanks Johnno. Now I must analyse why I wrote Elkain (Elkann? of Fiat fame/Cain the wanderer in the land of Nod?) instead of Elhaik. Perhaps 'haik'= hike, which is what Cain must have done, though the traffic on the roads East mustn't have afforded the poor blighter many lifts.Nishidani (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

1RR, self-revert

See this [[2]] and this one [3]. The diffs are in a period of 24 hours as well. Your first edit was reverted by [[4]], your next edit which reinserted the material to the lead was reverted by [[5]], both of us explaining very well why that edit is so wrong, biased, and doesn't belong in the lead, and you have now reinserted it, reverting that previous editor.

The page is under 1RR protection (which you've no doubt seen on the talk page).

Thanks. --Activism1234 13:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip-off. I'll never understand that rule. Still, I'll wait a day and then, whatever the helpmate does there, restore what I have now to revert. You wrote the page. Remind yourself of WP:OWN. If you actually look what I did, I satisfied an objection by splitting the material you both objected to in the lead, and relocating most of it to a subsection. I didn't think of this as a revert, but as an attempt to satisfy your objections on the talk page. The Crystal fellow is not a serious editor, but just involved in the usual POV tagteaming disturbance, and had he/she not jumped in, this would have been resolved civilly.Nishidani (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you do me the courtesy of telling me to what version I am required to revert to? Apart from the couple of hours I will have my head full of Khazar genetic info, I never could understand these revert niceties. So just indicate the text you want restored, and I'll do it.Nishidani (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Revert to [[6]] version (I won't argue about the Bob Costas part), and just make a spacing between "Guido Westerwelle" and "International Olympics Committee" (meaning two paragraphs). I'll clarify on the talk page just so you know for future if it helps. --Activism1234 14:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting confused. That couldn't be undone, and requires a manual revert. You want me to revert to Crystal 9:49? which has the Bob Costas bit (that had to go in any case, for the same reasons my additions to lead had to go. Only one sportscaster, and secondly, it was phrased as if he were a politician or representative of a nation. Still I'll revert to that, and if this stuffs up, let me know.Nishidani (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Just so this wouldn't drag on or anything or wrong edits be made, I made a revert "for you," which gives the version that I/Crystal supported on talk page and summary box and includes your removal of Bob Costas from lead. If there's still an issue, feel free to raise it on the article talk page, along with what you'd like it to say, so we can discuss it there. Seems like the simplest way for me. --Activism1234 15:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

(Manual reverts are fine and do count as reverts, not just the click of the "Revert" button) --Activism1234 15:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually was just about to do it, thinking I'd worked it out, but was interrupted by hunger pains, and my wife reminded we had forgotten to eat lunch. I really appreciate that help. Cheers

No problem, it's fine either way. And enjoy lunch. --Activism1234 15:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

A wise elder happened to give me some advice earlier and, though initially a tear of frustration may have been shed at their highlighting of imbecility, kind words should never fall on deaf ears; perhaps growth with time; for now, sorry to have wasted yours, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Awesome story man. --Activism1234 22:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Shalom

Since you said your thoughts about this article, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_August_10#Khalil_al-Mughrabi Crystalfile (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I've already seconded deletion. I however must draw your attention to the fact that you oppose the deletion of the The murder of Yehuda Shoham‎ page, while supporting the deletion of a page that has exactly the same vices, Khalil al-Mughrabi. We are all under an obligation to be neutral, observe WP:NPOV, and that means applying principles coherently. To vote against the deletion of a page dealing with an Israeli child's death, while simultaneously promoting the deletion of a page dealing with a Palestinian child's death, is sign of nothing more than ethnic prejudice, and I'd strongly suggest you alter your votes in order to show consistency and respect for neutrality, since there is nothing to distinguish the articles.Nishidani (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I explained to you my reasoning is all about notability and source coverage and nothing to do with "ethnic prejudice". For this reason I think Faris Odeh should probably stay tho some sources arent that good. Crystalfile (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, this is a few minutes work from my files and the net to show you that anyone who, like yourself, thought Khalil al-Mughrabi should be deleted because poorly sourced, simple didn't do any homework, as scruple requires.

You say Khalil al-Mughrabi is poorly sourced compared to the other article, with its refs from The Washington Post, Haaretz and the Independent. Big time stuff, whereas Khalil al-Mughrabi can't boast of such documentation.

Anybody could double the length of that page in a half an hour's editing from exemplary sources, newspapers and books simply by adding the various details from, to name a few,

• (1) UNHCR Killings of Palestinian children by the IDF and settlers/Killings of Israeli children by Palestinians. United Nations, He's on p.4
• (2)Amira Hass What do an outpost, a Palestinian child and a pacifist have in common? at Haaretz, May 10, 2010

In 2003, Michael Sfard represented the pacifist Yoni Ben-Artzi (Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's nephew ) in a military tribunal while Kostelitz served as the military prosecutor. . .Ben-Artzi tried to explain what differentiated him from five other refuseniks whose trials were simultaneously taking place at the military tribunal. One of the five was Shimri Tzameret, who kept a diary. On August 5, 2003, he wrote about his testimony in which, among other things, he described a report he had read by the human rights group B'Tselem.

"This is the story of 30 children who were playing football one Saturday in July 2001, in the Yibneh refugee camp in Rafah, close to the border with Egypt. The game started after the afternoon prayers, at approximately five. A short while later, a tank passed close by -'quietly, without firing at us,' as one of the children related. After the game, the children rested and at about seven in the evening, they started to go home. 'I was two meters away from Khalil al-Mughrabi,' one of the children told a B'Tselem field worker, 'when I suddenly heard a slight noise and I saw Khalil's brains flying out of his head and [landing] on my face and clothes.'" The single shot had come from the Israel Defense Forces' observation tower. "The children began fleeing and as they did so, very strong fire opened from the observation tower," the boy added. Another two children were hit, one in his abdomen "and his bowels spilled out." The other was hit in the knee. The IDF spokesman said at the time that "dozens of Palestinians were rioting next to Rafah and endangering the lives of the soldiers... The soldiers acted with restraint and moderation and dispersed the rioters by using means for dispersing demonstrations, and by means of live gunfire into an open area distant from the rioters." The chief military prosecutor at that time, Col. Einat Ron, said in her response to B'Tselem that the IDF soldiers involved were not suspected of any criminal behavior. Apparently her letter included, by mistake, the operative file on the event which included her personal opinion, where she wrote frankly. "A reasonable possibility is that the fire did not hit the children who were identified as rioters" but rather "the children at the football game, at a distance of 1,000 meters from the location of the event. If these were warning shots," she wrote, "they were fired in contravention of the orders which instruct that shooting be done from light weapons, not from heavy machine guns, and not in the direction of children."Ron proposed to the army three possible reactions to the incident: an investigation by the military police; disciplinary steps because the shooting was unjustified; or determining that the firing was justified, that the entire region is dangerous, and that the IDF regrets that innocent people were hit - and that a letter to this effect be written to B'Tselem. "A Chronicle of Covering Up" is how B'Tselem entitled its report. Tzameret testified in the military court about how shocked he had been by the whitewash. In the middle of his testimony, a man and woman in uniform entered the courtroom and sat down next to Kostelitz. Tzameret did not know who they were, but when he mentioned the name Einat Ron, "the look that the military judge and Kostelitz gave the woman made it clear to me that none other than the chief military prosecutor had just entered the courtroom... Out of the 16 hours that I testified, she arrived for precisely the 15 minutes when I was speaking about her." Ron has retired from the army and since 2007 she has been a judge in the Petah Tikva Magistrate's Court. In this capacity, in January she extended the gag order on the case against Anat Kamm, who has been accused of aggravated espionage. Kostelitz, who served under Ron in the military system, told the newspaper Makor Rishon in 2003: "From the state's point of view, obeying the law is an existential condition, and anyone who crosses that line can expect to be punished, even if he did so for conscientious reasons. It is difficult to exaggerate when describing the danger embodied in ideological refusal, which could bring about a disaster on the state [because of] those who wish, on the face of it, to bring it redemption."

• (3)B'Tselem The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories Letter to Colonel Einat Ron, Military Proecutor, Office of the Judge Advocate, with appendix of direct testimonies regarding the circumstances of the killing of Khalil al-Mughrabi.

• (4)Ronan Shnayderman B'Tselem Report: Take No Prisoners - The Fatal Shooting of Palestinians by Israeli Security Forcesd during “Arrest Operations,' Btselem Information Sheet May 2005 p.23

‘in one case, an investigation by B’Tselem clearly showed that the death of Khalil al-Mughrabi, an eleven-year-old boy, was caused as the result of a deviation from the regulations and unlawful shooting. Despite this, the JAG’s office decided not to order an investigation by the Military Police and presented a false version of the events, raising questions as to the manner in which the office chooses toi implement its policy’

• (5)Chris McGreal 'I can't imagine anyone who considers himself a human being can do this,' The Guardian, 28 July 2003 extensive details on IDF deliberately shooting Palestinian children dead, including this case.

• (6)Jan Willem van Henten, ‘Internet Martyrs and Violence: Victims and /or Perpetrators’ in Jonneke Bekkenkamp, Yvonne Sherwood (eds.) Sanctified Aggression: Legacies of Biblical and Post-Biblical Vocabularies of Violence, Continuum Publishers, 2003 pp.193-212 p.204

On 7 July 2001, prominent Hamas spokesperson, Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi, quoted in The Guardian, stated that Hamas vowed to send ten suicide bombers against Israel to avenge Ithe Israeli army’s killing of an 11-year-old Palestinian boy, Khalil Mughrabi in Rafah (in the Gaza strip). The blood of the martyrs has to be avenged.’

(7) *James Bovard, Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004 pp.280-i

'On July 7, 2001, 11-year.old Khalil al-Mughrabi was killed by a bullet from a tank's heavy machine gun as he rested on a pile of dirt after playing soccer at the Yubneh refugee camp in the Gaza Stroip; two friends of his were also wounded. Though Israeli regulations prohibit soldiers from firing warning shots with long-range weapons, an Israeli tank passing near the Egyptian border apparently did exactly that when some Palestinians sought to obstruct the road with debris and barbed wire. Colonel Einat Ron, the chief military prosecutor, concluded in an internal report that "it is likely that the shots (fired by Israeli soldiers) did not hit the children who were identified as rioters, but rather children who were some distance from the place of the event." Though Col. Ron recognized the facts, her official letter to B'tselem declared:"Live gunfire was not aimed at the rioters, and no hits were detected as a result of this gunfire." The internal documents show that Col. Ron formally considered three different explanations for the event, then knowingly chose a false version that completely exonorated the IDF.'

The comprehensiveness of these sources, including two reliable book sources by mainstream publishers, clearly shows that Khalil al-Mughrabi is far better known and RSsource-able, if one puts one's mind to it, than the other article.

So, now that this is evident, what are you going to do. Withdraw your delete nomination for Khalil al-Mughrabi, or change your nomination to delete for The murder of Yehuda Shoham‎. These are the only options, and at stake is your reputation for coherence and neutrality. I opt to delete both, despite the fact that the Khalil al-Mughrabi could be improved way beyond the Yehuda Shoham page. Whatever the case, you proposed deletion without making the smallest effort to check readily available sources for notability. Nishidani (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Please most of the sources discuss this generally as part of the tragic deaths. can u show me which media discuss this case by itself to show its notable? thank u Crystalfile (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't be silly. What has that got to do with the fluctuation in fish futures? Answer the point.Nishidani (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

And secondly, please note that you replied to all of that evidence within 3 minutes, which means you did not click on and read the sources supplied, but merely glanced down the page, and got an 'idea' to reply to what you haven't digested.Nishidani (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Your recent long comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The murder of Yehuda Shoham

Would you consider breaking the parts about the article into a number of new sections on the talk page of the article itself so that we can discuss the implications there? I believe that the article is going to end up being kept, and we might as well use your last few points to try to improve it. If you don't want to, with your permission, I will do it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it will be approved. Indeed I was from the beginning. People don't think round there. They see a POV and say yes or no, according to their political passions. S'pose I'll have to stop watching water polo, and roll up the sleeves and transfer the comments, bulleted to the talk page. CheersNishidani (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I hate to drag you away from the water polos. No hurry; there's enough going on over there as it is.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. All of these points are in just the three newspaper articles I mentioned which the page lists.Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk page

I've replied here. Feel free to clutter it as much as you want, don't mind. Your statements are one bullet point, my replies are two.

Cheers --Activism1234 20:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Good grief, man. You can't be serious. There's a rock concert on in the Olympic stadium, that started with Lennon singing Imagine and promises the best of the best over the last 4 decades and I'm supposed to sit in fronnuva computer? That you can manage that certainly makes you live up to that monicker. Ah, the ad interval's blip's over. Good night! switch off the laptop and tune in, and out. Nishidani (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want to respond, that's fine. I don't mind. Just putting it there so AfD wouldn't be cluttered up. You don't have to respond if you don't want to. Gives both of us a better life. --Activism1234 21:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

1RR

I pretty much explained it on the talk page. You really should review WP:1RR when you get a chance. I don't go ballistic over well-intentioned or unintentional edits, which is what happened here. But another editor, in a more serious case, may file a complaint against you, and saying "I don't know what 1RR is" isn't an excuse (especially since you're now given the opportunity to learn more about it, and I also had this discussion with you before). It will save yourself from getting in trouble, even unintentionally.

A few key points:

• You make an edit. It can be 1 edit or 10 edits. It doesn't matter. It counts as 1 edit, as long as there were no other edits by other people in between.
• Someone else makes an edit/changes something you wrote, or removes part of or all of something you wrote.
• If you revert him (with a reason), you're good to go.
• You continue editing. But this time, you're changing stuff other people wrote, even though you think it's making it better (they may not think so, and may disagree with the changed material...). Still fine.
• Another editor comes along and edits/changes something you wrote, or removes part of or all of something you wrote.
• You may NOT revert this edit, unless it was clear vandalism for no reason. The reason is because you already reverted someone else once. Instead, take it to the talk page to discuss how to improve it or reach a compromise.

Now, this list is shortened when the first step does involve changing what people wrote.

Hope it helps.

--Activism1234 21:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's pretty clear. Even if, when one has announced one will be reviewing the whole page in consecutive edits, a normal courtesy would entail waiting till the review is finished before editing, because the reviewing editor's work, with dozens of details to be kept in mind, is not particularly focused on anything but the page as he sees it, opening and reopening it with successive edits. I hope I do remember this, but, I repeat, I am radically inattentive to things like this, and have it fixed in my mind, erroneously, that a revert is what 99% of reverts constitute, someone just restoring the whole page to the state it was before the edit objected to was made, something which (I believe) I did not do in either case. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind if we edit on the same page again in the future, although some of your consecutive edits were spaced out with a few hours between them, and in such a case where someone else has edited it during those few hours, you would be obliged to follow 1RR. Hope it helps. --Activism1234 13:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the circumstances I'm obliged to followed IR and am certainly not pleading for exceptional status. In some of those cases, I had three windows open on the same page, (to copy refs etc.) and even I didn't know whether which to confirm or shut at times. Still as a prophylactic against my possible abuse, I hereby alert all editors working with me, that if I do this, they have my permission to immediately revert the resulting violation without it affecting their 1 R right, since I will automatically assume responsibility for their revert as my personal obliagory self-revert and interpret it as a favour or kindness.Nishidani (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Nish, unless you actually removed something that somebody else wrote in your first set of edits then you did not perform a revert. A revert is not a changing stuff other people wrote, it is the reversal (in whole or in part) of what other people wrote. I havent gone through all the edits you made, and honestly I dont see why you are wasting your time on that page, but I want to clear up the confusion on what a revert is. nableezy - 15:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Look I'm handicapped. I know how to write articles, I find my mind's concentration faltering at A/I and A/E and rarely follow them because the complications in policy bewilder me. I just write, I think, out of good faith and commonsense. If someone tells me I did something wrong I trust them usually. I'm wasting my time there, true. I'm wasting my time on the whole I/P area, where it is obligatory to push a plop of poop up shit-hill with slimey fingers if you want that abuse war-zone of POV-warriors to slowly clear itself. Someone has to shovel-shit there, and I don't mind volunteering. The article is nonsensical, but it looks like it's going to be one in a long series of what Salo Wittmayer Baron would call, pushing the 'lachrymose' POV of history, and since it is up for deletion but provisorily approved by people who are not aware of why these POV articles are produced, I'm going to try and fix it so that it conforms minimally to WP:NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you try something else. Copy an entire page into a sandbox (say User:Nishidani/Sandbox) and make all the edits that you want. Then copy that over the article.

As far as wasting time, some articles matter, some dont. Id say working on Hebron would be a much better use of your time. The only thing on the settlers treatment of the Palestinians in that article is the picture of the netting. No mention of the trash, feces, acid, or molotov cocktails being thrown down on the market is made in the actual article. That is one of the articles that, in my view, matters. nableezy - 16:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I've done nigh on, from memory 500 edits to that Hebron page over 5 years, and have almost finished, as is the case with Haj Amin al-Husseini. The problem with finishing the Hebron page to WP:NPOV is that my detailed chronology of all all events make it look like Kristallnacht diluted over 40 years with basically one side bashing its way nillywilly through another world, and it's extremely difficult to edit these multifarious incidents in a way that WP:NPOV is guaranteed, because the daily reality there in that zone is, frankly, obscene (I get several reports a week on everything that happens there). So until I figure out how this can be done even-handedly, I can't finish the page.Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Itureans

Good evening.

You added here: "Phoenician" and "or admixture of all three." You did not ad any new source, why did you ad this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Good grief. Had I read that last night I would have passed a sleepless night. The 'admixture' looks indeed like I violated WP:OR even though I have a distinct memory of reading that in the dozen odd books I consulted. It's not a word I would spontaneously use in that context.

Looking at my notes, this is what happened. I read this in Shlomo Sand:

'Their origin is obscure-probably Phoenician and possibly tribal Arab’.Sand 2009:159

That didn't strike me as improbable, but his assertion re the demographics of the Galilee looked queer indeed (basically Phoenician -it's Sand's argument that they were basically Phoenician that looked odd to me), so I consulted several sources the next day. They are all specialist sources, some listed there, and mainly concur in disagreeing on the Itureans and the Galilee, to verify whether his view was WP:Fringe or not, since before using him as a source I thought it obligatory to understand its status and basis, though editors are not required to do so.

• Several sources turned out to say Phoenician finds for the period are well attested in the ancient Galilee (not limited to that territory as defined today). Several mention Itureans as 'Arabs', several say they were 'Aramaeans' or 'Aramaic-speaking nomads'. Utter confusion. Freyne does mention Strabo's report that the whole area was inhabited by 'a mix of people-Egyptians, and Phoenician and Arabian tribes.

• Sean Freyne ‘Galilean Studies: Old Issues and New Questions’ in Jürgen Zangenberg, Harold W. Attridge, Dale B. Martin (eds.) Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Mohr Siebeck 2007 .’Strabo mentioned (6.2.34) that the same region in the north is inhabited by a mix of peoples-Egyptian, Arabian, and Phoenician tribes .”for such are those who occupy Galilee and Jericho and Philadelphia and Samaria.’ Pp.13-32 p.23
• Avraham Negev, Shimon Gibson, Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, p.249 write:Often described as Arabs but it is an open question whether they were actually descendants of Arameans.'
• John Wilson, Caesarea Philippi:Banias, The Lost City of Pan, I.B Tauris, 2004 p.7 writes of the Aramaic-speaking Itureans:‘Reference to Itureans can be confusing in the ancient sources, since the term may describe either an ethnic identity or a political one’ . . . ‘Recent archeological work has identified distinctive pottery, now designated ‘Iturean’, over a wide area stretching from the Beka’a valley across the Anti-Lebanon, and throughout the district surrounding Banias. The finds are consistent with the theory that the Itureans were Aramaic tribes who had ranged over a large area for many centuries and who seemed originally to be nomadic ore semi-nomadic for the most part’.
• I checked Strabo, just to figure out where Sand got his formulation, and saw he actually made a distinction between the Arabs (Ἂραβοι) and the Itureans (Ἰτουραῖοι) at Geog.Bk 16.2.18. I deduced therefore that Sand's formulation was based on primary sources like Strabo and Josephus, and some secondary historical literature.

Those who just call them 'Arabs' are foreclosing on an argument that is still open, therefore. Basically 'Phoenician' per Sand seems grossly exaggerated to me, even though archedology suggests strong Phoenician elements there, but I am not an authority. Aramaeans is attested and confirmed in secondary sources as one theory of several.

So I didn't challenge Sand, he's an historian, but simply added his view (which I think should now be attributed, or the passage refined to make clear the controversy) and used Strabo's word 'mix'. I forgot to add Sand to that passage, whereas I had introduced him in the other edit higher up on the page. I think Sand's view they were Phoenician therefore requires either attribution, or can be elided. The basic scholarly split is between Aramaean or Arab.

I intended coming back to the page to fix it, because it is a POV mess, or even worse, completely superficial, but as usual got caught up. Sorry for this complication. Nishidani (talk) 09:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited Iturea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Genesis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem

just a question please. is this deletion is moving from political movment ?. i have no problam to here other opinions. פארוק (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I can see you feel passionate about a lot of things. That is actually good, because as Plato argued, our impulse to learn comes from passion. I suggest you woo the English language, with those little courtesies that establish the foreplay of linguistic seduction, like spelling correctly and showing a flash leg grammar-wise. You can get the knack for presenting yourself as a possible candidate for stepping out and flinging a leg in the light-fantastic of wiki argument then.Nishidani (talk) 07:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Jerusalem, is considered bad practice, even if you meant it well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Wesley Mouse 17:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what happened, but when you posted a comment you also removed a date/time stamp from another user's comment too. Wesley Mouse 17:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That was caused by an intermediate edit or edit successive conflicts. I had to make a copy of what I replied to, and then when in an edit conflict, I posted it, removed the reduplicated text, and inadvertently expunged the time stamp, as I now learn.

I've run a line through your first comment because you lacked the courtesy to read my record, and just employed a templated statement which, since this practice is in my view lazy, I don't read to the end. You might note however that the person whose remarks I did not delete but ran a line through is an indisputably disruptive newbie who refused to listen to advice to stop calling me, and everyone else, antisemites. I was particularly offended at being called a Christian. Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That's fine about striking through the post above. Although you shouldn't really tell someone they have a "lack of courtesy", it is a little uncivil towards another editor, but I shall accept the fact you have posted the remark in haste of the situation. The only thing that shown in the diff at the time of the revert was a time stamp being removed and no other comments included. Then I posted the caution above. It wasn't until another editor restored your comment that it finally shown it there, hence why I posted the additional statement underneath.

As for the newbie you speak of, I'm guessing you mean that user with the Hebrew symbols for their name? S/he has been rather rude to everyone lately, and I'm surprised they haven't been blocked before now - they are getting away with being racist to other editors. If it was someone else they would have been blocked indef by now - why they are getting away with it God only knows. The same user even came to my talk page not so long ago completely at random and told me to stop deleting Israel (whatever that meant), and even called me an antisemites. I had to check a dictionary to know what they where even calling me. But it was just so random and unprovoked attacked. Wesley Mouse 19:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I came over as a pencilneck, Wes. You're right on everything. I just occasionally get frayed nerves at the huge expenditure of time over small issues in the I/P area because commonsense is crushed under the weight of political point-scoring, so the joy of actually right/writing articles is killed off. Still, I choose to edit there, and those are the conditions, so I shouldn't complain. Best Nishidani (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, sounds like we could be two peas in the same pod. I get the same frayed nerves at times, especially when someone force-feeds bullcrap down my neck. I end up being blunt with them, and probably get myself into more trouble than needs be. Going through the exact same on another talk page at the minute over a music contest. There's one user keeps telling me that we need to find a compromise - so I offer suggestions. And then I get back in return "your compromise is stupid, restore ALL my content now". Where is compromise in that? Wesley Mouse 19:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess the chap should look up 'compromise' which is apparently being used solecistically in the sense of 'agreeing with my POV'. Still, tomorrow, out of curiosity, I'll take a peak over there to examine the kerfuffle. I think as a working rule, it helps to imagine that the other editor in such cases is swilling rotgut, and not amenable to persuasion. The only solution is to reach for the top shelf and take a short snifter of Aberfeldy while watching a DVD of Hussein Bolt at Beijing or Federer in 2005, or Tiger Woods at Pebble Beach in 2000, or listening to Andrea Parodi on youtube sing 'Non potho reposare' while dying of cancer, a bit like Dinu Lipatti's Besançon's concert back in 1950. Things like that tend to remind the fatigued wikipedian, that excellence under stress does exist, only not often here. Cheers (reaching for the bottle).Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

R U Aware?

about half way down the page talknic (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That is a bit worrying, I'd raise it up as a concern at the Admin Noticeboard, or better still WP:ANI. It is basically outting and may put a user at risk. Wesley Mouse 15:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I'll do it on your behalf, as it is disturbing that a different website is purposely outing Wikipedians. Wesley Mouse 15:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Old stuff, as far as I can see, but I wouldn't give a rodent's rectum if they added to it. Such fringe(the unfortunate pun on tzitzit is the fault of my mother tongue) lunatics of this world are essentially solipsists in search of an interlocutor who, if he replies to the baiting, they can then cast as an aggressor, and reframe themselves as (a) victims, and (b) then stalwarts defending some collectivity whose interests they claim to valiantly defend. The guy that runs that outfit doesn't even observe the sabbath, he's so busy running 7/24 spot-checks on the phantasms his paranoia conjures with. (b) usually translates into:'give me funds to run my one-man operation' and allow me to console my existential boredom on a sinecure. So I'd ignore it on the Nietzschean principle: talk to airheads, and you'll end up being a blowhard, since you add to the flatulence. Nishidani (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Jalud (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to IDF

Zion Square assault (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to New Yorker

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

1RR

See here, here reverted this. Please self-revert so it doesn't escalate, especially if as you said it was a mistake while drafting. Thanks. --Activism1234 20:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like you will (based on the talk page), but it would be appreciated if you would so it could fix it. Thanks. --Activism1234 21:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec twice)

I'll hope you'll appreciate that I do take a break, prepare tea for my wife on her return, do not look constantly at the computer, and occasionally turn in early. I posted a reply immediately and there was an edit conflict, and rewrote and another edit conflict.

It's very late here, I'll have to look at this tomorrow morning. Bref. As I have repeated, the niceties of IR appear to escape me. In any earlier note you explained it, but then Nableezy said your interpretation was rather odd. Perhaps he was wrong. You are now saying that

• (a) I reverted NMMGG earlier in the day regarding his unaccountable removal of Jill Jacobs.
• (b) Several hours later, while I had the page open in two windows to make to edits, one to the lead and one to the Facebook section, you challenged my use of Jesse Benjamin as a source, unbeknown to me. I closed the lead edit a few minutes later, then fixed the Jessie Benjamin Facebook addition, and when the article came up, checked and saw you'd removed Benjamin.
• You'll have to take my word for it that I actually have read Heidegger's Sein und Zeit, it took some months, but I got through it. Descending to wikipedia's more straightforward world, I find points like this impenetrably obscure. I simply cannot figure out what I did wrong there. I do not expect many to accept my bona fides - NMMGG has a programmatic habit of asserting much of what I do here is dishonest. But while I hit the sart fack and seek illumination in oneiromancy for this delphic puzzle (and I accept you are convinced this is an 1 R violation), I'd appreciate if you would clarify why citing Benjamin as a source for something totally unrelated to the passage you objected to constitutes a revert. NMMGG says my violation consists in 'restoring material removed by another editor. That is patently not the case. I happened to use a source up the page which, while I was editing, you removed from below the page.

I'd appreciate it if some amicable expert on policy bookmarking the page sorted this out, and clarified as a neutral third party what the lay of the policy land is here. If there is no equivocation and Activism is right, of course I'll do the revert (even though it is patently nonsensical to ask for the removal of a piece of information absolutely crucial to the page and devoid of any polemical intent. To the contrary, it illuminates something that perplexed many like DGG on the talk page). Good night. It's 23:40 by my clock, and at this hour I lack the lucidity to sort this out slowly.Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course, given the enormous suspicions about my 'attitude', someone can of course make a complaint and use it to press for a permaban while I punch out my zeds after a long day. It's called going ballistic, but apparently a right which you are free to exercise. Whatever, I'll do whatever is appropriate when I review this tomorrow morning.Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

All right got it. --Activism1234 21:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification

See here for AE. Sorry, happening too often and you refused to self-revert. If you feel it wasn't a violation of 1RR, the admins can listen to your case and whether you're right. Hope it goes well. --Activism1234 04:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

As a courtesy, please, in future, don't preface a punitive action with the word 'sorry' when you had a choice to WP:AGF and ignored it. It looks hypocritical.Nishidani (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls; if I were you I'd ignore this **** and leave things to blow over without comment; disinterested parties will know you have the best interests of the project, your readers, and your colleagues at heart; no need to respond; with respect, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

朝のまだきに生れ指ばら色の曙の女神が姿を現わすと、オデュッセウスの寵愛の息子は床から身を起こし ... Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk)

Thanks for that. Seeing this nonsense gently tempered by a classical redolence from my favourite book, delightfully masqued in Japanese, made my breakfast in the early morning streets in this village doubly edged with pleasant memories and reflections, that wiped out all the slummy smell of yesterday's disagreeable provocations. Of course, it's the incipit to Book 2:

ἦμος δ᾽ ἠριγένεια φάνη ῥοδοδάκτυλος Ἠώς,

ὤρνυτ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἐξ εὐνῆφιν Ὀδυσσῆος φίλος υἱὸς.

When I first came across the idiom, I couldn't help but subvert it by reimaging the epithet in a Sapphic context: 'when Rosie fingered Dawn'. But the ironic smile this woke in my thoughts was quickly followed by a stronger memory, of dawn on a yacht towards the end of my nightshift at the tiller, decades ago, reciting lines like this, when I was interrupted by a queer grazing noise at the bow. I roped the tiller, and walked up to see what was behind the fluttery flurry: a school of bottlenose dolphins was playing cross-stich diving in woven coordination from port and starboard, as the glistening sunlight glanced off their melons and their eyes glinted with that cheeky squint which, together with the grinning rostra, remind one that life's a lark. As to trolls, time for some reading to the background music of Peer Gynt!Nishidani (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

a tail with the freshness of spring; so long as the Sapphic lark doesn't morph into a Lesbian swallow, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Touché :). But I think the appropriate seasonal motif (季語,) for an old trooper like myself is another bird elegiacally celebrated in those fabulous lines from Alkman, the first Greek poem I learnt by heart.

οὔ μ' ἔτι, παρσενικαὶ μελιγάρυες ἱαρόφωνοι,

γυῖα φέρην δύναται· βάλε δὴ βάλε κηρύλος εἴην,

ὅς τ' ἐπὶ κύματος ἄνθος ἅμ' ἀλκυόνεσσι ποτήται

νηδεὲς ἦτορ ἔχων, ἁλιπόρφυρος ἱαρὸς ὄρνις

They used to bash at swallow-nests round here, regarding their darting about the place as a shitty nuisance, until I suggested to my wife that she spread among the locals a rhymed pseudo-proverb I made up on trying to figure out how to stop the practice, to the effect (translated):

If under your eves some swallows nest

Both house and children shall be blest.

It worked, and the local shops patiently bear up with shovel and sweep. It's the only exception to my rule that spin-doctoring is a shootable offence to reason. Nishidani (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If mellifluosomnolent chicks no longer do the trick perhaps some versiculi molliculi ac parum pudici might help? One halcyon summer a bird-of-paradise and I walked the Shikoku henro michi; one of the attendants at Ryōzenji not only could do simultaneous two-handed calligraphy (he presented us with a mirrored 龍) but kept an illustrated log of the swallows' nests that lined one of the walls, producing a table with the numbered nests along the top, the days down the side, and a drawing of the count of eggs/chicks in each each day; several of the temples had strategically placed sheets of cardboard to ease the shovelling, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Two-handed calligraphy? Golly, impressive, perhaps even more so that, was it President J. Garner's ability to write Latin and Greek simultaneously with left and right hands (it's not that which impresses one these days, but in the post-Bush era, a reminder that the Presidency didn't exclude intelligence). 'In the soup' is what happens when a bird like the one in A.D. Hope's "Death of a Bird" or a plane chucks it in or ditches over water, which Alcman's cerylus should have done, and is probably where the attendants' nests finished? ((cf.燕窝))Nishidani (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Zion Square assault

I'm all done with it now; have at it!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nishidani. You have new messages at Talk:Israeli settlement.
Message added 14:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This editor is a 'she' ?

Hi,

Did you write that 'Activism1234' is a woman ? I missed this information. Could you tell me from where you got this ? Kind Regards, Pluto2012 (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No,pal, but remembering the wrong interpretation I gave you re Ashley Kennedy 3 year ago, I can understand your perplexity. I'd read a long article by an American academic of conservative (linguistically) bent recently, who, much to my surprise, used narrative 'her' for the expected 'him' where the subject was of indeterminate sex. I've been thinking about it, and not quite convinced, but decided to experiment as I tend to do when my models in life in various dimensions show a flexibility that goes against my minor inset ways. I think you'll find at the bottom of one of my edits an explanation to that effect, but with all the drivel I'm forced to write to defend myself it probably got lost in the logorrhoic deluge! Of course the identity of people, genderwise or personal generally, shouldn't give us the slightest concern or stir our curiosity. It's what is said in editing that counts, not the 'who' who says it. Best Nishidani (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

D'accooooooooord... Ce n'était pas évident de comprendre a priori.

Amitiés, Pluto2012 (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Rien n'est évident de comprendre a priori!:) Un abbraccio. Nishidani (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

In closing I hope this quote from one of your classics clarifies why I have found your editing company so refreshing, and why, as per the contrast in the second part, I find general editing here so sisyphean.

‘Une idée forte communique un peu de sa force au contradicteur. Participant à la valeur universelle des esprits, elle s’insère, se greffe en l’esprit de celui qu’elle réfute, au milieu d’idées adjacentes, à l’aide desquelles, reprenant quelque avantage, il la complète, la rectifie: si bien que la sentence finale est en quelque sorte l’œuvre des deux personnes qui discutaient. C’est aux idées qui ne sont pas, à proprement parler, des idées, aux idées qui, ne tenant à rien, ne trouvent aucun point d’appui, aucun rameau fraternel dans l’esprit de l’adversaire, que celui-ci, aux prises avec le pure vide, ne trouve rien à répondre.’M Proust, À l’ombre des jeunes filles en fleur, Gallimard, 1954 pp.165-6.Nishidani (talk) 10:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Wonder

Just back from a few days visiting my grandchildren in the beautiful Forest of Dean, with lots to do. I'll check out the Hebrew press for you after the weekend; until then, too busy helping oppose a planned fascist march through my community. Best wishes. RolandR (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Good grief, sorry. Don't let my petty queries get into the way of family and life. I was a touch worried when I saw all those signpost wiki things in there, but retire knowing all is well. I hope you can remember to communicate to that rabble of shit my fondest auguries they end up deeper than Dante's gironi ever dug. Very best Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like I'll probably be banned, so if you do come up with a default term, I'd appreciate, if you do come up with anything, you plunking just that terminology in on the lead of Zion Square assault. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Antony Lerman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Habonim

Israeli settlement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Breaking the Silence

Susya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to IDF

Wellesley Aron (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Russell Street

Zion Square assault (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to AFP

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Result of WP:AE#Nishidani

Hello Nishidani. The result of the 1RR complaint is that you are banned from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict on all pages of Wikipedia for one month. This includes articles, talk pages, user talk and Wikipedia-space discussions. You may appeal the ban in the usual way. Please see the details in the AE discussion. The ban expires on October 6. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. No, no appeal. That strikes me as just.

Just as a curious coincidence, I found this in the mailbox this morning.

Indirectheng <KillAllEuropeans@hmamail.com> 06 settembre 2012 07:21

A: Nishidani Fucking Eurofilth, I hope all you Europeans and Arabs get exterminated. For two thousand years, you scum have tried to exterminate us and failed. First the Romans, massacring six hundred thousand Jews in Jerusalem and spreading us across the Roman Empire as slaves. Then the pogroms by Cossack, Polish, and Russian barbarians. Then the German trash. Yet you failed every time. And that was just some of the things happening in Europe. All the while in the East we were forced to live as dhimmis under Muslim rule. Now that we have finally rebuilt Israel, you Europeans will never be able to destroy us. We will nuke you hateful scum into oblivion if you try. Furthermore, the Arabs and Muslims will never get to rule us again. Now it's THEIR turn to be ruled. Let them be servants for a change! Long live Israel! Fuck Eurotrash and Islamofilth!

Whose land are you occupying, Christian? If you come from the Americas, Australia, or New Zealand, you and your ancestors are guilty of crimes against humanity by stealing land via genocide. And if you come from Europe, you and yours are guilty of two thousand years of genocide against Jews. YOU have no room to talk, European Christian.

The Palestinians are an artificially created entity, manufactured by the Arabs, to destroy Israel. They never have been and never will be a nation. They can have all the U.N. groups like UNESCO try to create the illusion that they're a real nation. But in the end, all those moves are meaningless. They will never, ever, destroy or reduce Israel, even if Israel has weak leaders.'

I think crap like this means, that despite my lapses, I must be doing something positive for the encyclopedia's I/P sector! Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 06:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You're not the only one. I too received several copies of the same message, from the same (now blocked) user. Over the past couple of years, I have received several hundred similar, as have other editors involved in these issues. This has been discussed at ANI several times, but tech experts seem unable to resolve or prevent this abuse.[7][8][9][10][11] It is another serial vandal, who gets his jollies from foul racism combimned with threats of violence and sexual abuse. RolandR (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Not too worried by threats of sexual abuse when they come from a chronic wanker.Nishidani (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If you received that via Wikipedia email, the person can be blocked from sending mail. Let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No comment on the email but you shouldn't be discussing the topic area or why you feel you are doing positive work while topic banned. Cptnono (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you feel better now? In short, go away. Do something positive, rather than wasting your and everyone's time trying, as many do, to make life uncomfortable for serious workers.Nishidani (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel fantastic. I don't need to explain to you why you are a burden to the project and you wouldn't understand it anyways. Enjoy your topic ban. If you think you are the only one who gets terrible emails then you are too self involved to dabble in the topic area. I have not received a terrible email since telling the sender to "fuck off" (direct quote I sent to a pro-settlement editor). Grow up and stop toeing the line of your ban. Go away until you are welcome again. Cptnono (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

So that's the beef? I'm a burden to the project? That only makes sense if the project has nothing to do with the 5 pillars, but their violation in order to push a POV. I really think I'm a burden to some because when they write, they are not quite aware of what they are saying, as when you use the idiom, toe the line solecistically to mean 'surreptitiously nudge one's way beyond the strict legal limits'. So when you advise me to 'stop toeing the line of your ban', your counsel consists in suggesting that I infringe the topic ban, not, as I am doing, observe it. Serious editors have a huge amount of their time wasted here because many simply don't understand what they are writing, either in editing or on talk-pages. Perhaps playing dumb is a tactical advantage: it does waste everyone's time, and does stop solid work being done.

I certainly toe the line of my ban in the accepted use of that phrase, i.e., I "conform to a rule or a standard." My only consolation in reading what you write is that occasionally your bloopers make an unintended sense, as when, in your edit summary you wrote, 'filibustering the wikilayers.' You of course wished to write 'wikilawyers'. Those who lay the groundwork of wikipedia do build it up layer by layer and, and in sensitive areas, find their masonry undermined by filibusterers or more often kibitzers intent on seeing nothing is ever actually done by nagging the obvious to death. Too many layabouts who lie about. . Growing up primarily means acquiring some grammatical and lexical mastery of one's mother-tongue. You have a long way to go.Nishidani (talk) 08:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Nish, I would just recommend you ignore Cptnono. He is clearly trying to lure you into violating your TBAN. -asad (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

it's hard to keep mum when one's mother tongue is twisted out of shape and crippled.Nishidani (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I can relate. But, in case you haven't already noticed, Cptnono's modus operandi is to come over as vulgar and loudmouthed in an attempt to elicit careless responses from people. -asad (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel so silly! I just assumed that he was talking about intellectual property or internet protocol.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm closing this down for a month, chaps. No interruptions please. I'm looking for a non-rubbery prophylactic one can hood one's edits with, preferably with a beeper that lights up when some rule is infringed, warning the user to withdraw. Everything's on the net, so I'm sure something will turn up to ensure protection as I continue my intercourse with wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought they come in your size. Why not use this period of abstinence to familiarise yourself with productive editing so that AE doesn't have to constantly abort your illegitimate mess? Ankh.Morpork 12:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that you know I warned you, as one of the editors I regard as profoundly disruptive here, not to frequent this page, 'abort your illegitimate mess' is a messy metaphor. (a) a mess is what happens when something is aborted. What is aborted is not a mess, but a life that is disposed of, or messed with. (b) What is a 'legitimate mess'? What you, and several other editors do, I surmise. You all know the rules, and use them, not to improve this place, but to rid it, by pettifogging, of editors whose work you dislike because it ensures balance. Don't reply. I can revert malicious disturbances here as much as I like. Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Seeing your AE notice on my watchlist reminded me why it's been so long since I last checked it. But I wanted to say that it is fortunate for the project that you're still around and I'm not. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks pal. I'd gladly exchange my presence here for a return of your equable eye.Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Roth

Philip Roth,An Open Letter to Wikipedia, at New Yorker, 7 September, 2012, apropos The Human Stain. I suppose this has been fixed, but if it hasn't this provides any intelligent editor with the necessary source to adjust what Roth notes as an error in the relevant article on his novel.Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, NIshidani, I do still watch your page and do still hope we can get back to Charles Dickens at some point. I hope you don't mind but I've stolen the Roth link and added to my page as a reminder to get things right. I find a lot of mistakes in lit. articles and kudos to Roth for doing something about it. It seems that's it been fixed but a lot of discussion over there that I can't be bothered to read. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I calculate what to do on pages like CD in terms of what I manage to do on the most damaged area of wikipedia. Editors tend to do bios rather than books, and Roth's books are no exception as treated here. They are poorly written up and thin (film buffs do much better in summarising plots). I don't think he 'contradicted' himself, by the way- Joseph Conrad said that a writer usually knows something about his fictional characters which no reader will ever pick up, because it's not in the novel or play. This looks parasdoxical (a fictional character having, as it were, an independent life in the mind of his author of which no record remains in the text) but it isn't. William Golding subscribed to the same idea. So, authors don't like being forced to tell their secrets, or those of their characters. In 2008, Roth said 'No' for that reason. It was none of anybody's business but his own. He added the disavowal to brush off critics like Kakutani's misleading deductions in the follow-up. The wikipedia thing forced his hand so he brought out definitive testimony to disprove the point, and yielded up to the public purview one of his secrets. Pity he had to do that. Thanks for the note.- Cheers Nishidani (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was just thinking that myself. At any rate, I'll rework that section later today after work, because it needs more perspective and from a quick glance at the page, the entire page probably needs tidying. I'm glad you posted this. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Shane sprinkler

Some butthead with that monicker is emailing me through wikipedia, several times yesterday, telling me, a faggot son of a bitch, how he's going to castrate me and serve me up meatballs, because I'm responsible for the Holocaust, I gather from the edit summary.Nishidani (talk) 12:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

With mushrooms and parsley? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Kooky, in the Swedish sense (kuk). I think Sagawa made a better meal out of Renée Hartevelt, whom he said tasted like tuna. The five diners should be advised to read Kafka's Ein Hungerkünstler, by the looks of it. You'd need John Holmes to get your money back on that sort of dish. I mean really, you can feast on 2 sidedishes of gyoza for 600 yen, and garnish it with some endocannibalistic fantasy as your devour their succulence. Still, time to reread 海と毒薬.Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

rs/n

think you wrote in the wrong section there, nableezy - 20:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Request that topic ban be lifted

Hi Nishidani,

I've made a request that the topic ban be lifted [12]. I hope I can count on your support. NinaGreen (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Only saw this now, having read novels all day. Yes Nina, of course, I will support the lifting of the topic ban. I will note my support tomorrow. Regards Nishidani (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Nishidani. Happy to see you supporting the lifting of the ban. Moonraker (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Laurens

Can you help here? Zero^talk 09:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Dialog poll

Hi,

Do you have ideas, how to move the process forward at this page? Opening a RFC is of course an option, but in the long run it would be more helpful if the editing process itself could be improved, so that people don't have to discuss simple edits on talkpages for weeks. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The solution's an Egg of Columbus. Just write the article, and then link it. Cf. Apartheid in Israel?, the Dialog poll.Nishidani (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, good idea. The poll is discussed in so many sources that a dedicated article does in fact sound warranted. --Dailycare (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit bar

I noticed your plaintive unsigned note at WP:RSN. If you can't afford a keyboard with a tilde key, you could try perusing this VPT section (there is another section "Toolbar missing", currently near the bottom of the page, which suggests that your enhanced editing experience is rather common at the moment). I know you don't want to futz around, but perhaps the very simple "broken Matzah" icon referred to helps. Johnuniq (talk) 03:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nishidani, I lost my toolbar well over a year ago and it was extremely annoying! I use Monobook by the way. After much too long stumbling around without one, I went to Preferences, to the "Gadgets" tab, and there under the "Editing" section clicked on "CharInsert". That seems to have brought it back - well actually it's different, but a toolbar is a toolbar. But to be honest I clicked a lot of other options too, so it could have been one of those. Anyway, playing with Preferences might be helpful to get back the toolbar. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Johnno and TK. I opened the gadgets and got a severe attack of cerebral hemarrhoids as I chucked a swift shufti over the panoply, looked like the computerized panel in Space Odyssey. But 'CharInsert' had me blushing at first because I read it as signifying something like charlie-insert, which in one of my favourite dialects is suggestive of how to 'bury the bishop' or how to 'take the baldheaded gentleman, flying the jolly roger, through the delta'. With relief, I noted the 'box' was ticked (crabs?), so that wasn't the problem. Taking a tip I took pot luck then, and ticked the javascript box, and set that in the preferences. Lo and behold, opening this page to reply, I see that this seems to have done the trick, since the wiki markup and the whole fandangled machinery of editing has popped up. I think of the monkeys typing Shakespeare when I fiddle like that aleatorially, with a magical gesture of trying some option I don't even understand, a one in a zillion chance, but it worked. And now, fuckit, I have no excuses for not working here, which I'm getting tired of. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy to have helped. I couldn't remember whether it was the ... um ... CharInsert (yes, I took not only a double take but a triple take at that!) or enabling JavaScript that brought back my toolbar. I thought I'd start you off with the first and, as I did, you then took the risk with the JavaScript. Glad you're up and running again. Btw - haven't forgotten about Charles but, as you know, other stuff tends to come up, and my editing time has diminished greatly in the past months. I'm hoping to get through Ezra Pound first and then swing back to Dickens, but probably won't be for a few months. Take care. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 November 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Justin Martyr

Hiya. Sorry for bothering you like this, but I seem to have lost your e-mail address. Highbeam Research has around 873 total pieces relating to Justin Martyr, some of which are book reviews regarding him and some of which are encyclopedic articles. There are about 89 articles which mention him from reference works, most of which only to a degree. Anyway, if you don't have access to Highbeam Research (or to Questia for that matter) and you want to get bogged down in this subject, I would myself be more than happy to see you do so. Honestly, there are few editors I would actually prefer doing so. John Carter (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Never a bother John. Every time I try to edit that article, I have to deal with nitwittery, or with people who know nothing of the topic, and whose only ability to contribute is to remove stuff that is unsourced for the moment, asking someone like me, or you, to work their arse off, when they could equally supply the material from readily available sources. Pure bloodyminded laziness. I'll eventually do something to fix the damage. It's not hard at all, it's just time consuming. If you have any scholarly articles that treat aspects of his thought in detail by all means email me them via the toolbox email which is activated. Can't promise anything quick though, I've far too much offline work to do. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The material I removed was added 2 years ago, and 5 years ago respectively. The material seems to be nothing but unsubstantiated Mormon apologetics, and ought to have been removed when it was written. I would have deleted it immediately, but added "source needed" tags as a courtesy first to see what interest there was. In the unlikely scenario that this reflects scholarly consensus, it would have to be substantiated significantly with references. I have indeed been looking into rewriting the section from scratch, and was only unwilling to track down references for the removed material. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Representation On Wikipedia Workshop

Dear Nishidani,

We are researchers from the University of Oxford and the American University of Sharjah. We held a workshop in Cairo for Wikipedians in October 2012 to discuss barriers to participation on Arabic Wikipedia. Our next workshop will be taking place in Amman, Jordan on the 26th-27th January 2013. We have funds to pay for participants' travel, accommodation and food. This workshop will concentrate more specifically on the representation of parts of the MENA region on Wikipedia and the ability of local editors to contribute to those representations. We are therefore looking for participants who edit articles about the MENA region (can be places, local historical or current events, local people etc.) We wanted to invite you because we noticed you have been involved in editing about contentious topics in the region and would really value your input. If you want to know more about this workshop, please contact me on wikiproject@oii.ox.ac.uk. Many thanks, Clarence (Project Manager) OIIOxford (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

As said last time, I appreciate the invitation but accepting would technically involve me in a conflict of interest were I to participate, because it would give the appearance of being part of an organised group. There's enough of that in the I/P area already without my running the risk of being, inadvertently, tarred with the same brush. Best wishes. Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

I wish to thank you for beeing a voice of reason on the Operation Pillar of Defense article and its talk page. PerDaniel (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Måtte det snart bli fred i världen.Nishidani (talk) 12:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments

If ind your comnets completely inappropriate. I understand that you try to play the wit, but actually addressing what you are replaying to, is far more clever than changing the subject.--Mor2 (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I find poor spelling and bad syntax inappropriate. What you are doing is summed up in your contribs.Nishidani (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Multiple votes on move request

On the topic of Talk:Operation_Pillar_of_Defense#Edit_request_on_20_November_2012 you have voted at least twice, please revert your edit. --Mor2 (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Your edit didn't changed the perception, if you were replaying to Ryan, please move your comment under his and indent it, like the rest. Also unless you support what ryan says, please remove the the 'support' part to avoid confusion. --Mor2 (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Replaying (now twice) in English is written 'replying'.

Like Ryan Vesey I earlier voted on the merits of the given versus a different title, and then, when a new section was opened up on a motion that the majority consensus be acted on, voted on the motion to make the change. Like Vesey, I think they are two different issues. Nishidani (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about Ryan and there is no need for your adhominem arguments. Its a simple issues and requires as simple answer/solution. On the talk page, we have one active motion to move "Requested move to 2012 Gaza Conflict" and underneath it, I see two votes by you:

• "Strong Support. It is a patent... Nishidani (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)"
• "Support. Ryan, ... Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)"

Thank you.--Mor2 (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Please look up ad hominem. Correcting elementary mispellings that a user repeats, and which confuse two distinct words giving rise to perplexity in the reader, is not ad hominem. If anything it is ad discipulum.

Ryan supports your position, so you don't inform yourself of his double vote (in your view). I am opposed to your position, and you make a fuss. I really don't care. I don't consider this a double vote because an issue over what name to use is one thing, a motion to support a move is another. I'm going to the dentist for some hours. If there is a problem, I'm sure some steward in the wikiworks will adjust so that this is sorted out. Nishidani (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't care if you consider this double voting or not(though from you comment about Ryan you clearly aware of it), both of your votes are in the Requested move to 2012 Gaza Conflict under the {{Requested move/dated}}, please address it or I will report this.

I don't mind you correcting me, on the contrary, but you might want to end with personal, not start you augments with them.(that is if you address them at all and not trying to be funny). As for Ryan, if you noticed he made a mistake address it, I am not you moderator, nor do I have some hidden agenda as you imply, I simply remembered you already voted, because I replayed to it. Also I have notified you of this and suggest that it might be an error, but you react as you do. --Mor2 (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Your sentence 'but you might want to end with personal, not start you augments with them ' is so garbled that it is incomprehensible. 'Personal' is meaningless, and 'augments' appears to mean 'arguments'. Please try and write comprehensibly, otherwise you flag the possibility that you may not be able to understand what your interlocutors has said or written. Of course you don't have a 'hidden agenda'. It's quite out there in the public eye. Since you are not neutral, I cannot act on your advice, but require independent judgement on the question you raise, as I noted on the page.

I've asked for a neutral third party judgement. Generally, if you have a complaint that applies to more than one editor, you should address your complaint to all editors, and not single out one who happens to be opposed to you in a vote. That looks manipulative, whatever your intentions, since Vesey appears to have done exactly what I did, but you have lodged no objection and he happens to support your position. Nishidani (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick thought

I didn't like Operation Cast Lead either, but I prefer it to Gaza War, since the article is not about a war at all. After all, we have Operation Barbarossa, but that hardly implies an endorsement of Hitler. --NSH001 (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

With that monicker, the Israeli planning stuff put over it that their operation was 'the manifestation of the presence of the God of Israel in the Torah.' While bombing the Gazans into an Exodus, they used an idiom to apotheosize the divine light guiding their own paths into Eretz Yisrael. You really think that it acceptable to anyone who happens to be on the receiving end of this Nacht und Nebel smashing to smithereens?

Who invents these names?. They are incredibly well thought out for a kind of resonance one only gets in close literary criticism of a classic. Cast Lead of course referred to Bialek's poem, and dreidels, as was appropriate since the massacre of Palestinians coincided with Israel's festival of light. Just as the Nazi final assault on the Warsaw ghetto started, with eerily cynicism, on Passover morning.

To repress Palestinian resistance, a senior Israeli officer earlier this year urged the army to "analyze and internalize the lessons of…how the German army fought in the Warsaw ghetto." (Haaretz, 25 January 2002, 1 February 2002)' Norman G. Finkelstein,'First the Carrot, Then the Stick: Behind the Carnage in Palestine,' at Counterpunch April 17, 2002

I guess it was some joyous ironist with a yen for allusions and crossword puzzles, who nudged the chiefs planning a methodical slaughter. 'Here is some light from the festive folks over your border. We have candles, and songs, and our kids are spinning tops: the light that flashes up in your neighbourhood will remind you of the good times we are enjoying over here. While your kids are spinning like tops in the afterblasts, enjoy the meltdown,'etc. As a lot of serious commentators note, this is a Warsaw ghetto operation applied to the Gazans, and if you are going to be smoked, I don't think bystanders should honour the preferred language of the Bomber Harrises here. It would be like calling the Shoah invariably an Endlösung, because that's how Hitler's myrmidons referred to it.Nishidani (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It's Bialik, "of course". Also, what the officer actually said. I bet it took me less time to find that than it took you to dig up Finkelstein's usual dishonesty.

Anyway, the above is awesome. You have the Nazi comparison, the dehumanization of Israelis, and some deliberate misquotes. All the hallmarks of a true humanist. I'm keeping a copy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Correction on Bialik happily accepted. I've had that page on my timeline file since 2002. As to your loathing of Finkelstein, the Nazi comparison was made by an IDF officer, not Finkelstein. The original runs:

In order to prepare properly for the next campaign, one of the Israeli officers in the territories said not long ago, it's justified and in fact essential to learn from every possible source. If the mission will be to seize a densely populated refugee camp, or take over the casbah in Nablus, and if the commander's obligation is to try to execute the mission without casualties on either side, then he must first analyze and internalize the lessons of earlier battles - even, however shocking it may sound, even how the German army fought in the Warsaw ghetto. The officer indeed succeeded in shocking others, not least because he is not alone in taking this approach. Many of his comrades agree that in order to save Israelis now, it is right to make use of knowledge that originated in that terrible war, whose victims were their kin. The Warsaw ghetto serves them only as an extreme example, not linked to the strategic dialogue that the defense establishments of Israel and Germany will hold next month.

Finkelstein wrote, in what you characterize as 'dishonesty'

a senior Israeli officer earlier this year urged the army to "analyze and internalize the lessons of…how the German army fought in the Warsaw ghetto."

He left out:if the commander's obligation is to try to execute the mission without casualties on either side.'

Finkelstein was under no obligation to add that. The sentence runs even more nonsensically in this hypothetical form. For if your mission is not to create casualties among the enemy, there is nothing to be learnt from the way the Nazis made their final assault on the Warsaw ghetto because you cannot learn from the behaviour of a genocidal army how not to be genocidal, anymore than you can learn from a carnivore how to be a vegetarian.

But if his leaving out this ridiculously confused hypothetical is your point re Finkelstein's putative dishonesty, the answer is obvious: the IDF officer perceives an analogy between the IDF's problem assaulting 'a densely populated refugee camp', and the Nazis' problem in attacking Jews corralled into the Warsaw Ghetto. His analogy compares the IDF's crux to the Nazis' problem, and the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto to the Palestinians under Israel's belligerent occupation in Nablus (or the Gaza Strip). This latter analogy doesn't, as it would in an average humane imagination, stop to make him pause at the implications of identifying Jews in occupied Poland with Palestinians under Israeli occupation. On the eve of talking to his German colleagues, he thinks that a fruitful discussion can take place by discussing with them the lessons to be learned from shared predicaments in WW2 and post-1967 by two occupying armies. What the IDF can do is learn from the errors of Nazi tactics in similar conditions, by 'avoiding casualties on the other side'. Actually, that is, to some eyes, worthy of a Monty Python sketch.

As the reporter added, his view was not rare in the ranks, and yet 'it shocked others'(presumably Israeli officers)' who heard his remarks, and not only the 'dishonest' Finkelstein. One could make much more out of this than Finkelstein did.

I suggested elsewhere that someone read Gilbert Ryle on category confusion. I think you should brush up as well. To note what an army does, or an officer in its ranks says, is not to make a generalization about the nation they defend, or its citizens. Were I to criticize the American invasion of Iraq, it is not a dehumanization of Joe the Plumber. Were I to say a shock jock like Rush Limbaugh was ..(any negative epithet of your choice) . ., you would reply, by the same token, that I am dehumanizing Americans. I don't think the puerility of this sort of inane inference needs pointing out to anyone, well, anyone else.Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

a. "final assault" is your addition.

Yes, because under my file note for Oren's reportage, and Finkelstein's comment, I have the following three sources (before another series of notes):

‘The annihilation of the last remnant of the Warsaw Jewish community was not unexpected . .information reached the ghetto from the Aryan side of the city. Police sources reported that an assault on the ghetto was imminent. The Nazis launch the attack on Monday, April 19,1943’ Israel Gutman, Resistance: The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1998 p.201

‘The final German assault against the remaining 60,000 inhabitants of the ghetto’s more than 400,000 Jews began on the very day that the Bermuda conference opened,’ Monty Noam Penkower,Free World Diplomacy and the Holocaust, Wayne State University Press, 1988 p.112

‘For three months, the Germans regrouped their forces-. Then, on Passover morning, April 10, 1943, they launched a full-scale assault.’ David Bamberger,My People:Abba Eban’s History of the Jews, Behrman House, Inc, 1979 p.182.Nishidani (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

b. Finklestein changed the context from "we need to learn from everything, including extreme cases" to "we need to learn ... from extreme cases". That's about as dishonest as you can get while quoting.

c. You can look at something someone did wrong and learn from that.

No, not at all. No quote in a varied article has to contain all the context. Any journalist or historian knows this. You quote what you find pertinent, and, if honest, give your reader the source. When you check, say, Dershowitz's sources, you find as often as not that they are either mediocre or don't correspond to the facts cited, as indeed Finkelstein proved beyond reasonable doubt, and for which he was never forgiven.Nishidani (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

d. I know F's interpretation seems natural to you. You reflexively read the worse possible interpretation in anything an Israeli says, because in your mind you have thoroughly dehumanized them, as your original post I was replying to clearly shows. Now you're trying to spin the "Israeli kids happily play with their dreidels while their parents happily try to liquidate Gaza" to "I was only talking about the army"? Good luck with that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, most of my sources come from Israeli or Israeli-Jewish, or American-Jewish scholarship, as anyone who monitors me will know. I do that because that scholarship is the world's finest, and using it means that I am taking sides, yes, in an inframural Israeli debate, not adding my personal POV, which is very easy to do, and in any case, editors like me tend to be opposed as goyim beyond the pale. All you get from my edits is what a notable quantity of Israeli or Jewish scholars say of Israel's relationship with Palestine. It's not my problem that many distinguished scholars think that way. All I can do is learn from them, and admire their redoubtable insight, intellectual honesty and humanitarian loyalties to principles higher than the ethnocentric ones which are the curse of the modern world. They consolidate what I learnt with my mother's milk. When hearing of, or being in the presence of a tragedy or grief, to silently recite: There but for the grace of God go I, and if any of 'your own' are responsible, to feel shame. That is something that never crossed the mind of the Captain quoted above.Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You love to spin maliciously, I guess because anyone who is critical of those realities must, by theory, have some antisemitic obsession. A small reading lesson:

I guess it was some joyous ironist with a yen for allusions and crossword puzzles, who nudged the chiefs planning a methodical slaughter. 'Here is some light from the festive folks over your border. We have candles, and songs, and our kids are spinning tops: the light that flashes up in your neighbourhood will remind you of the good times we are enjoying over here. While your kids are spinning like tops in the afterblasts, enjoy the meltdown,'etc.

No accomplished reader can fail to take that the way it was intended to be taken. I'm spinning nothing about 'Israeli kids'. I am imagining sarcastically what might have passed through the mind of whoever it was, in the IDF planning department, to latch upon such an obscenely cruel image, within the context of a planned carpetbombing of a ghetto, in using the image of a dreidel at Hanukkah. It's the individual's thoughts I am imagining, not Israeli kids. But, if you want to read with malice, go ahead. Just don't get into literary criticism (unless you are a late Leavisite. I was reading his "The Common Pursuit" last night, and it is, between the lines, largely malice in several essays.Nishidani (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Your projection of your thoughts about Israelis, manifest in how you imagine they think, was exactly the point I was making. I don't need a reading lesson, I see exactly what you did there. Now spin away, you're just digging your hole deeper.

Your whining about being treated like "goyim" (that's another keeper, by the way) as if you were being opposed for not being Jewish and not for your personal thoughts which not only clearly influence your editing here to the point you put all intellectual honesty aside, but that you also blog about consistently, convinces no one but you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

"Yawn". Perhaps you are wasting your time here. You're certainly wasting mine. By all means join AnkhMorpork, whose presence is formally banned from this page. If you think your little fishing expeditions are interesting, dabble in other waters, because here you invariably 'bait with the wrong request/the vectors of your national interest'. Bye bye.Nishidani (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

If you ask me not to post here, I won't. That's up to you. In the meanwhile, you might take a moment to consider why editors like Zero or Al Ameer Son, who have political opinions close to yours don't make people think they should keep an eye on them.

By the way, your attempt to pass off aljazeerah.info as if it's aljazeera.com here is also going to my newly created list. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Quite right about the al-jazeerah confusion. Worse still, I didn't even open that page. I have been looking for days for a more respectable venue for that article than the one where I first sighted it (Jonathan Cook at Counterpunch 19 November 2012). That, at a glance, seemed less likely to get Zionist knickers in a twist. I still think Counterpunch perfectly respectable for Cook's views, but so is this CNI Council for the National Interest for the same article.

I don't mind you trying to make your life meaningful by tracking my edits, and I appreciate every time you snoop up a slip. So such corrections are more than welcome here. Just try not to engage in thinking here, or psychologizing. That's what I find painful to read, and will probably revert out of sheer boredom at jejeunity. Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

"Whining?" I wonder where NoMoreMrNiceGuy would think the limit of civility lay if his behaviour was being described? Posturing? Insinuating? Sneering? Or worse?     ←   ZScarpia   12:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Zionist entity

Have you ever look at the article Zionist entity? Kauffner (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope. When I see Agitprop jargon or phrasinganywhere, from anyside, I walk away.Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Query

Did you have a chance to review this discussion? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

It's all Greek

What do you think about this edit at Phylogenetics which changed:

The term phylogenetics derives from the Greek terms phyle (φυλή) and phylon (φῦλον), denoting "tribe" and "race"

to

The term phylogenetics derives from the Greek terms phyle (φυλή), denoting "tribe" and "race"

The 'and "race"' would no longer be appropriate, but I'm wondering if you have an opinion on the whole sentence.

BTW I noticed some of your comments a day or so ago, and may I say that your patience and stamina are astounding. Johnuniq (talk) 06:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Check the clock. The Formula1 race has just ended with victory for the series to Vettel, though as you local petrolhead, I backed Alonso, who came second. I did the edit, with metaphorical petrol fumes fogging my poacher's game, and spokes and gears of frustration and disappointment streaming from my aged boat, guv, so you may need to check.

The best dictionaries give 'race' so one has to retain it. In any case it was coined as a term by Haeckel when race discourse was emerging. You can't actually put "and", as if the two related words had a double denomination, one of which is 'race' (esp. in the modern sense, which the Greeks lacked). φῦλον can also mean a 'class' as in 'the class of women' or 'the class/species of flies'. φυλή, a more prosaic term, refers to an organized institutional body of men, united by belief in common blood or descent. Even 'tribe' is deceptive in its English rendering, since that connotes a distinct anthropological culture, whereas Athenians, though all sharing the one culture and language, were divided into 10 phylai. Etc. Nishidani (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix which I will pretend to understand—that kind of editing is what the encyclopedia should be about. I trust that backing Alonso did not involve money, merely emotion (the latter is in plentiful supply). Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of language, in case you have not seen it, there is an interesting story about OED word deletions. There's nothing extra to see, but I found that at Jimbo's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've been militantly opposed to the death penalty for more than half a century, but that article is the first serious argument I've come across to make a strong case for its reintroduction, even posthumously. I'll go to bed tonight with a fantasy of sitting somewhere in Nevada with a direct feed from a drone hovering over Sutton Courtenay in Oxfordshire, and waiting for the imager to locate Burchfield's grave in All Saints' Churchyard, so I can, without a dither of scruple or compunction, zap it. Bloody kiwis! Nishidani (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Just war

Something that should probably be added to the Gaza War article. I mean, for somebody who has a tolerance for what will invariably be the result of adding such material to that article (ie you, not me). nableezy - 21:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

When I see the phrase 'just war' I'm always reminded of the fact that 'just' is an adverb meaning 'nothing but'.Nishidani (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I think you can go ahead with the agreed version of thest in the Israel and the Apartheid Analogy article, Ryan suggested on the talkpage that you'd do the edit as you contributed a lot to the discussion. --Dailycare (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Official Knitwits Head Gear Just For You !!

Enjoy !! Knitwitted (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

1RR

You have violated 1RR in the article regarding List of indigenous people.--Tritomex (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to you posting a similar notice, and acting in the same way, on Evildoer's page. He's just done the same thing. Remonstrative coherence is a good principle to follow.Nishidani (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, you should have given me time to self-revert. To tell the truth, I never imagined until this minute that that page was under Arbcom and I/P rules. I see it is now. But I am hugely perplexed as to how a list of world indigenous peoples can come under that I/P sanctions. Still, wiki has its mysteries and ignorance is no excuse. Mind you, all three of you are backing the inclusion of material both Maunus and I oppose, and, we appear to be the only ones there who understand the subject of the page. Nishidani (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Nish, you arent gonna get anywhere with the people editing that page. Take it RS/N for any of the bad sources; once that is dealt with, if there is still a group of editors restoring material by sheer force of numbers, DR/N would be next. I dont know why you keep doing it, but by now you should know that reasoning with the unreasonable isnt going to end well. nableezy - 19:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I know, but that's fairly true of almost all of the I/P area. One simply cannot edit intelligently, according to the only criterion that interests me, quality sources. One keeps having to consign poor pages to the ochlocracy of POV-pushers who hog it, and pack and stack it with pure bullshit, as I did at Ashkenazi Jews ( just looked at it again after months of ignoring it, and it is a total fucking mess, with none of the work I did on it making sense any more. Everything I put in, if it survives, now supports the opposite POV from what the sources say. Great work fellahs!) No one in the real world can get away with eliding Palestinians as blow-ins, and replacing them with a con-cocted theory that Israelis are autochthones in Palestine/Israel, except on wikipedia. Refresh yourself with Humpty-Dumpty's rules if the point escapes you.

It's not just bad sources: how many recourses does one have to make to a large variety of forums in order to demonstrate the obvious? I haven't got time for that endless bickering. The travesty's there to see, the abuse obvious, and it hardly needs a child to pull an admin's sleeve and point out that the imperial figure striding down the page is threadbare of all pretensions to coherent article dress, and that the sorry figure is a scarecrow dressed out in skerricks of begger's rags. Fuck it. I'll just do what I always do, curl up with a good book Williamson's Borges and remind myself that some corners of the world are denizened with intelligence. Best Nab. Tough times, ay.Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I aint saying give up, Im just saying that dealing with the people at that page is a waste of time. If the problem is the source, RS/N has a much better chance of generating comments from those without a, lets be kind and say "POV", on the topic. Once that is done deal with the rest of the issue at DR/N. nableezy - 21:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the following cites all of the problems we have in editing in the I/P area.

It is an old rabbinic adage that one does not inflict demands on the public that the public is incapable of meeting. Better a tolerated myth than an intolerable truth. Hillel Halkin Jews and Their DNA at Commentary September 2008

I don't think that is particularly rabbinic though. It's a general truth. Ibsen called it the livsløgn or lifelie.Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps of interest: The New York Review of Books - Richard C. Lewontin - Is There a Jewish Gene?, 6 December 2012.     ←   ZScarpia   14:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Read it a few weeks ago in the online subscriber's version. Disappointed. I always expect something slightly dazzling from Lewontin, but he said nothing interesting, fiddled around the topic. You can read considerable excerpts of one of the books he reviewed, for example:Nadia Abu El-Haj The Genealogical Science:The Search for Jewish Origins and the Politics of Epistemology, University of Chicago Press 2012 pp.124ff, which I just noted down for another page. This one is a great improvement on El-Haj's earlier books, and I was surprised at the success with which she had overcome the jargon of some of her earlier works. So Lewontin disappointed high expectations, while El-Haj overturned negative expectations.Nishidani (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

As it was brought to WP:AE I have mentioned you.I don't seek sanctions as it not clear if the article belong to the area.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Shrike. I slipped, was notified (while at dinner:check the time (Italian time), and when I saw the notice, went to undo my edit, and noticed Tritomex had done it in my stead. I again apologized. I didn't even know that page was related to the I/P area until notified. What's the problem? This is not a penal camp.Nishidani (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

List of Indigenous Peoples

I noticed the following comment on Dougweller's Talk page, and later the long discussion under the WP:OR section on the article Talk page. "The Israelite/Jewish people representation there is WP:OR, using a strategem of imposed names on a putatively undying invariable demographic reality to connect the former with the later." I think it is necessary to clarify the disposition of the terms in question, particularly with respect to the anachronistic usage, which is indeed a strategy being deployed in linkage with a genetics argument that would appear to be equally irrelevant to the historical reality. I have placed some comments on demography and the like on the article Talk page that would seem to be relevant. It is fairly clear that it is religion more than genetics that separates Palestinians and Jews, but even the religious questions would appear to be of marginal significance with respect to the historical status of the territory of Palestine and the people that have inhabited it in recent history, as well as what has become of them. Furthermore, having spent some time looking into this, it seems that Palestinian Arabs--at any rate--should be included on the list, and perhaps Bedouin Arabs, as well. I just reverted an edit by Tritomex and left a comment on his/her Talk page.--Ubikwit (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

The argument is, since what goes for Palestinians must go for Israelis (but not vice versa) any attempt to mention the indigeneity of the former will be met with mirror responses for the indigeneity of the latter. The Old Yishuv was certainly indigenous, and that's it. Maunus perceived the political hysteria that would disturb the article if the former were included, and voted for keeping both out. That is realistic, though unfair for the Palestinians, but numbers will ensure that if you make an argument for Palestinians even on straight sourcing, the article will become unworkable, since it is politically incorrect. The only options therefore are to (a) follow Maunus's advice, or push shit up hill with slippy fingers, by insisting that academic sources on indigeneity are the only relevant sources for inclusion, and that no WP:OR inferences from irrelevant genetic papers, or private essays on history, should be acceptable.

Since I work in, among other areas, the most contentious and POV-ridden area of wikipedia, where edits are stacked, gaming the norm, and 'fixing' contrary voices by AE assaults is part and parcel of the political logic there, I have concluded that one can be productive only by strict observance of the rules, and that the best course, if one slips up (not difficult) one should self-suspend oneself to show good faith. I erred there, and have suspended myself for a month, which means I won't be editing articles or the relevant talk pages until early January (some have jumped at this with alacrity to remove material I added, on consensual request, on one article, knowing I can't contest that (Israel and the Apartheid Analogy), which shows how much bad faith exists there.

So all I can say is that if you enter that arena, be a stickler for the rules, keep your hands clean, and avoid useless antagonism, otherwise you won't be round for long, and what you can do will be wasted. The optimal solution there is, as EdJohnson suggested, to have a consensual revert to the page before the ruckus occurred, where the Bedouin, Palestinians and Old Yishuv figured. Genetics arguments are fascinating, but, as several authoritative sources argue, are meaningless without contextualization in the recent literature on linguistics, history, demographics, which tell any disinterested student that in all arguments about origins, ideological interests tend to crowd out the fact that the academic state of play is all about calibrating the respective merits and demerits of theories. The Middle Eastern origins of the Ashkenazi branch is vigorously contested by one of the leading theoretical linguists of the history of Yiddish, Paul Wexler, for example (see for example his review of Jits van Straten's book The Origin of Ashkenazi Jewry: The Controversy Unraveled.’’ New York Walter de Gruyter, 2011, here or Neil Jacob's book on Yiddish,pp.1-15 or Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin's paper on genetics(The origin of Eastern European Jews revealed by autosomal, sex chromosomal and mtDNA polymorphisms). Any attempt to insert such material into any article, against the POV cliché that says all Jews everwhere descend from the ME (Wexler argues they descend from an Slavo-Turko-Iranian people) will suffer an edit war in which the material, emphasizing the lack of scholarly consensus, will be successively removed, by several editors, in order to provide the witless reader with the meme that Israelis descend from autochthones (compare how Tritomex wiped out impeccably RS sources en masse at the page on Ashkenazi Jews here)in order to produce the completely falsified page we have now. Absolutely everything from scholary sources that questions the pseudo-genetic meme and the POV cliché has been erased. It's politics, which is ideologically fixated, exercising its supremacy over knowledge, which is fluid, theoretical, and wary of clichés. It took a long time for Japanese myths about their uniquely indigenous bloodlines to catch up to the fact that quite a number of their great classical poets or figures descended from continental tribal immigrants, like the Paekche born 山上憶良 and were not autochthones, and it will take a long time for folks here to adjust to the complexities of scholarship regarding 'Jewish' origins, which make comfortable assertions about genertic origins very fragile indeed. So unless you wish burn-out from frustration, take it very slowly and methodically, and avoid getting into revert wars. Sometime, admin will be forced to look at behaviour and revert-obsessiveness by POV-warriors, particularly those abusing genetic arguments to smother any sources that come from more sophisticatedly historical disciplines, over these articles, and deal with it.Nishidani (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information and advice. I've already taken on a couple of these ideologues on related issues, and provided I have the time, it's not that difficult to quite them down. Most of the counterparties to the Indigenous dispute are not even providing sources that are relevant, so it would seem that the only point the remains necessary to clarify before editing and filing a dispute, if necessary, is the accepted definition of "indigenous" for that article.

The genetics stuff is interesting and I would like to spend a little more time reading up on it. In relation to this issue however, I fail to see its relevance. The question of indigeneity, assuming I've got the definition basically right, relates to the march of modern history (basically, after the rise of the nation state) trampling over less culturally advanced peoples, peoples that have been subjugated due to colonization, etc.

That does not apply to the lands around Mesopotamia and Egypt, where culture was in flux and peoples were in contact with each other, contesting resources, etc. The Jews have origins in that area, but they were not progenitors of anything other than monotheism, perhaps, but that is another question. The land of Canaan consisted of a number of comparatively small kingdoms, and those kingdoms were often conquered, etc. The Jews were not necessarily culturally disadvantaged or less advanced than the Canaanites; in fact, according to the peaceful infiltration model, it could be seen that their cultural pursuits were deemed to have merit, gaining them status that eventual enabled them to assume a dominating position.

The first paragraph of the introduction to the UN document is informative in that regard. Even if genetics were to confirm that Jews all originated from the land of Canaan, it wouldn't confer upon them indigenous status in terms of the purpose of the article in question. Furthermore, the Palestinians would have the same genetics status, which leads directly back to modern history, demographics, the diaspora and the return therefrom, religion and other issues that determine which population would have indigenous status in Palestine.

The people contesting the list would seem to have a mind to make history rhyme with the verse in their holy books. That might be symptomatic of the fact that their capacity for reason is being adversely affected by religion, or it might simply reflect the state that they are determined to push their cause and impose their agenda at all costs.

I didn't know there was an Israel and Apartheid Analogy page. I have already made the analogy myself in comments on Talk pages here, so I should have a look.--~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubikwit (talk • contribs) 19:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't bite off more than you feel like chewing (b) at AE you argued the case (as did Evildoer). Th effort is wasted. No arbs read that because they don't adjudicate content but technical violations of norms, and anything more than a paragraph is ignored (WP:TLDR) (c) Genetics can't confirm identity or nationality, but unfortunately geneticists who have a poor grasp of everything outside their discipline tend to pontificate, and often make fools of themselves regarding linguistics, and history, which are equally important. This discursive drivel is pounced on, for WP:OR arguments, but while it is RS for genetics, it's not RS for historical facts or theories or (as is the case here) for political and cultural ideologies, and shouldn't be on the page. (d) it's not religion. Most of the troublesome editors are obsessed with political fallout. Their ignorance of Judaism and its extraordinary richness and diversity never ceases to astound.Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I need to keep this in perspective, but it relates to my basic area of research, so I am ust thinking out loud to a certain extent on the Talk pages.

I don't know a lot about Judaism myself, but I do have a pretty good grasp of theocracy, and in the case of the controversy at hand, it is people that are trying to use religion for political/material gain that I perceive to be at fault. In short, the Zionists and their supporters would seem to be culpable, though I understand that even the term Zionism is contested in Judaism. And after deciding that I should go through the Talk page from the top a short while ago, I came across a well-researched academic source loaded with references that was cited by Moxy early on in the discussion. Amal Jamal (17 March 2011). Arab Minority Nationalism in Israel. Taylor & Francis. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-136-82412-8.

As you have pointed out however, the geneticists are utterly incompetent to discuss things outside their field. Check the recent comment by Tritomex 19:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC) in reference to my discussing Zionism as proxy colonization, and then check pages 48-49 of the above-cited reference. There are sentences in which Zionist colonization is described in no uncertain terms, and that i a valid academic source. One sentence states, "Israel was created by a settler-colonial movement of Jewish immigrants".

I just noticed this remark further along during a search, and it seems that it may have been a comment you made that was broken up by Evildoer editing:

You mean, we must think in parallel terms, on the premise: If Jews, then Palestinians. If not Jews, then neither Palestinians (and vice versa). That will never work. There are two ways out of this. Maunus's proposal to elide both (the despair option), or a two line neutral thumbnail summary of both claims. Palestinian indigeneity and its claims withub Israel's Arabic minority are surveyed in Amal Jamal's recent book Arab Minority Nationalism in Israel:The Politics of Indigeneity, Taylor & Francis, 2011. No comparable book is available for the Jews, because the overwhelming majority of the Jewish population made aliyah, which excludes indigeneity. The generic Jewish claim is a particular one, based on an identity related to cuiltural and ethnic ME roots.

At any rate, I'm not going to waste any more time talking to those people before I simply ask for an official opinion. Moxy, however, states

However - Palestinians have declared they are indigenous - its just not recognized by the international community -Amal Jamal (17 March 2011). Arab Minority Nationalism in Israel. Taylor & Francis. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-136-82412-8.. So thus should not be included. Moxy (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

But I don't see where that statement is made in Jamal's text. If it is only the USA and Israel's allies denying them recognition, that would not carry much weight, I should think, especially in light of recent developments. Since there are a number of reliable source--including Jamal's book and those cited therein--I'm inclined to present some of those quotes in requesting an opinion at some point with respect to a clarification as to whether it would be deemed accurate to characterize Palestinians as a colonized peopled. If so, then it shouldn't be a problem to place them on the list, at least until the problems with their rights being violated are eliminated.--Ubikwit (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

--Ubikwit (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit