User talk:Nishidani

NPA 3 warning

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your personal attacks, such as this, against Jaakobou, are unacceptable. Even if you honestly believe the statement, which I don't consider supported by the evidence, it's inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong, and your warning shows poor judgement. There is no attack here whatsoever. This has nothing to do with what I believe, but with what Jaakobou is on record as believing.

• (a)The remark was a reminder to Jaakobou, after Tiamut complained recently of being harassed by him, that his remark that he had absolutely nothing against Muslims or Arabs was not true, for the record says otherwise.
• (b) The diff referred to a remark, made while Jaakobou was coediting a page with Tiamut, who happens to be a Palestinian Arab, to this effect

The Arab world, Islam inspired cultural structure is the main cause of the Arab-Palestinian 91 year racist terror campaign against the Jewish-Palestinians

• (c)In any construal of the English language, Jaakobou, contextually, was telling his fellow editor, a Palestinian Arab, that her world (Arab world) and its cultural structure (essence), in so far as it is infused by Islamic civilization, is responsible for a nigh century long campaign of both terror and racism against the Jewish people in Palestine.
• (d)To make a diff. for editors who may not know this background, but who are called on to 'read' a recurrent quarrel between the two, is not to attack Jaakobou. Nor, to cite it as a reminder, when he affirms he is free of prejudice, is not an attack on Jaakobou.
• (e) This contextual attack on Tiamat as someone with a racist and terroristic Islamic culture was struck out, not because Jaakobou thought it untrue but because he reflected it might be possibly offensive.
• (f) If Jaakobou can provide me with a diff from his record in which he states that he has recanted on the belief he expressed there, and no longer subscribes to that idea, then I will not, if such incidents arise in the future, remind him of his past beliefs by using this diff.
• (g)Your warning effectively means you are using your administrative powers to forbid me from ever using that specific diff, even if circumstances (improbably) might require me to do so to remind wikipedians of the fact. I take it therefore operatively to risk turning out to be a preemptive form of censorship whose objective, as opposed to intended, effect is to elide this information from being used in wikipedia, whenever disputes between parties on I/P articles, where Jaakobou is involved, arise. For the record I do not throw it about, but have used it twice, strictly to protect what I see as possible harassment of the only Palestinian woman editor we have here.
• (h) In the meantime, I affirm once more the contextual propriety and appropriateness of making the remark you characterise, wrongly, as a personal attack. If I happen to be wrong in my review and judgement, by all means proceed with a sanction, since clearly this would mean I am not possessed of a level of understanding of the rules required for editing wikipedia with equanimity and respect. Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but I watch this page and felt it indirectly involved me. Nishidani, I'm not sure you why you disagree with the warning, but it appears that you are directly accusing Jaakobou of racism based on a single statement from March, which he was blocked for and the statement was clearly retracted. Didn't you yourself tell us all (and me in particular) to uphold a 'collegiate atomsphere', keeping such accusations (bad faith of the worst kind) to ourselves? I further feel that the warning is justified given your history and apparently retracted (?) self-block for a very similar issue. Again, please keep up the collegiate atmosphere and let's actually collaborate.

P.S. If you're going to reply to this, please for my sake make a shorter comment than the previous one. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No need for apologies, and any comment you may wish to make here is always welcome. I don't blame Arthur Rubin for misreading things, because as his note on Jaakobou's page shows, he has not interacted with him in the past, except to respond here to Jaakobou's complaint, and may not be familiar with details, contexts and histories of interaction. Specifically, I challenge anyone to construe the diff as an attack, let alone an accusation that Jaakobou is a racist. I said Jaakobou expressed the idea, offensivem, that Tiamut hailed from a racist world.

'I have absolutely nothing against Muslims and/or Arabs' (Jaakobou's comment).

My reply.

'Please note, Jaakobou, that even when, on second thoughts, you reined in your remarks, you didn't see them as 'offensive', but, as one can see in this diff, possibly offensive. That your outburst proves you think Tiamut is heir to a terrorist and racist culture is obvious. You may have had second thoughts, but history is as the records state it, not as we would now rewrite it.

This is very straightforward, isn't it? I am reminding Jaakobou that he is on record as saying Arab culture is racist and terroristic, not that Jaakobou is racist, as both you and Rubin aver inexplicably. He made that on a page while interacting with Tiamut, who is a Palestinian Arab, and who lives within a culture that is historically infused with Islamic civilisation. All I added is the obvious 'heir'. We are all heirs to the culture we grow up in, and the one Tiamut grew up is was characterised as terroristic and racist. I did not say Jaakobou was a racist. I took him to task for asserting that his interlocutor was heir to a racist civilisation. You're a commendably close reader, and I think should appreciate the distinction, which is patent. A final point. If Jaakobou has a grievance, he should contact an editor who has absolutely no links to the I/P world, as editor, administrator, or potentially interested party. Let him argue his case there. I undertake not to oppose him, and stay silent. My announced withdrawal from wikipedia by the way reflected exasperation at poor behaviour over ChrisO's treatment in the Persian articles. My offense (uncivil) consisted in remarking, 'I'm fucked if it's worth the candle', as this warning once more underlines the superficiality and arbitrariness that characterize so much vexation for people who come here to edit to content, and not bicker endlessly for some provincial political POV. I have never been anything but collegial, and have a good record for remonstrating and reverting people whom many associate with my own POV. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're being quite fair here. Even if you don't think you're accusing Jaakobou of racism, and/or if you don't think your comments are offensive, clearly Jaakobou thinks they are, and so do Arthur Rubin any myself. This is analogous to what Jaakobou did in March (the diff you brought up), and he was blocked for it, despite later retracting the statement (i.e. maybe he didn't consider his own statements offensive when making them, but the community and admins did). Therefore, I'm not sure how the cases are different, and how the warning wasn't justified, when Jaakobou was actually blocked for a similar offense. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am now being accused of making an attack on the basis of two administrators making inferences. I'll be brief as requested. Show me where in that diff I accused Jaakobou of racism. Justify your writing this:it appears that you are directly accusing Jaakobou of racism, as opposed to my having reminded Jaakobou that he once defined the Arabic culture in which Tiamut grew up as racist. Please don't violate WP:SYNTH. Administrative judgements are on evidence, not on subjective reconstructions, suspicions, or inferences. Were I a stickler for the rules I would report you both for what appears to be a partisan use of administrative judgement. Of course I won't. On principle I never take formal action if insulted, but simply ignore it or defend myself on the appropriate talk page.Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The quote That your outburst proves you think Tiamut is heir to a terrorist and racist culture is obvious. seems like a blatant judgemental accusation of racism to me. Additionally, please desist from your threats to take this to one process or other; it is not required and violates WP:NPA. If you strongly feel that either Arthur Rubin or I have at any point violated policy, please feel free to report either of us to whatever process you see fit. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment on this. I would have to agree with Ynhockey here. Mentioning WP:SYNTH is at best disingenuous — it's a content policy. Let's try and comment on the content, rather than contributors. Stifle (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

How does one reply to administrators who consistently fail to construe English, ignore logic, disattend to context, and then proceed to make admonitions? Who consistently read my reminder to Jaakobou that he associated Tiamut with a terroristic and racist culture, as an accusation that Jaakobou is racist, and not as a reminder that he insinuated Tiamut's own cultural and social world is both terroristic and racist? You, gentlemen, have no problem with Jaakobou's remark, for which he was duly sanctioned. You have a problem with my reminding him of it in a context where Tiamut again complained of harassment. My remark was made on the 20th. It fell before the eyes of several fine administrators, indeed before the impeccably impartial gaze of one I think must rank as one of the finest in Wikipedia. No administrator on that page took exception to it. None read it as an attack. Two days later, someone comes up out of nowhere, presumably one of many contacted offline by Jaakobou with his complaint, and warns me. And thus, a possible lack of tact by Jaakobou in needling Tiamut with trivial cavils on a page written by a Palestinian woman he has twice offended, concludes without a verdict against Jaakobou (I think appropriately. Tactlessness is not sanctionable) but a NPA 3 warning (I still do not know what NPA 3 means) against myself for 'attacking' Jaakobou. Oh the the poor little fellow. Ever the victim. Ever the dogged emailer. Ever the object of insult when he calls Palestinians racist and terroristic. Go figure, but as I say, there's little point in replying to you, gentlemen, if your mastery of the wikirule book only serves instrumental ends, to make partisan judgements while misconstruing evidence. There's no point indeed in editing wikipedia if administrators are to consistently overlook commonsense when solidarity is at stake.Nishidani (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou has asked me to review this as an impartial, uninvolved administrator. I don't feel that your original comment was particularly constructive- reminding people of past comments for which they have been 'punished' and later retracted out of respect for the civil atmosphere required to edit effectively in what appears to be an attempt to refute their previous statement is only ever going to inflame situations. Whether or not Jaakobou still believes what he said is frankly irrelevent- he's welcome to believe what he likes, in my eyes, as long as he is working for the good of the encyclopedia in a way compliant with our policies. However, I do feel that a template warning was a little out of place- the comment isn't exactly the most offensive thing I have ever read. That said, your reaction seems to have just made the situation worse- I can appreciate what you are saying does make sense, but it's still not really helping matters- your last comment (the "always the victim" stuff) is again crossing the line. If you genuinely did not mean to cause offence, and genuinely did not mean to accuse Jaakobou of being a racist, saying as much and apologising would have diffused the situation completely. Instead, your meticulous defence of your comment just comes across as childishness dressed up in long words and logic. You're getting caught up in semantics- this isn't an argument for the existence of God. No matter how right we are, we should always avoid causing offence. J Milburn (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm busy this afternoon shifting 30 quintals of split logs thirty metres. I have a reply in mind, but this will have to do, since the other is slower in coming. I can't help being longwinded. It is simply that youngsters in wiki are used to diffs and repartee, and everywhere I see the obvious ignored, precisely because contemporary culture is apparently uncomfortable with attempts to be precise and reading closely for context and nuance, which strike most as boring (more than two minutes). That is why we are in Iraq. The public, and journalists, didn't care much for the fine print commenting on the brief executive decisions made on shonky grounds.

If one paragraph of cogent self-defence against the use of a monitory template you yourself think perhaps a touch ill-advised is to be construed as 'childishness dressed up in long words and logic', I can smile at myself with the Shakespearean reflection on my 'sixth age slipping into the lean and slippered pantaloon', of course. Or I can ponder over age and professional differences: no colleague in my own field of specialization ever took me to task for misreading difficult texts. To the contrary. I only get this from the young, and from wikipedians, who read a few diffs on issues they do not know the background of, skip nuance, context and logic, and make a rapid call before moving on. The result? It is suggested I apologize for noting to an editor who branded a woman's culture as racist and terroristic, that he should use more tact in interacting with her, given his 'personal perspective' on Arabs, which was never retracted. You're quite right: Jaakobou is entitled to think, privately, as he once did publicly, of Arabs, raised within an Islamic civilization, as Tiamut is, as 'racist' (note further down in my original diff. He did not strike out the second use of 'racist'). I.e. Jaakobou is entitled to privately think that Arabs are racists and terroristic. Nishidani is not entitled to publicly remind him, when he observes the man interacting with a Palestinian Arab woman, of his perspective, as a reminder to take extreme care against offending her as he did in the past.

To the contrary, my remarking the obvious is only grounds for several administrators asking me to apologize to Jaakobou, who never retracted his original assertion that people of Tiamut's background grow up in a racist-terroristic culture. He accused Tiamut of belonging to a racist world, and I am hauled over the coals by people who think reminding him of this, delicately, constitutes a 'personal attack'.

If I publicly upbraided someone for saying to a Jewish friend of mine that Palestinians are victims of a 90 year old terroristic racist campaign, and that terror and racism is part of Israeli/Jewish culture. If, months later, watching their interactions, I thought it necessary to remind the original offender to watch his p's and q's because his behaviour had a certain ambivalence about it that clearly worried my friend, what would happen? I don't know. But analogically this is what would have happened had wiki realities ensued.

The original offender, examined originally for harassment and antisemitic remarks, would complain in turn of harassment and cite my remark or reminder as evidence of my offensive behaviour. Ombudsmen would be contacted, and glancing at my remark would say I'm too verbose, too finicky with details, rather childish in my 'meticulous logic', and should apologize, that I'm a party pooper for upsetting a civil atmosphere, and deserve a final warning about personal attacks on the said person. The person who, months back, accused my Jewish friend of belonging to a racist culture, would emerge, paradoxically, as the only real victim of a 'personal attack', namely my caution to him would be construed, by a subjective inference, as implying he is a racist for branding his adversary a racist. Everything else would be irrelevant. I would of course shrug this off as the world's usual quixotry when it comes to ethical coherence: but my Jewish friend, standing silently on the sideline, would I think be perplexed at this miracle: that he, the victim, had been forgotten, while the one person who extended him a protective hand, in conformity with an ancient code of manners, but not in conformity to the peculiar institutions of the place where these incidents occurred, would now be indicted for aggressive behaviour, warned not to protect his friend again by ever naming that prior evidence in the presence of the original offender, and wryly pained that his antagonist emerges as the final victor, as aggrieved and injured party by common, and authoritative consent.

Humpty Dumpty logic indeed, especially if you consider that the original remark refers to an editing exchange over an episode where, after 1900, mainly unarmed Palestinians were shot in 5 days for protesting at their occupation, a small number of militants, after the passage of some months, adopted terrorist tactics against Israeli civilians in what they thought was retaliation. But back to the woodpile. Nishidani (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Unlike others here, nobody has asked me to involve myself, but I want to intercede because the way that Nishidani is being treated makes me feel deeply uneasy. If somebody makes a claim for themselves, I think that it is entirely justified to quote their own earlier remarks back at them if they show that the claim is untrue, particularly if the claim is made on the Administration Enforcement page. The quoted remark may have been retracted, but it was retracted because it breached Wikipedia rules rather than because the remarker thought the remark was untrue. The claim that Nishidani called Jaakobou a racist is absurd and I think that Nishidani is owed an apology rather than the other way round. To give only Nishidani (and PalestineRemembered, I think) a warning for a comment that was nowhere near the worst of what might be construed as personal attacks in a section of the Administration Enforcement page where they were flying thick and fast looks like victimisation. "No matter how right we are, we should always avoid causing offence." Really? Since, then, it looks as though Nishidani was offended by being given a warning, by being told that he had called someone a racist and, possibly, by being told that his reactions came across as childishness, does that mean that all those things shouldn't have been done or said? -- ZScarpia (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Addendum. A short primer on logic for first-graders

Speaker A (1):'The Arab world, Islam inspired cultural structure is the main cause of the Arab-Palestinian 91 year racist terror campaign against the Jewish-Palestinians,'

Speaker A (2)'I have absolutely nothing against Muslims and/or Arabs'

Speaker B. 'Statement (2) is contradicted by Statement (1).'

Administrator C. 'To remind speaker A of the contradiction between his two statements constitutes a personal attack on A. Repeat a notification of this contradiction to A and you will be punished.'

Speaker B. 'Let me contextualize. Speaker A made his first comment in the presence of an Arab (D). He made his second comment when D later complained of harassment by A, whose first statement implicitly defined that Arab's world as one whose culture is characterised historically by terrorism and racism against Jews. It was therefore an attack on D as hailing from a civilisation that is structured by antisemitism and terrorism.'

Administrator C 'It appears that you are directly accusing A of racism.'

Speaker B. 'No, I am reminding A that he accused D of racism.'

Administrators C, E, F. 'Forget about D. In reminding A of his attack on D, you are attacking A, and some of us think you are accusing A of racism and terrorism. What is important here is what we consider to be an attack by you on A, not the fact that A attacked D as heir to a racist terroristic culture, and then prevaricated when the two clashed again.'

Speaker B.'To remind a person of what he said is not an attack.'

Administrators (apparently). 'Four of us think you, in that diff, are accusing A of belonging to an Israeli world, Judaism-inspired cultural structure which you think is the main cause of the Israeli-Jewish 91 year racist terror campaign against the Palestinians.'

At this point B is forced to retire. The possibilities are three. Either (a) he is an idiot, (b) administrators can't read English, though they write it, or (c) ethnic sympathies and subtextual politics trump logic. Whatever, this is too eerily reminiscent of Harold Pinter's dialogues in his comedies of menace, and he has no intention of playing the eternal role of a whingeing victim against a cast of people unable to construe a simple piece of English, or understand the elementary forms of the syllogism, especially when such people exercise administrative functions. Alternatively, he may indeed be an idiot, in which case his aspirations to contribute to wikipedia are misplaced and rightly blocked by administrative consensus.Nishidani (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

As one of the administrators involved, I really don't see the logic in any of this. If this really is what happened, then there is no contradiction between (1) and (2), unless one wants to redefine "Muslims" in (2) to mean "Muslims who participate in 'The Arab world, Islam inspired cultural structure'"; and (1) is not a racist attack unless perhaps D believes that there is an "... Arab world, Islam inspired cultural structure" and that he belongs to it.

As an aside, there are Jews who believe that Zionism (which might be described as 'an Israeli, Judaism-inspired culture') is the root cause of the Palestine Problem. That's not racism, either. Just because "A" is unable to name the specific culture which he considers the root of the problem, doesn't make his comments racist.

In the hypothetical, A is blameless, although not all of B's actions are inappropriate. If A later said something that really did contradict (1), he should be called on it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Have I understood you correctly as saying that I deserved a NPA3 warning because, as speaker B, I made an incorrect inference about A's statements 1 and 2, i.e., I saw a contradiction where none, in your view, existed? Nishidani (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, and here I was speaking to the hypothetical. (rereading the hypothetical, what does "in the presence of D" mean on Wikipedia?) In the specific instance, your actions may have only been of NPA2 quality, but it was still a personal attack as a clear misinterpretation of J's statement (1) (more or less; I don't see (1) as being identical to what J said). PR's attack probably deserved an NPA4, as he's been on notice and possibly on probation for past violations in regard the Palestinian Question. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

'In the presence of' i.e., Jaakobou made his remarks while in dialogue with Tiamut, an Arab woman, on a talk page.

'more or less; I don't see (1) as being identical to what J said.'

That is impossible. (1) is a direct quotation of Jaakobou's words, here, remarks for which he was given a one week suspension in March 2008, for intimating to an Arab person his personal view at that time, at least, that the world to which she belonged was the cause of a century long campaign of racism and terror against Jews in Palestine. You can say that 'the Arab world' does not mean 'Arabs', and that a 'Muslim' does not denote someone inspired by Islamic culture, but only if you thinkGilbert Ryle's terse deconstruction of 'Category mistakes' (The Concept of Mind, 1949 ch.1, esp.pp.17-19) is just rubbish of the usual kind from a Waynflete philosopher.

I can prove my point either historically, or syllogistically. My problem is that I fail to understand why you think the diff you cited, which merely documented a discrepancy between Jaakobou's statement 2, and his earlier statement, is an attack, and therefore I do not know which form of argument you prefer, since I still cannot perceive what you took to be an attack in my words. None of the dozen administrators who followed that thread found anything problematic about it, even after Jaakobou said he found the reminded offensive. I don't wish you to waste time, but could you do me the courtesy of clarifying why my reminder of the dyscrasia between statement 1 and 2 was an attack, rather than, as I thought it was, a gentle nudge to Jaakobou not to strain credibility? Thank you Nishidani (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the subtle difference may be as simple as an article choice. I read J's original comment as that there is an Islam inspired cultural structure which is the main cause ...., while you (and possibly D) read it as the Islam inspired cultural structure is the main cause.... ("Heir to terrorist culture", however, seems to be your statement alone, although a possible interpretation of D's misinterpretation of J's comment.) I think it can be taken for granted there is not a single Islam-inspired culture, just as there's isn't a single Jewish- or Christian- inspired culture. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be late in replying, Arthur. The answer I wrote last night was wiped out by some glitch while being processed. It was a boring analysis on the distinction between parenthetic and epexegetic remarks, as they bear on the interpretation of Jaakobou's sloppy wording. Reconstructing, I will spare you the details. But, in short, he used The not an in referring to Tiamut's 'Arab world', in so far as its culture was informed ('inspired') by Islam, which is both a civilization and a religion.

The remark on the Islamic mindset of the Arab world you say I misinterpreted and in doing so, ‘offended’ Jaakobou, earned Jaakobou a week’s suspension in March 18 precisely because it was deemed grossly offensive. In that discussion Jaakobou said 'I consider the Palestinian population to also be victims of this mentality,' where the 'mentality' was the Islamic culture informing Tiamut's Palestinian Arab world in what Jaakobou construed to be its terroristic racist campaign against Jews in Palestine since the Balfour Declaration. This means he viewed his interlocutor, the Palestinian Tiamut, as a victim (I replaced this with 'heir') of a racist/terroristic mindset.

I.e. I, like the administrators who suspended Jaakobou, misunderstood what Jaakobou said. An injustice was done by administrators back in March 2008, when within two weeks of each other, in two separate instances, he was hauled before AN/1 for what not only Tiamut but several estimable administrators thought offensive remarks about Palestinians, likening them to Red Indians in the wild West (Bank) and their culture as both racist and terroristic in so far as it is informed by Islam. By citing this remark, then, I am repeating an offensive decision made by Arbcom?

In case this is too elliptical. See the following. It’s exceedingly boring, but I would ask you to glance at the context in which Jaakobou made the remark I am condemned for citing, for it informs the background for my suggestion, which you take as an attack, that Jaakobou's affirmation he had nothing against Muslims or Arabs was either disingenuous or a prevarication. The words Jaakobou found offensive were a reminder of words he used which Wikipedia community found ugly on March 17-18, 2008 here and here, as a very even-handed administrator had found offensive two weeks earlier, his mockery of Tiamut's expression of grief for the 'collateral damage' of indiscriminate bombing of Gaza on March 2, 2008.In that last instance, Jaakobou mimicked a box on Tiamut's page replacing its picture of Gazans 'in happier days' with one on his own page, showing Indians 'in happier days'. As anyone familiar with Zionist literature knows (one can find the stereotype criticized in Victor Klemperer's diaries, November 1934, from memory), Palestinians have often been likened to American Indians, people to be dispossessed, and driven towards cultural if not physical extinction, as the 'West'(Bank) is conquered by a more vigorous and sophisticated society. The point apparently was, 'you'll go the way of the Indians of the wild West'. Few noticed this innuendo, as is usual. Regards (take your time, I already feel I am abusing it by what must appear to be a rather casuistic attempt to redress what I consider a slight to my honour, if made, as I believe, by an understandable misprision).

I should add that I do not wish to review Jaakobou's record. I adduce it only in so far as it throws light on why I saw a discrepancy between his two statements. It's my propriety as an editor that concerns me, not his past. Nishidani (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Above I gave the historical background. I should conclude with the logical reasoning for my remark, which you construe as an attack.

Jaakobou’s original remark

This remark, as was the 'clarification' on the AN/I thread, was addressed to, among others, Tiamut.

• (1) The Arab world has an Islam-inspired cultural structure
• (2) I consider the Palestinian population to also be victims of this mentality
• (3)(1) is the cause of a racist-terror campaign against Jews in Palestine.

Tiamut is (a) Palestinian, (b) she is an Arab, (c) she is a heir to Islamic civilization (Arabic mother-language and culture, as opposed to faith) (d) Jaakobou’s interlocutor at the time these remarks were made(e) She is critical of the Zionist construction of the history of Palestine and Israel, a construction Jaakobou edits to defend.

From these contextual elements I simply remarked, when Jaakobou said he had absolutely nothing against Muslims and/or Arabs, that to the contrary,

‘your (original) outburst proves you think Tiamut is heir to a terrorist and racist culture is obvious.’

In propositional terms.

• (a) The Islamicized culture of the Arab world engages in racist terror against Jews in Palestine.
• (b) Palestinians are victims of this cultural mentality.
• (c) Tiamut is an Arab Palestinian who edits to balance Israeli/Jewish POVs on I/P articles.

My inference was that, contextually, Jaakobou did imply by his remark, and later clarification, that he took Tiamut’s views as corroborating his perception that Palestinians/Arabs, of which she is one, are victims/heirs of a terrorist/racist culture.

That may be disputed as an incorrect inference. It cannot be construed as a personal attack, since it is simply a perfectly legitimate construal of Jaakobou’s own stated views, within the specific contexts (conflict with Tiamut over I/P articles) where they were expressed. To warn one here is to establish a precedent for challenging perfectly legitimate inferences from explicit statements made by a party, as an attack on that party. Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ignorance

I was troubled that you beleive that Israel has turned Gaza into a concerntration camp. You find two interesting similarites: "since no one can get in, or out, and all have been on starvation rations." Yet this does not automatically designate a place a Concerntration Camp. You could maybe call it a POW camp. When the Israelis start sending the children, women and the infirm off to the left, then we can start comparing. Chesdovi (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

'We'?

'When 2.5 million people live in a closed-off Gaza, it’s going to be a human catastrophe. Those people will become even bigger animals than they are today(2004, before the disengagement), with the aid of an insane fundamentalist Islam. The pressure on the border is going to be awful. It’s going to be a terrible war. So, if we want to remain alive, we will have to kill and kill and kill. All day, every day.. The only thing that concerns me, he says, “is how to ensure that the boys and men who are going to have to do the killing will be able to return home to their families and be normal human beings.” Ruthie Blum,'ONE on ONE:It's the Demography, Stupid. An interview with geographer/demographer Arnon Soffer'. The Jerusalem Post, May. 20, 2004

If you know your Holocaust history, you will recognize Himmler's words at Minsk to Einsatzgruppe B Commander Nebe in what Arnon Soffer said. Identical. In Jewish camp slang, as Primo Levi reminds us, people who had lost the will to live, and therefore were to be culled for the ovens, were called 'Muslims'. I could go one with the analogies for approximately 20 pages, but would only be indicted for soapboxing. All peoples aspire to read their own histories with some peculiar sense of exemption from the ethics that unite us in a common humanity. To each his own conscience. Conscience is never collective. It is individual or nothing, that bristling tremor of unease in the skin when memory of the past rubs up against some present evil one has been drawn into, and whispers,'what I now do or justify is what I deplored when it happened to me, or my kin in the past'. Unfortunately, we live in a world where all nations cry exceptionalism, and no one remembers, unless the memory serves as a cosy collective prod for self-defensive grievance. That is one of our modern pathologies, that we have buried a very primitive sense that murmured, 'But for the grace of God, there go I' whenever some wretch, of whatever colour or description, suffers.Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

However many analogies you find, you will never be able to equate the Holocaust with the situation in Gaza. I will find just as many that make it differ. If only the UN operated in the ghettos, if only the Red Cross vans in Aushwitz were really genuine... The people of Gaza it seems lost their will to live long ago with the onset of their suicide bombings, not the "seige". We cannot deny people in Gaza are suffering. But it is interesting when people compare it using Holocaust lingo. Chesdovi (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know and recognize that tired voice, mumbling vapid variations on the usual manufactured clichés. 'We suffer more than anyone else, therefore to us everything is permitted, and those who suffer as a consequence of our 'reprisals' are the real guilty, and have only themselves to blame if they die on the steets from the 'collateral damage' of an imported American 2000 bunker-busting bomb'. A handful of these people blew up restaurants in Israel in suicide attacks 5-7 years ago, therefore all Palestinians are game from that point on, by virtue of collective guilt. The same logic of the 1930s. Herschel Grynszpan, a Jew, retaliated for the wrongs done his people, by assassinating the German ambassador to Paris, Ernst von Rath, and therefore, as a just retaliation, we got Kristallnacht, since all Jews were to held to blame for his single act. 'Muslims' in the slang of Auschwitz, meant people who lost the will to life, and were therefore deemed ready for the ovens. I did not make the Holocaust analogy: I replied to your charge of ignorance by reminding you of Jewish history, of which the Holocaust in all its aspects was one. Half of the murdered were Slavs, and Gypsies. They have never made a politics of ethical supremacy of the fact. But I won't argue, if your mind is so vulgar that you think people locked up for for decades in a concentration camp are to be condemned for having lost their will to live. It is the time's curse when the blind lead the blind, and the deaf quibble and rant on the sidelines as cheerleaders.Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I mention that the situation is Gaza is not comparable to a concerntration camp and you automatically think that I am playing the victim card and excuse Israel's actions. Well, that was never my intention here. And while you will tell me that you never mentioned the Holocaust, the fact the you choose to use the words concerntration camp in this case is, as I said, interesting. You will tell me you were refering to the ones of the Boer war, etc. But I suspect you do indeed refer to those of WW2. Or am I making the same misconception you had about me? I am sure the Popes cardinal was also trying to make a connection with Jewish suffering to the suffering Israel is inflicting. You will notice that in many current protests, from among many instances of brutal reigmes, Israel is equated with Nazism. Intersting. Anyway, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and suggest you refer to a certain type of camp which is far removed from the connotations most people have when the words "concerntration camp" are mentioned. Maybe I am the one ignorant of these types of camps! Chesdovi (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this. Concentration camps were invented by the Spanish, developed by the British (in South Africa) and Italians in Libya. They spread to Russia after the revolution and grew into the vast machinery Solzhenitsyn described in the Gulag archipelago, which crammed into its voracious maw over 10 million. Hitler was more familiar with the British, and established them immediately after assuming the reins of power in 1933, for communists, homosexuals, dissidents, Gypsies and of course Jews. We have the gulag system, the laogai system which was as extensive in China, and still in part survives. They were all concentration camps and collectively over 30-50 million passed through them. Every survivor of these respective systems has told us of scenes reminiscent of Dante's inferno. It is our collective past, and the property of no one country or people.

Israel is a country. Nazism was (and still is, where it survives) an ideology. To make an equation between a country and an ideology is not only stupid, it is simply a confusion of categories. There is a little of the Nazi in all of us, I think, Reich once wrote. Not for that would it follow that we are all Nazis. Anyone with an honest eye can catch this in all innocence watching most children as they play collectively, in aggressive contexts, esp. with animals. Perhaps that is what Catholics mean by their doctrine of original sin. I really don't care how 'most people' express themselves, except to the extent that, in thinking, I feel unnerved if what comes into my mind sounds like something bounced off the infosphere, or is seeded with the raw assumptions of what Heidegger called Gerede. I do appreciate your giving me the benefit of the doubt. I like to benefit from doubts, especially when they overcome me while reading what I write. I am becoming spick and span. It must be the soap in the soapbox. Nishidani (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from obscene soapboxing.

Your "found an accomplice or willing executioner" in reference to Israel[1] is a grotesque soapbox and more fitting for an antisemitic Iranian holocaust denying blogger than a Wikipedia editor. Please avoid calling Israeli self-defense a "willing executioner" in the future.
Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you go back to school and learn to construe the finer points of English. It was asserted, and edited into the text by several pro-Israeli POV-warriors that Hamas's whole strategy in the present conflagration was to satisfy a 'desire for death' as opposed to Israel's 'desire for life'. I took this shabby piece of hasbara 'fact'sheet propaganda, and placed an 'if' clause. This, Jaakobou, was therefore a rhetorical gambit, pitched in the ironical form, 'if, as you assert . . ', 'then it would follow'. As to soapboxing, and other violations of wiki NPA procedures, in your remark you have just broken WP:AGF, and WP:NPA, though being a grown man and not a wimp, I won't of course report it. For you have decapitated my nuanced hypothetical to make it into a statement of belief, and then associated the view you then attribute to me as more or less equivalent to 'an antisemitic Iranian holocaust denying blogger'(s)', whereas they are more or less identical with those of the eminently respectable mainstream historian of Israel, Geoffrey Wheatcroft or of that outstanding Israeli, Uri Avnery. Technically, then, this latest snippet in your ongoing campaign to engineer an impression before administrators that somehow I am abusively loose with offensive language illustrates a line in Hamlet:

'the enginer(is)Hoist with his own petar

What wikipedians more usually call a case of the pot calling the kettle marijuana. Nice try. Keep it up. It's one of the few things that amuse me in these dire times. Still, I'm in no mood for amusement, so in future, do me the courtesy of keeping these mendacious insinuations, and your presence, off my page. If you can't help making an attack, use the routine you employed earlier - contact a potentially favourable administrator offline, sweettalk him or her up with the usual horrid fact sheet detailing my monstrous views and behaviour, and hope for the best. Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the "if" part is true which makes your "then" part a flagrant hyperbole. Pay attention to sources and stop spreading anti-Zionist soapboxing please. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this "warning" is an extreme overreaction to his comment, which itself was an unnecessary reply to a comment that should not have been made. Neither of you really need to be reminded, but just in case - article talkpages are for discussing ways to improve the article. Debating your biases, or lack thereof, has no place here. Debating the subject itself, and not the article, has no place here. If you aren't able to hold to this and still converse with each other, then you should refrain from interacting anymore than absolutely necessary - that includes correcting inflammatory and wrong remarks that are unrelated to improving an article. Both of you know better, and Jaakobou -using words like grotesque and obscene to describe the comments of others, particularly (in my opinion) Nishidani, is completely unacceptable. Avruch ^T 23:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling Israel a "willing executioner" is indeed a grotesque hyperbole and to be frank, an antisemitic commentary to Jewish people defending themselves from rocket attacks (god forbid). I have no intentions and don't believe I talk about Nishidani's personal attributes, but his comment was wholly out of place and your "everybody's at fault" comment here is just a misunderstanding of how obscene the soapboxing was (and always is). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

His comment was an "if, then" statement - as you no doubt realize, he doesn't agree with the "if" and so was making the "then" for effect, and not as an assertion of fact. Read in that light, its intriguing rather than offensive - but also, as I've said, out of place either way. Avruch ^T 00:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've never said this, Jaakobou, because the comment I will make can be in turn taken as a piece of flattery, as a 'move' to butter up someone, and get administrators on my side. But the context requires it, however it may be taken. Avruch is one of those few administrators in whom I have perfect confidence. If he, reviewing anything I wrote that was taken to be an infraction of the rules, were to decide against me, and for the plaintiff, then I'd tumble off my highhorse, despite inner reservations, and accept that I was careless and deserved a warning, as I would with several others, like PhilKnight, Gatoclass, Avi, etc. I've had minor differences with them all, and with Avruch and Avi I'd probably have significant differences in perspective, were it proper to discuss them, which it isn't. These are administrators who exemplify a quality of scruple, close attention to drift and detail and fairness that is far above the average, and approximates to the ideal of this small world (David Lodge)'s supervisory mechanisms. Here Avruch has not sided with me. He has construed a sentence as the logic of English requires it to be construed, and as I insisted it must be construed. He has asked us both to shut up on extratextual disagreements, as futile and immaterial to the job we are asked to perform. I commend and accept both points, and the admonition to focus on articles, not on opportunities to hyperventilate.

I take therefore to heart his suggestion that we should not interact: indeed, I admit that I erred in being reactive, and should not have responded to provocations. I do not make a practice of insinuating things on other editors' pages, nor in complaining to administrators whenever an opportunity might present itself. I do get somewhat polemical when I see inflammatory one-sided interpretations of, or wall-eyed approaches to, realities we are obliged to describe neutrally, since I foresee an exasperating degree of fatigue in the wings when most issues are minor flaps that could be resolved by a little mutual fluffing of plumes. On these occasions, I do go my windbaggery way, as a minor paladin in these Piepowder Courts, to defend a principle. WP:SOAP is my major offense - I find myself tempted to say things to clarify metatextual points that often my interlocutors ignore because the failure to take them into implicit understanding, in my view, affects the way we evaluate sources and evidence. Malice, gamesmanship or antisemitism, despite what you often aver, are not part of my temperamental baggage. So let's drop it.Nishidani (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Note to self. Everytime I hear Hamas quoted on the 'desire for death', I will now recall the graffiti scribbled by occupying soldiers on the walls of a house near the Samouni's home, where some 48 died.

'Inside and outside the home, graffiti had been daubed in Hebrew and English, with slogans including Arabs need to die, "Arabs: 1948 to 2009" and "Make war, not peace".' Cited Rory McCarthy, ‘Inside Gaza: Israeli troops have vanished but the damage is plain to see,’ The Guardian, 19/01/2009

Psychologists call it "projection". Obviously, somebody here (in your quote) is putting their faith in death and destruction. But the acolytes of this murderous ideology do not choose to see themselves; instead, they project their inhuman faith onto their victims. In that way, the killer can pretend that he is simply acceding to the desire of the victim. Thus, the killer is able, once again, to evade responsibility and retain his childhood state of "Innocence". The physical damage done to the victim is horrifying, but the spiritual damage the aggressor does to himself is worse. Those who dehumanize others end up dehumanizing and damning themselves.

That is why we cringe in these discussions: The naked soullessness shocks us. Our automatic reaction is to rend our compassion and channel it towards the physical victim. That is a mistake, because the spiritual victim (the aggressor) is the one most desperately in need of our tough love. NonZionist (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Who cringes in discussion? It's just not part of the rulebook that one divagate in this way during editing. I might agree with you on much. But one good solidly grounded edit that sticks, is worth more than a thousands effusions of 'tough love'. We're not here to convince our interlocutors: we are here to make sure a text reads neutrally, and gets the facts germane to a comprehensive narrative straight. Hamlet somewhere says, in reaction to Laertes's excess of grief,

If thou prate of mountains, let them throw

Millions of acres upon us, till our ground

Singeing his pate against the burning zone,

Make Ossa like a wart. Nay, an thou'lt mouth,

I'll rant as well as thou.

'Ranting' is partially excused from time to time, if one does so, rarely, in exasperation at some ranting provocation from left field, but as Avruch reminds us, we're here to edit, and should avoid such occasions of reciprocal incitement ('of our reason and our blood', Hamlet again). It should not be an avocation here. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Who cringes? I do, instinctively. It's human nature, and it explains why criminals so often get the best of us and rise to the top: We shrink from their pain.

Yes, I am here to edit: I just fixed a missing source problem over at Ahmadinejad, and it felt good. But I'm too involved to edit the Israel articles properly -- the one article I did contribute is mired in vehement controversy. It is better that I contribute mainly on the talk page. My aim there is to help the active editors to produce a clearer and more balanced article. I do this by offering my political insight, fomenting dialogue, and voting on issues. Ranting is exactly what I try to avoid and discourage. What I write may seem like ranting sometimes, because I come from a dissident vantage, but a genuine rant is accompanied by outraged passion, and I exhausted by outrage long ago. Thanks for your interest! NonZionist (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy new year, Nishidani. It's been a little while; I hope things have been going well for you. Looking at your talk page it would seem that you are fighting a little war. I must respect your vigor in the face of questionable opposition.

The Israeli / Palestinian situation of late certainly is tragic. Other than following the news, I regret that I am not versed enough to make any useful contributions, though. Once upon a time you used to make extremely valuable contributions to Japan-related topics. If you feel like taking a break from the status-quo, let me renew that invitation. You're always welcome. Best wishes, Bendono (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamding Tsering

I thought you might be interested. --J.Mundo (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, can't help. I did once seriously consider becoming a Tibetan Buddhist, but my knowledge of Tibetans in any sport other than the one they excel in, philosophical dialectics, is execrably poor. The issue you raise only stirs in me memories of Orgyen Tobgyal in The Cup, an exquisite film. Regards Nishidani (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

israel-gaza lead

Hello, would you mind taking a look at the lead I proposed at [2]; I would like to get this to the point that there cannot be any possible contention with any of it, and JGGardiner makes some interesting points. Thanks (and much respect for everything I have seen you write), Nableezy (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am indeed new to this area of wikiland, I spent a lot of time reading near every A/I article and their talk page, including all the archives (I have a boring job with 4 monitors, tend to do a lot of reading), so I am familiar with many of the 'players' in these articles. So when I say 'respect for everything I have seen you write' it is quite an expansive set that I compliment you on. I hope I can continue to edit here as well (lets just see if I get fired for spending 80% of my work day on the wiki). A compliment on the quality of my work from you, needless to say, is high praise, and I am very thankful. Peace and happiness, Nableezy (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Dont mean to put words in your mouth but I *think* you meant versions 1 and 3 are acceptable as you said 'Version 2 is totally unacceptable' before saying 'versions 1 and 2 are acceptable interim solutions' Nableezy (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. Thanks and I did see your compliment on the article talk so thanks for that also. I appreciate your work on the talk page also. It feels funny sometimes patting ourselves on the back for merely being a little reasonable. But somehow that deserves it around here.

Don't feel bad, I think that Nableezy agrees with Cerejota as well. And I do also really. But I think one can agree with Cerejota's point and support our version as well. The "intensified" part of the paragraph really had nothing to do with the version we created. We were just incorporating what was already there. It was more about modifying the third sentence and adding the fourth.

I don't feel bad either. I always say what I think on the talk page. We only started working together because Nableezy was good enough to react to my concerns. If he wasn't involved in the page my comments have just ended up in the ether. Like most of my comments do.

The only really upsetting thing is that someone keeps adding that picture of the Pears soap with the "get out of the soap box" caption. You stand on a soap box, not in it! --JGGardiner (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

disappointed

I guess the one thing I learned from this is that it is impossible to achieve an accurate, neutral wording by just trying to offer that accurate neutral wording. So many people are going to fight for their extreme that it almost necessitates going to the other extreme to get it back to what is neutral. That somebody even offered that 'option 2' as a neutral suggestion is beyond me. Whatever, I guess some people are so far gone out of reality that it won't matter at all what is actually real. Thanks for the help though, and best wishes. Nableezy (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The conflict on the ground is driven by a conflict in ideology, something we Americans are not supposed to know anything about, and something that is not given sufficient treatment here in wikipedia. Ideology is a denial of neutrality and a loss of faith in reality -- truth is the first casualty in war. If there were a way for us all to agree, there would be a way for us to stop killing one another. Because ideology disdains reality, it is a suicidal gesture: Fascist powers are the ultimate "suicide bombers".

Our penchant for asking too many inconvenient questions reveals our pathetically archaic insistence on belonging to "the reality-based community," as one top White House advisor famously put it to reporter Ron Suskind:

"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"

-- Justin Raimondo (2005-03-11). "The Wonderful Wizard of Washington / If ever a Wiz there was -- our fantasy-based foreign policy".

But my main reason for visiting, Nishidani, is your edit to my talk page. I suppose I owe you a 'thank you' for deleting the anonymous comment -- I am already out on the soapbox limb and I don't need to go out any farther. On the other hand, I remain committed to dialogue, and I'm convinced that it is possible to have a productive and civil dialogue with 213.8.96.48. Yes, call me naive! Anyway, I have faith in your judgment and I regard you as a friend, but, for the record, I'm not happy about losing the opportunity to continue the conversation! Any thoughts? NonZionist (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No apologies needed, since what I did was both presumptuous and vaguely paternalistic. I half expected a kick up the virtual coit, or a tweak of the intrusive snout, for barging in.

Most dialogues don't follow the Platonic model. They are, as the saying now goes, dialogues of the deaf. Indeed this variety is the norm. Dialogue is only fruitful if, with both parties, the ear is as attuned as finely as the tongue is trained to wag its tail at the first promptings of inward thought. We must learn to listen, not only to what is said, but what is not said in our interlocutors. Before that we do well to learn to listen to ourselves, and hear the murmur of dissonance in our own convictions.

For example 'fascist'. I generally use the term comically, as an old man, and exclusively to make my brother laugh. (He:'They forgot to pick up the dustbins' - Me: 'fascists'/He: 'this icecream's nowhere near like that cone we had in Hawaii 50 years ago': Me:'Yeah. I bet the vendor's dad was a fascist').

I do this because I take the phenomenon as far too important to be used anywhere but in highly analytic contexts, or as comic relief, to make fun of my own serious beliefs. To brandish it wildly is to travesty a problem that goes far deeper than fascism - the genocidal character of the century that just passed, from the destruction of the Herero people, down to recent times, which covers the way many states have acted: Germany, Italy, the Soviet Union, the United States, China, to name but a few. Anything fascists did, was done by Communists, save for the attempted extermination of the Jewish, Gypsy and Slavic peoples. Fascism was in this recursive to the past, and thought tribally, while embracing the latest technology. Communism (and I am Marxistically minded) was predominantly futuristic and thought of eliminating classes rather than ethnoi.

If you use, in a dialogue, the word 'fascist', you set off in your interlocutor a train of associations - communist, leftie, red, illiberal, subversive, ranting Hyde Parker from the fringe lunatic left, etc - that will generate a similar kind of response from yourself, Pavlovian, predictable. There is absolutely no point, unless one cares for language sufficiently to tread around it with care, (Servius spoke of Vergil licking his words into shape, like a she-bear did her cubs - this is too high an aspiration for mere conversation, of course), and the 'other' shows some responsiveness to nuance, for a 'dialogue' to take place. What you will get is a shooting match as two people talk past each other, and this is tantamount to wasting time.

Not all conversation should be subject to some code of mystical quietude and hyper-attentive pilpulism. Most of it, happily, never will be. We can say a lot without such anal 'rectitude' for le mot juste. But talk too much without thinking either about why you wish to talk or who the person prompting you to talk is, tends to wither one, in the end.

All we would like to say, on either side, about Israel and the Palestinians, has already been said, written, discussed, analysed ad nauseam. Despite this, few budge from their positions, and most attempts at discursive resolution end up as chess-matches of cunning, or overblown restatements of the usual rhetorical pabulum. Esp. in wiki I/P areas, where, underneath much intensive editing, a political conflict and an ideological wariness, tramples over any inconvenient fact. To yield on a point is taken as conceding politically capital one could well withhold from the indigent hands of the other.

And, in any case, we're here not to espouse our views, or exploit this medium as a forum, but simply to build an encyclopedia. If one is committed, as you and I am, to speak of the pro-Palestinian side, to securing an adherence to the principles of neutrality in articles dealing with these people, then we do well to do just that, not waste time in futile exchanges, but in study, preparation, and the search for effective data, reliably grounded, to get into these pages, that gives the full picture. It's a battle, but, reflect. Every moment spent in improper expositions of one's convictions might look, as it often does to Palestinians, as a betrayal of the ostensible good will, which they would surely rather that we show by concrete work on articles about them, rather than ostentatious conflicts with our colleagues about our respective world-views. I have to dine, unfortunately, and am, once more abusing this medium, but you asked for a word of advice, and this is what came to mind. Regards, and take care. Most people don't. Those who do, don't need to wear it one their sleeves. Ps. What Suskind wrote was said by Clinton, was said even earlier by . . but that would be an essay. It's true, these guys think like that. But it's also as old as the hill.Nishidani (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A disease that killed thirty million people is a disease worth remembering. We ought to at least learn the name of this affliction, so that we can recognize it and take preventative measures, should it appear again. That's why I use the term "fascist". I would no more delete the word from my dictionary than I would delete "malaria" or "pnemonia". That some people use the term in jest or derogation is not my problem: They have their world, and I have mine, and mine will outlast theirs! LOL! Anyway, it is not the job of an encyclopedia to mince words or censor the dictionary. Bring 'em on!

What's more, the artificial dichotomy between fascism and communism enables us Americans to pose as arbiters, above the fray, since we, in theory, reject both isms. That's not good! If we get any more messianic, we'll explode. However much we like to think in bipolarities, the two isms are no more opposites than cancer is the opposite of appendicitis. It is best to deal with one disease at a time, and right now, "fascism" is on the operating table. My favorite quote on the subject: "That which the fascists hate above all else is intelligence." -- Miguel de Unamuno (1864-1936, great Spanish philosopher, poet, and patriot).

Best wishes / NonZionist (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, frankly, I think you're wrong. 'Fascism' is a variety of totalitarianism, it is not thereby a synonym for totalitarianism, anymore than a platypus is a synonym for mammal, being a subset, monotreme, of a wider class. Miguel de Unamuno got it wrong. He was correct, contextually, that the Francoist order despised intelligent men like himself, Lorca and Ortega y Gasset. But many fascists were highly intelligent, and many highly intelligent men like the makers of literary modernity were enamoured of fascism, T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, W.B.Yeats, etc. I've never deleted the word from my dictionary: I refrain from using it as you did, because it disturbs conceptual clarity. You're an optimist, I see, thinking your world will outlast 'theirs'. 'Our' world is almost irredeemably prey to a metastasis of the cancer that afflicted the generations of the last century: simply put, we have formally repudiated collectivism (totalitarianism in all historically self-evident forms), and convinced ourselves we are individuals, while, behind the scenes, in the very common, public language of common sense, our personal capacities to think as individuals have withered. You tend, in your polemics, to betray a collectivist mindset, as do your chosen adversaries in what you take to be a 'dialogue'. We are entangled in vast webs of rapid chat, journalese, public cant, and slipshod thinking that embraces 'left' and 'right', 'republicans' and 'democrats', 'liberals' and 'conservatives'. Don't take Israel, or America to be peculiar in this, or single them out as an illness others must approach as though they were surgeons. What you protest there is only the tip of the iceberg, and if you wish to avoid infection, steer clear of clichés ('fascism'). To conclude with a saw from the evangelist Luke, 'Medice, cura te ipsum'. Wiki needs clarity, it doesn't need polemics. In every confident, authoritative conviction, or belief, there's an undertone of 'fascism' even if the voice is saying the opposite. I think we should leave it at that. Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are too much the purist, Nishidani, allowing the best to become the enemy of the good (if I understand that idiom correctly). Spain was not the same as Italy, which was not the same as Germany, but we call all three "fascist": There is sufficient similarity between the three. It's a matter of degree, and thus involves judgment, which is subjective. We use a common term, because we find it helpful or useful to emphasize the similarities. There is no clear bright line.

When prominent American Jews, in their 1948 letter to the NYT, labeled Begin's party "fascist", they were using judgment -- the use of the term, they deemed sufficiently justified by the level of similarity between Begin's party and Mussolini's, say, and by the need to inform Americans of the rough nature of the new threat. In my opinion, Israel has not improved: What applied in 1948 applies a hundredfold today. You have not deleted the word from your dictionary, but you have retired the word, which is just as bad. History repeats. What happened seventy years ago has happened again, and the words we used then to warn and inform ourselves are no less applicable today. A hyper-aggressive war-addicted state with a self-destructive ideology of ethnic supremacy, a vast censorial propaganda apparatus, a disdain for human rights, a disregard for the property of the individual, and a large persecuted populace is properly placed in the category that similar states occupied seventy years ago. NonZionist (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

For short: Godwin's law - That said, the problem with "fascism" as epithet is that when everything is fascism, then nothing is. --Cerejota (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I protest about 'fascism' as a carry-all term of obloquy amongst my own. Less observed in the fact that 'Islamic' (or 'Hamas' or 'Hezbollah'), 'terrorist' etc., are increasingly subject to the same abuse. 'Israelis are Nazis' = 'Arabs are terrorists', 'the Jews are bloodsuckers' = 'Islamists are hell-bent on destroying West civilization'. You won't hear the former phrasing in the once antisemitic faculties of Yale and Harvard. But Ivy league professors, not only in private, but in books, theorize about the latter as if anti-Semitism is dead and buried, but can, if the urge and instinct are still there, be rechanneled into 'interpreting the Arab/Islamic mind'. I'm pro-Palestinian also because I can't tolerate anti-Semitism.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Godwin's law advises against using "fascism" as a casual epithet, and I agree: If we cry "Wolf!" too often, we will have no way to warn when a wolf really does appear. The implication, however, is that there is such a thing as a real wolf and a need to warn against it. So too, there issuch a thing as fascism, and there is a need to warn against it. If our avoidance of epithets causes us to avoid all mention of wolves and all warnings, then we have gone too far! Godwin's point is not to silence all warnings! -- just the opposite, the point is to maintain our ability to warn effectively, when warning is necessary. And it has been necessary, for the last sixty years. NonZionist (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Not on wiki talk pages or in edits, however. Minor point. Not sixty years, 90 years. Nishidani (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

link

I just saw your contrib at my special page. Keep 'em coming. I just think we need to improve the MILHIST aspect. Thank you!--Cerejota (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Second paragraph

Hi Nishidani!

I was a bit surprised to come back from the week-end and see this. The lead, as it was, was written by User:Jacob2718 and myself (here) and was, as far as I could tell, factual and unbiased. What are/were your objections?

The second paragraph, as it stands now, is only confusing and extremely diffuse. The compromise established a sequence of events: ceasefire, breach by Israel, non-renewal of truce by Hamas, Israeli attack. The text, at the time, was:

A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on December 19 2008.[52][53][54] Earlier, contending that Israel had not lifted the Gaza Strip blockade and following an Israeli raid into the Gaza Strip on November 4,[55] Hamas resumed its rocket and mortar attacks on Israel. After initially announcing, on December 19, that the truce was "over",[56] Hamas offered to extend the truce on December 23.[57][58][59][60][61][62] On 27 December 2008, Israel launched its military operation with the stated objective of defending itself from Hamas rocket fire[63] and to prevent the rearming of Hamas. Hamas demands the cessation of Israeli attacks and an end to the Israeli blockade.[64]

I realise somebody tweaked some of the formulations to make it sound nasty, but can we try to fix this up again?

As for the cease-fire fork, I just did a copy-paste job to get it out of the way. As soon as I have some time I'll un-fluff it.

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 19.01.2009 07:57

I saw an attempt to destabilize the lead, and restored para 1 to the consensual version, arguing this stuff should not be touched before the body of the article is reviewed. I then noted that para 2, also consensually drafted, had been altered. So I reverted that too, irrespective of who did it, since there was a principle at stake. Two people do not make a consensus, even on 'my side'. Allow one para to be meddled with, and you get another, and then edit wars.

Nothing I see in any I/P article has much correspondence with the truth, all I can hope for is balance at the moment. As to specifics, Hamas's main beef was starvation, which undermined its credibility though sources won't tell you that yet. On Nov.12 Israeli started closing down the Karni entrypoint where flour was supplied, and Gaza's 3 mills began to shut down for lack of material to mill (In the assault, the IAF took out 2 of Gaza's three flour mills, just like the earlier 'incident' where it knocked out its new power generators). Israel also broke the truce on the 17th. Hamas was involved in intense negotiations via Egypt from early Dec.esp.14th onwards, to continue the truce. Hamas didn't 'contend'. It stated a fact: Israel had not lifted the blockade as it had undertaken to do in June, though Hamas had succeeded in halting rocket fire.

Perhaps I made a wrong call. It was late, I remember only my impression of a text that looked more POV than the one we had, I don't have the patience to check whether it was yours or a tweaked version of it, though perhaps the latter. The overall lead was being modified by several hands (even the casualties were removed, and edits were fast), so I just tried to restabilize it with a general revert, and tell people to lay off it.

Nothing personal in this. Cheers, Pedrito Nishidani (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've taken the liberty of re-instating "my" version, apparently there had been some changes to the wording and some sources removed.

Can we work on this version, as it is less blurry than the first? If I read you correctly, what needs work is:

1. Better word for "Contending",
2. Make non-lifting of blockade more prominent,
3. Add that blockade was tightened after November 12,
4. More specific on negotiations prior to attack on December 27.

Do you want to add anything to those points or should we start working on them directly? The first two are more language and formulation issues, the last two would require sources.

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 19.01.2009 14:45

Well, if I can find the page where the lead's being talked about, (not that stupid thread, but a serious discussion) then I'll join in. I'm only once voice among many. If you can drop me a link to the ongoing discussion, I'll litch in when my head's less foggy than it is now. By the way Tanya Reinhart has excellent background on this down to 2006. She was partisan, but gives enough inside details to remind one how dangerous these lead generalizations are, for what they miss. Cheers, and sorry for the bother.Nishidani (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, there's no real organised discussion... I've been keeping an eye on the paragraph and engaging editors directly whenever it is edited (except of course blatant vandalism). The long discussions on the talk page don't seem to get very far and attract the wrong kind of audience. Well, now I guess it has cooled down somewhat... Anyway, I'm pretty much off for the day.

Cheers and no problem, pedrito - talk - 19.01.2009 14:55

As for the 'wrong kind of audience' I note the Israeli Foreign ministry's Media Department is getting more active in countering our bias. I've a lot of reading to do, but will keep an eye on things later, and try to review the points you raise, It's far better than several very curious attempts to rework the lead. Thanks, pedrito. Nishidani (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)