User talk:Nishidani

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

editor emeritus
This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia as of foals' ages.

The West Bank/Judea and Samaria Problem[edit]

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.'[1]

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.. .' [2]

Wa-‘allama ādama l-asmā’a kullahā,

'And He taught Adam the names, all of them.’ Qu’ran 2:31.[3]

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.’ [4]

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’[5]. 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.[6]. 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.'[7]

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 [8]). 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.” [9]

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’[10], 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’[11]

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.’ [12]

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 [13], 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.[14]

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.[15]

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. [16]

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.[17]. 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'.[18]. 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.'[19]

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 [20] 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.' [21] 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.[22][23]

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.” [24]<

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.[25]

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’ [26]

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[27] 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[28]

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)[29]. 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.’ [30]

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. [31]

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[32] 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.[33] The term 'Judea and Samaria' however was rarely used until Likud took power[34]. 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[35][36]. 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.[37]

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.' [38]

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.'[39]

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.’ [40]

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’. [41]

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 unprovoked[42]invasion of Lebanon in 1982, whose key political objectives included ousting the refugee Palestinian resistance in the para-state[43] 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[44]. 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. [45] 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. [46]

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[47] 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'[48] 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.[49].

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), [50], 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".'[51]

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).[52][53] According to Yossi Sarid, the process, illustrated further by Knesset proposals to eliminate Arabic as one of Israel's official languages, constitutes a form of ethnocide.[54]

(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’ [55]

'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.'[56]

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.

  1. ^ T.G.H.Strehlow, Songs of Central Australia,Angus & Robertson, Sydney 1971 p.126; cited by Barry Hill, Broken Song: T.G.H.Strehlow and Aboriginal Possession, Knopf, 2002 pp.436f.
  2. ^ Genesis, ch.2, verses 19-20, with apologies for my transcription
  3. ^ For a fascinating study on both the figure of Adam in Islamic tradition, and on commentaries on this particular text specifically, see M.J.Kister, ‘Ādam: A Study of Some Legends in Tafsīr and Hadīt Literature,’ in Joel L. Kraemer (ed.) Israel Oriental Studies, Volume XIII, BRILL, 1993 pp.112-174, p.140
  4. ^ Thomas Pynchon, Mason & Dixon, Jonathan Cape, London 1997, pp.8,615
  5. ^ George Steiner, After Babel, Oxford University Press 1975 p.58
  6. ^ Ernst Cassirer, The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms,, vol.1, tr.Ralph Manheim, Yale UP 1955 pp.119ff.,p.122
  7. ^ Isaiah 5:11. For this and other passages, see S.J.Tambiah ’s 1968 Malinowsky lecture, "The Magical Power of Words," (the ancient Egyptians, the Semites and Sumerians all believed that “the world and its objects were created by the word of God; and the Greek doctrine of logos postulated that the soul or essence of things resided in their names (pp.182-3). My attention was drawn to this particular essay by Tambiah by Brian Vickers, Occult and scientific mentalities in the Renaissance, Cambridge University Press, 1984 p.96
  8. ^ Anthony D. Smith, The Ethnic Origin of Nations, Basil Blackwell, Oxford 1986 passim
  9. ^ John Lewis Gaddis, The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past, Oxford University Press US, 2004, p.131
  10. ^ Abbiamo fatto l'Italia. Ora si tratta di fare gli Italiani
  11. ^ Regis Stella, Imagining the Other: The Representation of the Papua New Guinean Subject, University Of Hawaiʻi Press, 2007 p.169 gives many Papuan examples. Compare his remark elsewhere in the same book, ‘In indigenous cultures . .(t)he most important means of taking control of the landscape is by naming, Naming provides the equivalent of a title deed, imbues power and identity to that which is named, gives the named place a presence, confers a reality, and allows it to be known.’ Ibid pp. 40-41
  12. ^ M. Daphne Kutzer, Empire's Children:Empire and Imperialism in Classic British Children's Books, Routledge, 2000 p.120
  13. ^ Alfred W. Crosby, Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900, Cambridge University Press, 1986
  14. ^ ‘Maps are a kind of language, or social product which act as mediators between an inner mental world and an outer physical world. But they are, perhaps first and foremost, guides to the mind-set which produced them. They are, in this sense, less a representation of part of the earth’s surface than a representation of the system of cognitive mapping which produced them,’ N.Penn, “Mapping the Cape: John Barrow and the First British Occupation of the Colony, 1794-1803.” in Pretexts 4 (2) Summer 1993, pp.20-43 p.23
  15. ^ John Atchison, ‘Naming Outback Australia,’ in Actes du XVI Congrès international des sciences onomastiques, Québec, Université Laval, 16-22 August 1987, Presses Université Laval, 1987 : pp.151-162 p.154-5
  16. ^ Susan Gay Drummond, Incorporating the Familiar, McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP, 1997 p.32 .
  17. ^ Alfonso Pérez-Agote, The Social Roots of Basque Nationalism, University of Nevada Press, 2006 p.xx
  18. ^ Selwyn Ilan Troen, Imagining Zion: Dreams, Designs, and Realities in a Century of Jewish Settlement, Yale University Press, 2003 p.152
  19. ^ Meron Benvenisti, Sacred Landscape:The Buried History of the Holy Land since 1948, tr. Maxine Kaufman-Lacusta, University of California Press, 2000 pp.12-13 cf.'Suffused with the sense that “it is impossible for a present-day Hebrew map not to identify by name the places of Hebrew settlement mentioned in the Bible and in post-biblical Hebrew literature,” they set about identifying these sites and putting them on “Hebrew maps,” which they placed opposite the official Mandatory maps.’
  20. ^ Cf.Bruce Chatwin, The Songlines, Jonathan Cape, London 1987
  21. ^ Benvenisti, ibid, p.19
  22. ^ Benvenisti, Sacred Landscape, op.cit.p.14. The Arabic names were also found ‘morose’ and ‘offensive’ . As one member put it: ‘Many of the names are offensive in their gloomy and morose meanings, which reflect the powerlessness of the nomads and their self-denigration in the face of the harshness of nature’ (ibid.p.17). On the committee see also his memoir, Meron Benvenisti, Son of the Cypresses: Memories, Reflections, and Regrets from a Political Life, tr. Maxine Kaufman-Lacusta, University of California Press, 2007 p.72.
  23. ^ Amar Dahamshe Off the linguistic map. Are Arab place names derived from Hebrew? in Haaretz 30.06.10
  24. ^ Benvenisti, ibid. p.17, p.18
  25. ^ ‘The name of the Ramon Crater, for example, perhaps the most dramatic geological formation in the Negev, “is derived from the Hebrew adjective ram (meaning elevated), “states an Israeli guidebook. The fact that its name in Arabic was Wadi Rumman (Pomegranate Arroyo), . . was not considered worthy of mention’ Benvenisti, Sacred Landscape, ibid. p.19
  26. ^ Yasir Suleiman, A War of Words: Language and Conflict in the Middle East, Cambridge University Press, 2004 p.161, p.162.
  27. ^ cf.Shalom Spiegel, Hebrew Reborn,, The Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia 1930, Meridian Book reprint 1962. Shalom Spiegel was Sam Spiegel's more distinguished and erudite brother.
  28. ^ Yasir Suleiman, A War of Words, ibid p.140
  29. ^ Theodor Adorno, Minima moralia: Reflexionen aus dem beschädigten Leben (1951), in Rolf Tiedemann (ed.) Gesammelte Schriften, Bd.4, Suhrkamp, 1980 p.123
  30. ^ Paul Francis Diehl, A Road Map to War, Vanderbilt University Press, 1999, pp.15-16.
  31. ^ 'The term West Bank was forced onto the international lexicon only after Jordan conquered the territory in 1948'. Binyamin Netanyahu, A Durable Peace: Israel and Its Place Among the Nations, Warner Books, (1993) 2000 p.20. Netanyahu's dislike of the term (and his faulty memory for dates), is mirrored by the Palestinian poet, Mourid Barghouti, evidence if ever of the neutrality of the term: cf.‘I did not realize what it meant to be a refugee until I became one myself. When the Israeli army occupied Deir Ghassanah and the whole eastern part of Palestine in 1967, the news bulletins began to speak of the occupation of the Israeli defense forces of the West Bank. The pollution of language is no more obvious than when concocting this term: West Bank. West of what? Bank of what? The reference here is to the west bank of the River Jordan, not to historical Palestine. If the reference were to Palestine they would have used the term eastern parts of Palestine. The west bank of the river is a geographical location, not a country, not a homeland. The battle for language becomes the battle for the land. The destruction of one leads to the destruction of the other. When Palestine disappears as a word, it disappears as a state, as a country and as a homeland. The name of Palestine itself had to vanish. . .The Israeli leaders, practicing their conviction that the whole land of Palestine belongs to them would concretize the myth and give my country yet another biblical name: Judea and Samaria, and give our villages and towns and cities Hebrew names. But call it the West Bank or call its Judea and Samaria, the fact remains that these territories are occupied. No problem! The Israeli governments, whether right or left or a combination of both, would simply drop the term occupied and say the Territories! Brilliant! I am a Palestinian, but my homeland is the Territories! What is happening here? By a single word they redefine an entire nation and delete history.’ Mourid Barghouti, 'The Servants of War and their Language', in International parliament of Writers, Autodafe, Seven Stories Press, 2003 pp.139-147 pp140-1
  32. ^ Emma Playfair, International Law and the Administration of Occupied Territories: Two Decades of Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Oxford University Press, 1992 p. 41.
  33. ^ Ran HaCohen, 'Influence of the Middle East Peace Process on the Hebrew Language' (1992), reprinted in Michael G. Clyne (ed.), Undoing and Redoing Corpus Planning, Walter de Gruyter, 1997, pp.385-414, p.397.
  34. ^ Shlomo Gazit, Trapped Fools: Thirty Years of Israeli Policy in the Territories, Routledge, 2003 p. 162
  35. ^ 'The terms “occupied territory” or “West Bank” were forbidden in news reports.'Ian S. Lustick, 'The Riddle of Nationalism: The Dialectic of Religion and Nationalism in the Middle East', Logos, Vol.1, No.3, Summer 2002 pp.18-44, p. 39
  36. ^ 'Begin was happy to castigate the media and the intelligentsia for their views, real and imaginary, and their use of politically incorrect language. Israeli television was now instructed to use “Judea and Samaria’ for the administered territories, annexation became ‘incorporation’ and the Green Line suddenly disappeared from maps of Israel and the West Bank'. Colin Shindler, A History of Modern Israel, Cambridge University Press, 2008 p.174
  37. ^ 'The successful gaining of the popular acceptance of these terms was a prelude to gaining popular acceptance of the government’s settlement policies'.Myron J. Aronoff, Israeli Visions and Divisions: Cultural Change and Political Conflict, Transaction Publishers, 1991. p. 10.
  38. ^ Gideon Aran, 'Jewish Zionist Fundamentalism: The Block of the Faithful in Israel (Gush Enumin),', in American Academy of Arts and Sciences, University of Chicago Press, 1994 pp.265-344, p.291, p.337
  39. ^ Zeev Maoz, Defending the Holy Land: a critical analysis of Israel's security & foreign policy, University of Michigan Press, 2006 p.441
  40. ^ William B. Quandt, Peace process: American diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1967, Brookings Institution Press, 2001, rev.ed.2001 p.130
  41. ^ William B.Quandt, Peace process, ibid. p.134. This was then accompanied by a formal note to Begin (September 22,1978), it which it was registered that ‘(A) In each paragraph of the Agreed Framework Document the expressions “Palestinians” or “Palestinian People” are being and will be construed and understood by you as “Palestinian Arabs”. (B)In each paragraph in which the expression “West Bank” appears, it is being, and will be, understood by the Government of Israel as Judea and Samaria.’ William B. Quandt, Camp David: peacemaking and politics, Brookings Institution Press, 1986 p.387
  42. ^ Howard Jones, Crucible of Power: A History of U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1897,Rowman & Littlefield, 2nd.ed. 2001 p.469
  43. ^ Rex Brynen, Sanctuary and Survival: The PLO in Lebanon, Westview Press, Boulder, 1990 p.2
  44. ^ James Ron, Frontiers and ghettos: state violence in Serbia and Israel, University of California Press, 2003 p.180. Decoded, the statement means, 'invading Lebanon secures the West Bank for Israel and thus achieves the Biblical borders set forth more or less in the Tanakh's account of the early kingdoms'
  45. ^ Eric J. Schmertz, Natalie Datlof, Alexej Ugrinsky, President Reagan and the world, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1997 p.44.
  46. ^ See Uri Bar-Joseph, Israel's National Security Towards the 21st Century, Routledge, 2001 p.185
  47. ^ Numbers, 32:18
  48. ^ David C. Jacobson, Does David still play before you? Israeli poetry and the Bible, Wayne State University Press, 1997 p.50
  49. ^ Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian Identity: The construction of modern national consciousness, Columbia University Press, 1998 p.14
  50. ^ Nigel Craig Parsons,The Politics of the Palestinian Authority: From Oslo to Al-Aqsa, Routledge, 2005 p.299
  51. ^ Michael Sfard, Occupation double-speak,' at Haaretz, 12 June 2012.
  52. ^ Jonathan Cook, Israeli Road Signs, Counterpunch 17-19, July 2009
  53. ^ Nir Hasson, Give Arab train stations Hebrew names, says Israeli linguist, Haaretz 28/12/2009
  54. ^ Yossi Sarid 'Israel is not killing the Palestinian people - it's killing their culture,' Haaretz 3 Octobr 2014
  55. ^ John Brian Harley, David Woodward, The History of Cartography: Cartography in Prehistoric, Ancient, and Medieval Europe and the Mediterranean, Humana Press, 1987 p.506, cited Benvenisti, Sacred Landscape, ibid.p.13
  56. ^ Benvenisti, Sacred Landscape, ibid. p.13

Further reading:-

  • Mark Monmonier, No Dig, No Fly, No Go. How maps restrict and control, University of Chicago Press 2010

Things to be done/Notes to self (or what pieces are left of that hypothetical entity)[edit]

(2)'To call Dickens "Kaizanian" would be an over-statement of his considerable gift for for creating memorable characters, while to call Kaizan "Dickensian" would be a seriously misleading understatement. This richness became all the more impressive when set against the national drive towards human standardization.' ibid. p.430

To be kept close to the bottom of this page because I forget the agenda as time scurries on Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

    • e.g.<ref="Horowitz" />:122-3 Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

click here if recent changes to the above list don't appear


Yonatan Mendel, Diary, London Review of Books, Vol. 37 No. 6 -19 March, 6 March 2015.

Palestinian population statistics Pro memoria[edit]


Notice of Admin noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)


Ijon Tichy (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I.e.Brad Parker et al.,'No Way To Treat a Child: Palestinian Children in the Israeli Military Detention System,' Defense for Children International April 2016. This is evidently an anti-Semitic smear. Firstly Israel has a unique conviction rate, 99% of the indicted, which shows it only detains the guilty. (b) The guilty are a chronic plague in that area, they swarm everywhere, which is why the system has had to convict 700,000 Palestinians. That's over 10% of the population, which means you have an exceptionally high incidence of criminality among those folks. (c) Thirdly, these are not children. Of this spurious report's so-called evidence only one child in 429 cited as witnesses, was detained in an Israeli prison from 2012-2015. The rest were 12 or over, i.e., adults. 1 in 429 is statistically meaningless. It's just one slip-up in Anat Berko's proposed law. 'Shit happens', and this was a minor skidmark.(d) This is war, not a matter, therefore, of prissy human rights fussing. But even in war, civilized nations, meaning those where a lot of English is spoken, there are rules, and these things fall strictly within the remit of Military Order 1651 (e) Brad Parker is an 'Advocacy Officer, and advocacy for a cause means he's biased, and his work probably indictable as incitement. (f) all parents need do is have the mukhtar conduct a whip-around, preferably by getting the muezzin to hand over his prayer broadcast system (and give the landscape some peace:we've had to close down 59 calls to prayer at Hebron this last month to allow the settlers at Kiryat Arba an uninterrupted clear audio reception of Arutz Sheva) and pony up the US$2,580 fine for stone-throwing, which is what most of this juvenile criminal element that survives rubber-coated steel bullets and toxic inhalation of suffocation gases is caught for. From a more general philosophic perspective informed by a deeper knowledge of the region's history, these folks should thank their neighbours that they are (for the moment) still alive. As Edward Luttwak, a distinguished historian, put it in an erudite letter to the Times Literary Supplement (19 February 2016 p.6) while expressing admiration for the restraint Israel had exercised in its so called assault on Gaza, in killing just 551 children,and permanently disabling only 1,000 of the 3,374 wounded kids,'if a Palestinian state had been established in 1947 or any other time, by now it would have machine-gunned many more Palestinians than the Israelis have every killed.' They're getting kid-glove treatment compared to what history would have dealt out to them had they ruled themselves, and should be grateful for the restraint. An Amora like Simeon bar Yochai must be writhing in his grave at our restraint in these unfortunate circumstances (Talmud Sofrim 15:10). Come to think of it, in this earthquake-prone zone, something ought to be done to calm things down. Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Great analysis Nish, very insightful. Captures the brutality, viciousness, criminality, insanity and massive hypocrisy of the colonialists.
Does WP have an article along the lines of Imprisonment and torture in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? If not, it may be a good idea to start such an article, using, among many other sources, the two sources I included above, and the sources in your comment above, and high-quality analysis from reliable sources, hopefully similar to the high quality of the insights/ analysis in your comment.
Ijon Tichy (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. The problem in the I/P area is not making more new articles, but improving the existing ones, which cover most things, more extensively (and of course my own views and analysis would have no place there). What really worries me is the amount of known facts and material generally existing, that never even gets into reliable secondary sources, or at least in those I examine to see if the topic is handled. In any case, we're into spring, and I intend to enjoy it. Apart from a few remaining duties, I'm thinking of taking a leaf out of your commonsensical book, and mucking about more in the non-wiki world. This was impressed on me the other day when I noted the kaleidoscopic imbrication at one focal point of my gaze of a colour mosaic of a thrush, a bee and an admiral butterfly all crossing the same point more or less simultaneously from different directions, only at different depths within the garden. See those things often enough, and reading ought to take a back seat. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Enjoyed reading your description of the bird, bee and butterfly. I have been enjoying the wildlife around here. And some of the cherry trees around here are already bearing delicious fruit.

You have been doing great work on WP. Keep up the good work.

Ijon Tichy (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I've followed Frank Spinney's articles for several years, since he retired (if only because he did a sensible think and played Ulysses round the Mediterrean in a small yacht, a very sane thing to do). A lot of ex-CIA folks say interesting things afterwards! Thanks also for the other. I'll offer in exchange these all too brief remarks by a fine writer Michael Chabon, recorded at Hebron, where he had the same reaction more or less as did Mario Vargas Llosa (see Tel Rumeida page)- Naomi Zeveloff Q&A 'Michael Chabon Talks Occupation, Injustice and Literature After Visit to West Bank,' The Forward April 24, 2016. Best Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I guess you've caught 'Varoufakis and Chomsky,', but if not, it's here. I particularly liked the former's definition of modern economics as 'a religion with equations'.Nishidani (talk) 12:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, modern economics is mostly pseudo-science. It is almost entirely a cover, a fig-leaf, a Kashrut certificate, for the global kleptocratic looting of the global public wealth to create private riches.
You may be interested in this: Musician Roger Waters and a documentary film director discuss their documentary on Israel's Hasbarah efforts. (See the right-hand-side panel for all three parts of the conversation.) Ijon Tichy (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
IjonTichyIjonTichy The above is a disturbing post. Classic anti-semitic tropes populate the wording.I am sorry Nish, but I have been reflecting on the above for over 24 hours, and I must protest. Simon Irondome (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
No need to apologize, Simon. I'm logging in late from another computer as my own is being reengineered to rid it of the totalitarian intrusive claws of a self-installed Windows10 update which, despite my 95% successful attempt to get rid of it, still persists in little tricks to get me back on (their) updated ('date' means anus in Australian dialect) side. As to Tichy's post, I didn't see it in context, as antisemitic, unless the kashrut certificate is taken to signal that the kleptocracy has Jewish connections. An idiom like that would come naturally to someone like T who grew up, I assume, in Israel. We all have differently sensitized noses for these things, and even here in writing 'noses' I immediately realized that my choice of 'noses' could easily lend itself to a negative construal ('And the Lord said unto Moses...') implying an antisemitic mindset. Language is a death trap to the best of us (suffice it to follow the debate between Christopher Ricks and Julius re T S Eliot's antisemitism) However, when I wrote it, I had in mind Bloch's beautiful words on the task of an historian being that of have an acute ability to scent his prey and track it down. If 'kleptocracy', well that is almost the default word to describe post-Soviet Russia, and kleptocratic is fairly objective for describing the way the multi-trillion dollar private debt crashes in 2008 onwards were transferred to the public debit ledger, most recently in the absolutely hallucinating case of Greece, which has been utterly bankrupted for generations by 'loans' that are actually rerouted back to Germany and France etc.etc. To think, everytime a kleptocratic 'rort' of these epochal kinds is duly noted that the Protocols are in the background of the annotator's thinking, is dangerous
In short, saying that 'modern economics is a figleaf or whatever for 'the global kleptocratic looting of the global public wealth to create private riches, ' seems to me both empirical and well-grounded theoretically (Michael Hudson, Piketty etc.). Most people don't think that way.There's nothing 'Jewish' about it: indeed, it is merely a late extension in terms of financial 'engineering' of the logic that impelled very unJewish empires like those of Great Britain and the United States to extract wealth from the rest of the world - this occurred formatively when Jews were still excluded from the said establishments.
Antisemitism can be very subtle, but diagnosing its pathologies is getting very difficult perhaps because it is now thrown around (I exclude yourself from this: you have proven consistently lynx-eyed in your discriminations here) so endlessly, not a little abetted by the narrative obsession in so many Israeli and diaspora newspapers of trying to highlight some ostensible 'Jewish' angle in anything from people in the news, Mickey Mouse, falafel, to Superman, comic books, beauty contests, gay society, whatever - I take this all as a sign of the negative effect of diaspora traditions- an unfamiliarity with what it is like to be a nationalist, nationalism being organically natural in a new state like Israel to create a common identity, since the diaspora experience was basically one of being on the receiving end of other nationalists-this made Jews great exponents of universal human rights) The sum effect is that anytime anything comes up for discussion a constituency is been unwittingly attuned to construe it ethnically, and read it for any potential political innuendoes or susurrations from the old whispering echo chambers that 'lie' in all historically mindful readers' minds. This worries me a lot.And I have always taken Tichy's exchanges as a reflection of similar concerns by someone 'on the inside'. Best Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
As all can see, I have removed words from the original posting which are dramatic and unnecessary. I have forgotten how to strike out comments, and I have to be out in a bit to the bank to pay off some of my creditors in a somewhat painful monthly ritual. (Oh the irony, based on some of the above) so I cannot trawl through endless guides on how to do it. The diffs are there for all to see. The post is unfortunately worded at first sight, and not in character with the editor who made them, the many positive contributions here of which I am aware of. I almost never use such a line, as you are well aware Nish, and others who "know my style". You have more than adequately summed up my concerns in your above post. Your friend and colleague, Simon. Irondome (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Irondome, am I correct in assuming you do not read Hebrew? Or, if you do, that you don't spend much time reading Hebrew-language mass media, including e.g. Israeli online newspapers and magazines, Israeli online TV and radio, Israeli videos on YouTube, books written by Israeli authors, etc? Because, as Nishidani tried to explain above, the term 'Providing a Kashrut Certificate' is commonly used in Israel as a general expression to denote 'bestowing legitimacy upon.' The term is used often (or at least not rarely) by average people in the street as well as by writers, journalists etc in a wide variety of contexts that have nothing to do with any religion.

(Of course, there is nothing wrong with not reading Hebrew, and Hebrew language skills are not a requirement, nor do I believe that they should ever be a formal requirement, for editing WP in the I-P area.)

In other words:

  • The vast majority of Christian economists, in the history of economics as well as today, worked or work to provide a cover, a fig-leaf, a Kashrut certificate, a Halal certificate, to bestow legitimacy on the global kleptocratic looting of the global public wealth to create private riches. A relatively small (but perhaps non-trivial) minority of brave, courageous Christian economists worked or work today to strongly oppose this looting.
  • The vast majority of Muslim economists, in the history of economics as well as today, worked or work to provide a cover, a fig-leaf, a Kashrut certificate, a Halal certificate, to bestow legitimacy on the global kleptocratic looting of the global public wealth to create private riches. A relatively small (but perhaps non-trivial) minority of courageous, brave Muslim economists worked or work today to strongly oppose this looting.
  • The vast majority of Jewish economists, in the history of economics as well as today, worked or work to provide a cover, a fig-leaf, a Kashrut certificate, a Halal certificate, to bestow legitimacy on the global kleptocratic looting of the global public wealth to create private riches. A relatively small (but perhaps non-trivial) minority of brave, courageous Jewish economists worked or work today to strongly oppose this looting.
  • The same applies to all other major religions in the history of humanity. In other words, providing a fig-leaf/ cover is independent of religion.
  • Of course the picture is even more complicated. I am not blaming the vast majority of economists for the severe historical and current problems with the global socio-economic system. Economists are just people like you and me, just trying to survive and thrive and feed and house and clothe themselves and their families. And it is not only the economists who are providing cover for the global theft of the public wealth, it is practically every person who has ever lived or who lives now: the prevailing global socio-economic system is embedded deeply inside all of us, and we are all both victims as well as perpetrators, of the global system.

You may also be interested in watching this scene from Network (film). In my view, it's the most important scene in an excellent film that has many important scenes. In fact I strongly recommend renting and watching the entire film.

Best regards, and continued enjoyment and happiness in life (hope you are enjoying watching the exciting UEFA football, although I wish Iceland would have won it all ...), Ijon Tichy (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Your words are appreciated IjonTichyIjonTichy. I freely admit to overreacting to your well-meant comment. I was feeling thin skinned that day. It happens. I find your comments very interesting. I am only beginning to study Hebrew, so I fear I could barely struggle through the simplest paragraph at the moment. Shame on me, but give it a year, and I may be able to understand the nuances of simpler newspaper articles and the like. My ambition is to read an Amoz Oz novel in the original. Then I will understand. I hope all is well with you and yours. Hopefully we can discuss your points further very soon. Nish is a patient host so hopefully we can expound further. With all good wishes, Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Simon, no offense taken. I fully realize your intentions are pure and honorable. And I admire your aim to learn Hebrew - it is not an easy language to learn at any age, especially not at a later stage in life. When we immigrated to Israel many decades ago, I was only 5 years old and I learned to read and write Hebrew relatively quickly, my older siblings had a somewhat harder time learning to read and write the language although they eventually mastered it, and my parents had a very difficult time learning the language, although they eventually learned it well enough to understand most of what they were reading. My parents attended an Ulpan, which helped. Best wishes to you and yours, Ijon Tichy (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
There are some languages which, if we don't learn them, leave part of our potential selfs unread, to our loss. I've always felt that way with Hebrew. I could hitchhike round Israel, and even the Gaza Strip with a grasp of the idiomatic basics a half a century ago, but since then, when I have time, reserve it for parsing the Tanakh. I really should pull my finger out and do that extraordinary idiom's claim on me more justice. I helped a sister-in-law several years older than myself, with it a decade ago, and now her daily practice leaves me ashamed (joyfully). Pity that her being only Jewish on her father's side makes her, despite these valiant efforts in poverty, not formally (as opposed to informally) accepted as one of the tribe. So, S, do apply yourself. These moments of our day, stressed or otherwise, take on a different tincture of light when we recite to ourselves verses and words that take us out of mean time into a different universe. Best to both of you.Nishidani (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Ijon. This is stuff we've known for 13 years (parallel universes of modern information - the engineered moodosphere via the press vs. the ground, and underlying political calculations), but I've never seen it so meticulously documented as it is here. If you haven't see it, Jeffrey St. Clair How the Iraq War Was Sold CounterPunch July 8, 2016.Nishidani (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I would also recommend Eliot Weinberger, 'They could have picked...,' The London Review of Books, Vol. 38 No. 15 28 July 2016. It's a useful wake-up corrective for those of us who focus so intensely on Israel's problems, to be reminded that the Glicks and Qarims are small beer compared to the 'mainstream' lunacy in the Empire's 'Christian' heartland whose greatest pathologists are, perhaps coincidentally but nonetheless, Jewish, like the doyen of them all, Noam Chomsky. The diff is that that tradition has the language of Mein Kampf too close at home not to escape its resonance in the rhetoric of these little, for the moment, avatars of Hitlerism. Why is it in this harsh climate, my small orchard and vegetable plots promise abundance, apart from the perfume? RegardsNishidani (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the links to the articles. Indeed, these articles are informative, and frightening, and humorous all at the same time in that they expose the insanity of human so-called "society".
You may be interested in the following:
  • The New European Fascists, by Chris Hedges. "Poland offers a frightening example of the right-wing populism sweeping through many nations. Neoliberalism is wrecking economies, creating rage among the working class, devastating cultural institutions and eroding liberal democracy across Europe and in the United States." (And, may I add, in Israel, in the occupied West Bank, in Egypt, in many Arab countries, and in fact in many countries around the globe ...)
  • Why many poor white people have voted for Trump. Interview with J. D. Vance, a book author. Vance is a Yale Law School graduate who grew up in the poverty of Appalachia. Offers good insights.
  • Ur Fascism, by Umberto Eco in the NY Review of Books. From 1995 but still very relevant today.
Ijon Tichy (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Bit late getting back to this. I actually missed it, with intervening edits being made by others. Thanks for the links, esp. Umberto Eco. I discovered I have a trace of the Ur-Fascist - 1/14th of me corresponds to no.11, since I often imagine that it would be useful, when dying, to use the inevitability for some useful end. Talking of fascists, I see Philippe Sands, has just reviewed the evidence for Bliar in A Grand and Disastrous Deceit, LRB Vol. 38 No. 15,28 July 2016 pp.9-11. buried inside there's a good joke of the Iron Lady having dinner with her aides. They enter a restaurant, and the waiter asks her:
Waitress: ‘Would you like to order, Sir?’
Thatcher: ‘Yes, I will have a steak.’
Waitress: ‘How’d you like it?’
Thatcher: ‘Raw please.’
Waitress: ‘And what about the vegetables?’
Thatcher: ‘Oh, they’ll have the same as me.’
That pretty much sums up modern politicians. A megalomaniac surrounded by brownnosers. There's one exception. Elizabeth Wilmshurst.Nishidani (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Loved the joke involving the Iron Lady.
The following is interesting: Green Party of Canada Challenges Israeli Apartheid. "Green Party shadow cabinet member Dimitri Lascaris says the passage of the resolution in support of BDS could embolden other Canadian parties to take on the occupation." Also discusses a second, separate resolution by the Green Party, regarding the Jewish National Fund (JNF). --Ijon Tichy (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm getting a serious feeling of deja-vu...[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles#Threaded discussion

The non-sequiturs and the refusal to outright state whether he/she actually agrees or disagrees with me very much remind of CurtisNaito and Enkyo2.

What do you think I should do?

Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it pointless editing here. I'll reflect about whether to come back or not for a month or two. Thanks in any case for arguing on my behalf at A/I but please drop it. No one's listening, and persisting is pointless.Nishidani (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Don't be fatalistic Nish. You've got to pick your battles. I know I do. Have yourself a croissant! --Monochrome_Monitor 10:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


You seem to misunderstand the Forward article, the pseudonymous individual is Wexler himself, not his reviewer. And that is the last remnant of the Goodfaith clause.--Galassi (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't use the word goodfaith. You show no signs of it.
Why do I have to waste so much time correcting silly errors of sheer disattention, from you or User:Lute88 and User:Ferakp (both of whom came out of retirement from wikipedia to intervene on this obscure issue by backing you)?
Why do you insist on shooting yourself in the foot, in public, every time you cross my path by giving evidence you erase, revert and set down the law without the slightest knowledge of the issues? Replying once more to your Abbot and Costello duet in the academy act with Lute88 (here, here, here, here and here) and now with your pompous know fuck-all edit on my page,
User:E.M.Gregory who specializes in writing victim articles, added material on a subject he hasn't a clue about with with the patently ridiculous edit summary add a little reality to POV lede , cited Jordan Kutzik, 'Don’t Buy the Junk Science That Says Yiddish Originated in Turkey,' The Forward 28 April, 2016 in order to add this to the lead:

Other scholars disagree; the Yiddish newspaper The Forward describes Wexler's theory as "rejected by every Yiddish linguist except for Wexler."

I replaced this for a number of very simple reasons. The Forward did not describe his theory thus, but a junior journalist in an op-ed. You never ascribe to a newspaper adventitious opinions by one of their writers. I've read dozens of articles on this and can sight a piece of tacit phrasal borrowing when it crops up. Those words used by Jordan Kutzik are a plagiarizing paraphrase of an article he read before writing his own. So I used the direct source, for two other reasons as well. The writer of the source Kutzik paraphrased is an accomplished linguist, and writes pseudonomously. What Kutzik modelled his pilfered words on comes from Philologos who began writing for The Fortward on Yiddish and languages when Kutzik was two years old.
Kutzik’s rejected by every Yiddish linguist except for Wexler comes straight out of an article written 2 years earlier by the anonymous/pseudonymous Philologus in the very same journal publishing his own article:These detractors include all serious Yiddish linguists except for Wexler himself.
So I chucked out the plagiarizer (2016 Kutzik) and restored his original source (2014 Philologos)’s words

To this his detractors rejoin that the other cases he cites are no more persuasive and that dozens of wrongs still do not make a right. These detractors include all serious Yiddish linguists except for Wexler himself.'(Philologos, 'The Origins of Yiddish, Part Dray,' The Forward 20 July 2014].

All Kutzik changed was ‘detractors’ for ‘rejected’. Plagiarism.
Hence, in my edit I rewrote according to the original source:

'Other scholars disagree: one writing pseudonymously, has claimed "all serious Yiddish linguists", aside from Wexler himself, disagree strongly with his theory.' (Philologus 'The Origins of Yiddish, Part Dray,' The Forward 20 July 2014].

Ask yourself who is Jordan Kutzik, flinging about obiter dicta as a cub reporter on a popular if minor newspaper catering to a specific constituency which, like him, has no knowledge of the subject, on the technicalities of an obscure linguistic crux, and of extremely complex genetic theory at the cutting edge? Fresh from a BA at Rutgers, having begun (admirably) to learn Yiddish at 16, he airily dismisses a professor emeritus who regularly works with some 20 languages, is an expert on Yiddish, and is still widely published and commented on, despite his ‘revolutionary’ views, mostly politely by colleagues who otherwise deeply dissent from his conclusions. Worse still, he plagiarized a competent scholar of languages.
Shooting yourself repeatedly in the foot is okay in a world where most people limp: they won’t notice anything odd in your teetering deambulation because it looks normative. Scholars try to walk on their own two feet, which arouses envy perhaps in the maimed, but which is, in evolutionary terms, a habit nature or survival insists we do well to acquire.
As you admitted you 'dunno' except that, once more, you have supported an automatic revert of someone who knows what the meaning of what he reads is, showing at the same time that you can’t construe anything for its obvious significance, and can't see a piece of conmanship by an equally incompetent editor like Luke88 for what it is, POV pushing of crap sourcing. Perhaps that is balanced out by feeling comfortable in a crowd of indifferent or mediocre editors with a POV bee in their bonnets:Ferakp, Monochrome Monitor recently, Luke88, and E.M.Gregory.Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the point of your attrition is this, convincing me of what I have long suspected. That, in the face of the supercilious and disattentive reading habits that flourish on Wikipedia, it is pointless trying to add some serious material to this attempt at a global encyclopedia. If that's what your aim is, then you can congratulate yourself on having, single-handedly, almost succeeded in confirming my feelings, that my presence here is pointless.Nishidani (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Well not quite. For the record, the result of this behest that I 'cease and desist' is that Galassi is to 'cease and desist' from all editing regarding the Khazars.Nishidani (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being such an ass to you. I was patronizing to the point of condescension and impudent in assuming insight into your intentions. It's certainly not the way a friend behaves. I do consider you a friend and I'm grateful for the support you've given me in my own tribulations, it's shameful that I wouldn't do the same when the tables turned. I don't want to hurt you and I'm truly sorry if I did.--Monochrome_Monitor 15:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

That's deeply appreciated, MM. You didn't hurt me: I was just a tad disappointed, perhaps annoyed, at what I thought of as a sign of great promise stumbling down a predictable road of routine. I should clarify that I don't want you 'on-side'. I hope that you just exercise your judgement independently, strictly on the merits of evidence. The human mind was engineered for survival -(a) the weight of a half a million years of biological imperatives to enhance our instrumental approach to the world, and get our way in it far exceeds that late fine-tuning,called civilization, to rewire our instincts towards grasping the deeper logic of things. My politics are pretty simple: 'decency applied across the board'. When it comes to (b) anything requiring close construal of an ingested field of controversy,however, esp. historical or theoretical, then I go into pyrrhonic mode as per Sextus Empiricus, when he writes of the Sceptics as "Zetetic" (open minded searching enquiry), "Ephectic" (suspensive after results emerge); "Aporetic".' Entine, if I get my notes together, is totally committed to (a); the field he is kibitzing on is tangled up with both (a) and (b), and evaluating the merits of the issue is no simple manner. Read Dan Graur's blog, from top to bottom. That's where I am, more or less. Certainly, it cannot be adequately addressed by complacent reverting. That's all. Best wishes, my young friend.Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Of course it's better to keep an open mind, but in this case it's being open minded to the plausability of theories put forward by people with strict agendas, who seek validation at the expense of truth. Ie, openmindedness to closemindedness. But I digress. While my complacence gave me the changes I was looking for, it was a pyrric victory. Like that? Because you said pyrronic? :P Thanks again my venerable dutch uncle. <3
That should be pyrrhic victory. I could list a dozen agendas (I did so while shopping in a supermarket) affecting all participants in this debate and those who write sources, beginning with Entine. As to agenda spotting, your Nish homework for this afternoon is to meditate on Luke 6:42, ma p'tite soeur, and mull its echo in Baudelaire's address to his readers, where he makes, or am I fuddled?, soeur rhyme with pleur:)Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Ack, you want me to read the christian bible? ;P Muchas gracias for the french lesson. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
What's Christian about the Bible, old or new? It's all Jewish historically. And in any case, there's always the dictum advising one to 'know your enemy'.Nishidani (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Ah, touche!--Monochrome_Monitor 15:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

continuing our discussion on jewish historiography here[edit]

I didn't google the answer, lets not be presumptuous. I did go to the bar-kochba page to remind myself of the figure. I agree that a majority of the worlds jews were in diaspora at the time of the destruction of the second temple, that isn't contested in any serious scholarship. And you are right that this diaspora, the hellenistic diaspora, is unique in that it was the only diaspora that was largely voluntary unlike the babylonian or assyrian. Rather like today's jews existing with two loci in israel and the us, the jews of the period had the conservative/judean loci and the hellenistic loci at alexandria and antioch. The majority of Jews may have already been in diaspora throughout the roman empire, but ALMOST ALL OF THEM BECAME CHRISTIANS, as I'm sure you know. The jews exiled from the land by the romans (the judean exile/jewish roman wars and bar kochba) and later the byzantines (who largely ended the presence of Jews in the land of Israel who remained concentrated in the Galilee, particularly in Tiberias, where many sages of the Mishnah and Talmud lived) are the vast majority of the surviving jews today, these jews form the basis of the ashkenazi, sephardic, north african, and italian Jewish communities. The Jews of the babylonian exile are today's iranian, iraqi, and caucasian (ajerbaijani/georgian) jews. (This is deduced both from historiography and genetics, with these two populations forming distinct clusters which split off some 3500 years ago). Jewish and historic scholarship focuses on the history of the former group, whose exile from the land came to symbolize the Jewish experience of suffering in the nations both in the eyes of the exiled jews and their Christian persecutors, for whom the "wandering jews" became a confirmation of the superiority of their new religion. Put this together and it's obvious how Jewish and Western scholarship came to regard the diaspora as a primary, if not THE primary, aspect of pre-Israel Jewish identity. Compare it to the babylonian exile, only the intelligensia of the israelites (scribes/priests/royalty/etc.) were actually exiled, but I don't see you calling the babylonian exile a meme. Both jewish collective memory and historiography focus on the Jews exiled to Babylon, since this population is the one which documented their experience into religiously and historically significant writings. And in these writings Cyrus's decree to return occupies a similar place to the Israeli Declaration of Independence, even though in both cases most Jews were content to stay put. This simplified narrative of Jewish history is not a malicious construct of Zionist thought, it developed organically. History is a flawed science, it is ipso facto anthropocentric, and history after the development of writing is particularly susceptible to human meddling. The Jewish experience or perception of the same reflects how humans think about the world and their relationship to it. Many Jews were exiled by the Romans. Not all Jews, but human beings always look at history in light of their current situations, and the majority of Jews for almost 2000 years identified with the experience of exile. Disregarding the Roman exile entirely as a romantic fabrication is just as context and nuanceless as adhering to it in its extreme, if not moreso.--Monochrome_Monitor 18:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

  • The majority of Jews may have already been in diaspora throughout the roman empire, but ALMOST ALL OF THEM BECAME CHRISTIANS, as I'm sure you know.
What does that translate into in terms of genetics?
  • The jews exiled from the land by the romans (the judean exile/jewish roman wars and bar kochba)
There is no evidence for this, apart from exclusion from Jerusalem. Jewish communities are attested in the Galilee throughhout that period, in any case, and some historians like Moshe Gil still argue that Jews were a majority in the late Byzantine-e3arly Arab period, which is why you get the submeme arguing that the Arab invasion caused the flight to Europe (this curious fantasy is cited several times in the genetic literature).
  • and later the byzantines (who largely ended the presence of Jews in the land of Israel)
What evidence have you for this, as opposed to the collapse of the economy in the late 2nd century onwards?
  • (the Galilee from which come)the vast majority of the surviving jews today, these jews form the basis of the ashkenazi, sephardic, north african, and italian Jewish communities.
There is no historical evidence I know of for this.
  • Generally the narrative you are repeating is the rabbinical formulation which consistently read of the exiles in theological terms. Religious thinkers (Christian, Jewish, Islamic etc.) generally are not good sources for what actually happened. The Babylonian and Roman events were construed as the implementation by a secular enemy of a punishment, the diaspora being a punishment for some failure, in their view,to uphold the halakhic ideals. Most articles reflect the religious spin not historiography. Some sources say 60-70% of the Jews were in diaspora before 70 CE. They could have returned at any time, from anywhere in the Mediterranean. They didn't, perhaps because the 'diaspora/exile' meme still hadn't taken a grip on the collective identity.Nishidani (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
A good example of prose written with one intent, but meaning the opposite, and as such, turning out a nonsensical statement.
A very large number of wiki articles are grounded in carelessly composed sources like this.

To save priceless as-yet undiscovered fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which include the oldest surviving manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible, from being looted, an extraordinary archaeological excavation has been going on with more than 500 volunteers from Israel and abroad sleeping and living in a camp in the desert'. Michael Bachner,'Saving the Dead Sea Scrolls from looters,'Ynet 25 May 2016

You misread what I wrote. I said that the jews who were exiled or fled from the jewish-roman wars and later from the byzantine wars compose that cohort of jews today, and jews of iraq/iran and the caucauses are another cohort. That's the predominant theory explaining why these groups genetically diverge approximately 2500 years ago. As for christians, its rather simple, most hellenized jews became christians, so they cannot contribute substantially to the basis of today's jews. Because today's jews are jews, not christians. As for judea there's evidence of devastation around jersualem as well, and remember judea is rather small place and the majority of its population lived in the capital. The theological formulation of jews does not ever say every jew was exiled by force. Many great sages lived in babylon when they could have joined the gallilean jews. The reason the destruction of the temple is so significant is not because it accompanied a massive expulsion, it didn't. Its because the jewish religion revolved around the temple. After it was destroyed rabbinical judaism dominated the other sects, grounding the religion in torah study rather than sacrifices at the temple. This made it possible for jews to fulfill all their mitzvot outside the land, an mobility which allowed jews to survive, unlike the unfortunate samaritans who clung to their holy site and now number in the hundreds. I don't know who says in 70 ce all the jews were exiled. That's wrong and any jew who reads the mishnah and talmud know that. If any jews believe it today its because of christian thought, they believed the temple was destroyed because jews rejected jesus- case in point the ending of mel gibson's snuff film. But the jews, emmigrated, fled, or expelled, always conceived of themselves as in exile. That's not a zionist innovation. "Next year in jerusalem" has been part of the passover seder for millennia. You're right that jewish history is presented as an endless chain of catastrophes when it's much more complex. Most jews in diaspora lived quiet lives separate from the the Christians, they had social and economic disabilities but were concerned above all about freely practicing their religion. It was generally agreed that if they kept to themselves and showed deference to the christian authorities they would be left alone. On many, many occasions they were massacred or forcibly converted or expelled, but in periods of calm many lived happy fruitful lives. Brilliant people like vilna goan enriched jewish thought while living in third-world conditions. The diaspora story is filled with tragedies but overall its a triumph, a people stubbornly refusing to cease to exist. Honestly I think the switch in mindset to the diaspora being one huge catastrophe comes from the shoah.--Monochrome_Monitor 18:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
There is no textual, historical evidence that 'the jews who were exiled or fled from the jewish-roman wars and later from the byzantine wars compose that cohort of jews today' (whose genetics differ from the Iraq-Iranian cohort). For like their Carthaginian, semitic-speaking cousins, Jews were, not only in Iran/Iraq, they were all over the Mediterranean long before the fall of Jerusalem, and these were not expelled from Judea. Italy's Jewish community was in place probably by 200BCE. So your affirmation just repeats a religious myth. Nishidani (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
'many times, massacred, forcibly converted'. I could write, were I to imagine myself a Christian and parody that, an horrific counter-narrative of the same nature for Christians, for example, for this period, who for centuries suffered persecution, mass killings, and forced conversiona to paganism etc. Soi losing one's Jewishness made no difference for many centuries to converts to Christianity, at least until Constantine. They did for centuries what the Jewish wisdom in Christianity advised at Matthew 10:23 ("when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another" hence diaspora, also for Christians. (Strategos for example says Jews slaughtered Christians at the Mamilla Pool if they refused to convert in 614CE). If one wants to nurture a grievance, as a building block for pride in modern defiance, fixed with the mortar of ancient ressentiment, anyone can get an abundant nutrition by milking history selectively for the tragedies that bear on one's own, whatever your ilk or ethnos. If I had the wrong tutors, instead of a learned but historically cosmopolitan father, for what I learnt as a child of what English did to the Irish for nigh on a millennium, a practical genocide at times, I'd have ended up a nationalist nutter.Nishidani (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I read Martin Goodman's Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilisations a while back and was very impressed with it. It gives an excellent introduction to this subject area and has a fine bibliography. It was extremely well received. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Irondome (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with religion. I'm not talking about population historiography, i'm talking about a very common interpretation of genetics where those two groups of jews split off around the first temple period. Again, I'm not making generalizations. Some Jewish communities resisted hellenization, case in point the ancient greek jewish community. But it's generally thought that the jews of southern europe (ashkenazi and sephardic) are descendents from judeans internally displaced in the roman (and in the case of ashkenazim the holy roman) empire. As for Christians, you probably know this but the "age of martyrdom" in early christianity is a myth.--Monochrome_Monitor 03:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh I know about the mamilla controversy and I agree the museum shouldn't be built there. The land of Palestine is not palestinian cultural property, it has a rich history of which the palestinians (unless you count arab/aramean christians) are a relatively recent part. There are greek antiquities, armenian antiquities, even roman antiquities in the "holy land". If you're speaking in environmentalist terms I'm all for ecological preservation, but Israel has a way better reputation for environmentalism than my country or yours. If we're talking about the villages destroyed or deserted in 48, obviously that was horrible (as are all wars), but its not usually what I associate with the word antiquities. If we're talking about the middle ages my folks lived in lithuania since the founding of vilnius and invitation of german jews to the city in the 14th century and the expulsion of the jews from portugal in the 15th. They lived there a damn long time. My great grandmother's family had a prosperous cheese farm which was pillaged by the germans in world war one, and she lost everything, including her sister. Her exile from her mother country was only a few decades before 1948. Anyway, I don't identify with lithuania at all and I have no desire to visit that horrible place, and that's the main difference between me and the great grandchildren of palestinian refugees who dream about returning to houses that they never knew that no longer exist. I don't deny that's an important distinction. But after arriving at ellis island she built a new life for herself. There's no reason for any palestinian to be living in a refugee camp 70 years later... it's mind-boggling that with the most foreign aid per capita in the world they don't have permanent housing. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
MM comes to her history as someone like myself might come to Irish history had I memorized works like Denys Scully's Statement of the Penal Laws, which Aggrieve the Catholics of Ireland, (1812), overlaying family stories of dispossession, famine, prejudice and on two occasions, virtual genocide (Great Famine (Ireland) and the genocidal policies of the Elizabethan period, premised, you see it in Edmund Spenser, on the idea that the Irish were 'foreigners' descended from Carthaginians, and deserved the fate meted out to the latter (Carthago delenda est) by Romans in the Punic Wars (Ben Kiernan, Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur, Yale University Press, 2007 ch.5 pp.169ff.); of forefathers fluent in Irish, Latin and English, denied a school and reduced to teaching the village scamps while hiding in hedgerows on Sunday. This was the distant past, recalled but not traumatically, for I was raised in affluence by parents who did not dwell on the ghettoized world of origins, but the fortunate present. Apart from the contempt for Palestinians, redolent of the attitude of contempt of Ezra and Nehemiah for the am ha-aretz, this strikes me, MM; as very June Leavittish, an American, whose quest for her ‘inner self’, imagined as approximating some 'Jewish soul forged in a belly of fire' led her to abandon rural Vermont and dwell in a slum in Kiryat Arba. Her story is captured in a wonderful vignette by Henryk Broder, ‘Tagar and the Teepee Family,’ in his A Jew in the New Germany, University of Illinois Press‎ 2004 pp.122-129.
I think Nishidani is talking about the Jewish revolt against Heraclius. Because you were talking about a Byzantine era expulsion. It is true that and Eutychius and the Sefer Zerubbabel both talk of Jews having to flee to the “hills and Egypt” or “caves and valleys” going off my memory here. But it’s all very vague and based on apocalyptic / polemical writings.
Jacob Neusner argues that the revolt was so unsuccessful because of an already limited Jewish population. A perspective that I think most scholars generally hold. The Jewish community of that era does not seem that healthy. The Sanhedrin moved a few times and Yerushalmi was never finished or properly edited, possibly do to persecution etc.Jonney2000 (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Exactly, my point was simply that, in those times, whatever population got the upper hand, it took it out on the other. Jews aided, with good historical motivations for revenge, the Sassanids, and slaughtered ensued in Jerusalem; further south, one report has a Sassanid Christian abetting the Persians in the taking of Alexandria, and slaughter ensued. The Muslims seemed to have been the only conquerors who introduced some institutional sanity in this sectarian opportunistic and theological slaughter. In all of this, we lose sight of the Samaritans, who had a far harder time under the Byzantines than the Jews - they certainly revolted against the Byzantines with far greater frequency, and subsequently disappear, though demographically they had been historically a substantial component of Palestine. Nishidani (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
The potato famine reminds me of the holodomor. If the holodomor is genocide than the potato famine is... though personally I think genocide requires intent to kill in whole or part, neither of which I think fit that bill. Not that my opinion matters. Anyway that doesn't make it any less horrible for the people who experienced it. Have you read A Modest Proposal? As for the samaritans here's a great article[1].--Monochrome_Monitor 15:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

What I find particularly interesting is when you say that whenever population gets the upper hand they take it out on the other. You're right, look at yemen's jews who massacred yemen's christians. However fate has had it that jews have very rarely had the upper hand. I also find it funny that the article I linked connects samaritans to this with a quote from josephus: "they alter their attitude according to circumstance and, when they see the Jews prospering, call them their kinsmen, on the ground that they are descended from Joseph and are related to them through their origin from him, but when they see the Jews in trouble, they say that they have nothing whatever in common with them nor do these have any claim of friendship or race."--Monochrome_Monitor 16:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that might be the Human nature thing. Irondome (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Simon is correct on that particular quote, but it is selective. Jewish-Samaritan biblical and post-biblical relations are far more complex, and reading Josephus's works is the way to grasp some of those intricacies. One strong lesson I learned in learning Greek was to look at what ancient sources leave out, because it is the victor's narrative basically (that's what got me to handle the P of the I/P conflict articles). That is why I always have the Samaritans in mind, and why I am often annoyed by the complacency of historians in not giving due thought to them as an autonomous and important political, social and cultural presence throughout this period.
Of course I've read the Modest Proposal. One reads everything by certain authors. As to the Samaritans, it is the elephant in the room in all our articles, and most general historical books on Palestine 400 BCE-600CE, as if everything were Jewish versus. In all the demographic literature, one reads of the carrying capacity of land, and then a breakdown of the population to Jews and pagans/Graeco-Romans etc., with Samaritans made invisible by being included, inappropriately in the former, in the face of Josephus whose works constantly mention the striking opposition of these two indigenous groups. This is a very serious defect in the popular story narrative you, and wikipedia articles, embrace. Their presence destabilizes the us/them paradigm and distinguishing their remains from Jewish remains (synagogues, miqva'ot etc) is no easy matter. Samaria is often thought to be largely Samaritan/pagan in New Testament times, but in the stan dard meme tale it is all Jewish. For this Byzantine period, esp. regards the revolt of 529 CE you get the same wild swings in conjectures (from 300,000 Samaritans to a tenth of that figure) As to the great famine, read Kiernan's book. The first Elizabethan genocide was deliberate, it's openly declared in many documents. The Holodomor was a planned genocide: the problem was to feed Russian cities, so everything edible was systematically ransacked by commissar teams from every house in thousands of Ukrainian villages in order to feel the former. In the mid-50s the Soviet agronomists advised Mao to not repeat this, but he went ahead and 26 million starved to death. This happened under the eyes of the authorities. 4 million people don't die accidentally. The Turks got away with it with Armenians, the Russians with Ukrainians, as the numbers grew exponentially. All of those Luftwaffe technicians and trainees at Borisoglebst and Lipetsk in the early 30s would have noted itNishidani (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC).
'However fate has had it that jews have very rarely had the upper hand.'
That is why they have long been an example to humanity, and a constant prod to the conscience, when it exists, of the powerful. It is interesting that the Khazar narrative finally, after a 1,000 years, has an alien elite converting to Judaism yet imposing tolerance on all, from pagans to the other Abrahamic faiths, as a state rule. Whether this is true or not, it is what the Jewish tradition, informed by the wisdom of accommodating to others' empires, said happened when they finally could assume the reins of statehood. I'm afraid this unique lesson in Jewish memory has worn thin within Israel. What I see there is the normal sociological outcome of history under the standard arrangements for political projects of that kind, a loss of the uniqueness that made the modern diaspora such a striking factor in enlightened modernity.Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd be happy to work on including the samaritan viewpoint in wikipedia articles. Because of their small numbers today they are often ignored, but in the past they outnumbered jews (I agree samaria had a larger samaritan population than jewish population and I didn't think anyone argued against it). Christians view them through a patronizing sort of "noble savages who were nice to jesus" lens and jews view them equally patronizingly as backwards jews.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Just keep an eye out for improvements if your curiosity wends that way. Please don't fall into essentialism, the attribution of attitudes, traits etc to human aggregates that must thereby logically be attached to all members of the set of, for example, 'Jews' or 'Christians' or any other assortment. I've noticed this frequently. There is no 'Jewish' or 'Christian' attitude to 'Samaritans'. I was in the West Bank once, with a Catholic religious group who were mulling ways to help out Muslim children. Unanimity was reached, save for one member who objected that helping Muslim children would only help them grow up to be terrorists. The room froze in embarrassment: There is a saying in Italian that suggests silence is dangerous because it is so rare, it only occurs when a pope is born. Anyway, I spoke up (I won't live long enough to know if I succeeded, by filling the silence, in avoiding the birth of another pope in that year), and told the Catholic dissenter that he was disowning his own faith, ignoring Luke 10:25ff., and, in a short lecture prefaced by apologies for speaking out of turn, since I wasn't a Catholic, noted that in the NT, that parable indicated that Jesus, a Jew, was stepping outside of the ethnic exclusiveness current in some versions of Judaism, and glossing Deuteronomy and Leviticus, clarified that a 'neighbour' (rea) was a word that extended beyond the Jews themselves, and could apply even to the notorious Samaritans, an enemy, who could show more pity than a Levite himself to another Jew in dire straits. In stating that, Jesus was saying that in his reading of Judaism, even a non-Jew could show a humanity that others within the fold failed to manifest, and thereby honour the Torah. Jesus said that as a Jew, and did not regard the Samaritan in the parable as 'backward' anymore than 'Christians' think the Samaritan in the parable, or the Samaritan woman in Sychar were "noble savages who were nice to jesus" (first time I've heard that). I don't worry that you know nothing of Christianity, no one is obliged to understand another religion, though it means one will never be able to read the history of art intelligently. But your remark is also unfair to Jews, of whom Jesus was one and, in that tale, made a point historically that Christianity has all too often honoured more in the breach than in the observance.Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I admit I overgeneralized. My point was samaritans are rarely given airtime unless they relate to jewish or christian history. I've actually met christians who think jews are backwards a la Marcion.--Monochrome_Monitor 01:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
And I read what some theologians in the West Bank write of the inferiority of goyim: so what? Idiots are everywhere, in every group, community and nation, they do not, except in politics, define those nations' essence. Talking of idiots, I, for one, must read a new book by Roberto Calasso, but, before that, do something more important, tuck into breakfast outside, where I'll no doubt wonder if Simon is sneaking around the rules and having some bacon with his. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
And it would appear I am not the only one.. Irondome (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't eat bacon or blood but I eat shellfish.--Monochrome_Monitor 17:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I trace my earliest skepticism about Catholicism to food: meat was strictly forbidden on Fridays. But by an odd coincidence, I was given some pocket money to buy my lunch at the tuck shop on that day of the week but the Catholic primary school didn't provide any meat Fridays. I would sneak out through a break in the fence and walk out down the road a few hundred yards and buy myself a meat pie in a delicatessen, lashed with ketchup. I stumbled on Greek mythology in my father's library at roughly the same time, and the seeds of paganism were sown, much to my mother's grief. Dad approved, quietly.Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I should add that the Friday rule had one exception: we were instructed that, if guests of non-Catholics, Protestants, Jews, whoever, and served a meal on Friday evening, that politeness to one's hosts was to overrule any dietary scruple, and everything served was to be eaten. I think of this often, when watching vegan boy-or girlfriends compelling a mother or aunt to cook a separate meal for them on visits. One last thought. My father recounted as one of the hardest experiences fighting in Libya in the North African campaign, an episode in which an Arab latrine worker whose group of labourers he had treated kindly, esp. given the widespread contempt of our troops, came up and handed him a chunk of goat's cheese, foraged from his pocket. He thought respect courtesy and showing thanks required that he take a bite of it in the man's presence, and managed to do so, despite a churning stomach.Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Korean influence on Japanese culture‎‎[edit]

Weren't you opposed to this? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Computer problems, today's being that the wiki markup boxes are all missing, one more reason for not editing any more. In any case, that is about the nadir of this abysmal editor's barrel-scraping efforts (One could write a very good, more informative, and more detailed article on Korean peninsular influences, more far-reaching than this, if those nuisance nationalist weren't around). This edit, for example, doesn't tell you who Robert T. Oliver was, or why a non-orientalist, paid by Syngman Rhee to write a book in 1945 to present Korea's claims in post-war conferences, should be an authority on the impact of Korean metal-type on Edo book production. Every edit that fellow makes shows he knows nothing of any topic:all he can do is google 'Korea'+'Japan'+influence and then copy and paste the result, ignoring who wrote the book, when it was written, if the information is dated or even correct. If he knew something of the topic he would be adding really interesting things in that section, like the way ŏnhaebon (諺解本) vernacular in text paragraphs glossing Chinese texts, had some inspirational influence on the Japanese introduction of gōtōchū(鼇頭注: "turtle head notes" ), etc, etc.etc. Back to the real world: there's some undergrowth thickening that needs thinning in a wood nearby, and it's a fine day.--Nishidani (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, on a rainier day, you'll want to take a look---they're tag-team edit warring to nom the thing to GA. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I gather that Song-Nai Rhee, C. Melvin Aikens, Sung-Rak Choi, and Hyuk-Jin Ro, ["Korean Contributions to Agriculture, Technology, and State Formation in Japan,"] Asian Perspectives (Fall 2007) pp.404-459 p.405. is now used everywhere. That is readable in PDF and has a lot of information, but none of it can be used unless it is cross-checked against the recent scholarship, since the whole exercise there is to recast the complex issue of peninsular influences in a nationalist mould. So, anywhere it is sourced should be tagged to ask for independent verification from multiple sources. I'll keep an eye on it, though, though editing's pointless for me at the moment since the wiki markup has disappeared from my editing window, and doing anything here is too laborious without it.Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

continuing debate[edit]

I didn't drop anything about entine. I have always defended him as a source. I have never defended yanover, I agree jewishpress is a crappy source except for info on america's modern orthodox. You think I have no individuality? Your responses are boilerplate anti-israel rhetoric. "Fizzle in the guy", "oppressors", "carpet bombing". It's ridiculous. Calling vietnam genocide is also ridiculous and appalling to people who have known real genocide. (Intent to destroy a people in whole or in part? I think not) 1. The "500 children killed" meme is a figure published by Hamas which includes adolescent fighters. 2.It's ballsy to compare Hamas to jewish rebels against the romans, I'll give you that.
2. Jews in the Bar Kochba revolt were fighting against foreign domination, hamas is fighting against a lawfully imposed blockade implemented because of their belligerence. Israel occupied the territories because they were used to wage war against it, occupied judea to weaken the persian empire. Israel isn't concerned that the rockets will kill massive numbers of people, they have the iron dome for that. They are concerned about the fact that most of their population is hiding in bomb shelters and daily life cannot continue until the barrage stops. Hamas uses unguided missiles that are cheap to produce, the iron dome uses guided missiles that are expensive to produce. As the missiles continue they are losing a lot of time and money, and their population is panicking. You also say that "more palestinians died than israelis". That's not how proportionality works. It's the proportion of civillians (sic) killed to legitimate military objectives accomplished, not one side's deaths to another's deaths. [Israel is defending its country], not expanding it. Gazans live in a modern society despite their lack of high-tech weaponry to kill Israelis. Gaza has luxury cars, iphones, fancy hotels. If you're rich of course, most people live in poverty, but that's class stratification for you. It's asymmetrical war fare. For asymmetrical warfare a 1:1 (israel's figure) or even 2:1 (hamas's figure) civilian:combatant ratio is actually pretty great. Compare it to the afghanistan war's 4:1. You focus on the 'suffering of Gazas (sic)- which I agree is immense, and the feeling that its a great injustice. But think about it. Why would Israel WANT to make gazans suffer? Even assuming they don't care about them at all (as the demonizers say) its a waste of money on expensive munitions and a source of international opprobrium. It is in their interest to minimize civilian casualties. My empathy for suffering is distinct from my conception of justice. Justice is not making sides suffer equally in warfare, or else Germany should have carpet-bombed los angelos like we did dresden.-

.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Jewish nose[edit]

Something happened to the talk page, apparently after your most recent edit, that removed the recent discussions on "so called" and "problematic content". Please see this prior version. Perhaps we could restore the linked version, and then you could try adding the sources again? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to edit that page: it's a matter of some delicacy - I think it is something the concerned community should thrash out among themselves. All I did was offer some suggestions re sourcing. I am astonished that the obviousness of writing "so-called" is being challenged. But if that is what the consensus determines, it's none of my business to question it.Nishidani (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump and Altenmann: Pinging you both as something happened to the Talk page. I included the last "good version" above. Perhaps we can agree to restore it, and then re-add our respective new comments pulling from Talk page history? Otherwise, it will continue to be a mess. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

There is something weird is going on with the talkpage. I think I just restored it to correct version, but I'm starting to look into the edit history to figure out what happened and to make sure nothing else is missing. Maybe not coincidentally, yesterday I went back to the talkpage to look for the first conversation between Nishidani and Doug Weller about adding "so called" to the lead, because Nishidani added it here on June 10 with an edit summary that said "Following Doug's suggestion on the talk page. It should be 'so-called'..." but I couldn't find it on the talkpage and I could have sworn I read that conversation the day before. I suspect that there are one or two editors making some fishy edit summaries on both the article and the talkpage. I'm making a list of links and will post them on the talkpage when I'm done. Nishidani, FWIW, apart from those one or two editors, I think consensus is with you about adding "so-called". The sources definitely support adding it. I re-added it with 2 sources yesterday, but was reverted, twice. PermStrump(talk) 22:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm very sorry, Permstrump. My carelessness caused an ambiguity. In the first sentence I indicated I was adopting Doug's suggestion we use Patai, which he had suggested. In the second I was making my own judgement. The two are not connected. My apologies.Nishidani (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
What's interesting is that I found the "nose" page via Nishidani's editing history, from the AE thread on Galassi—not because I was following Permstrump around after our editing of Creation Museum. I've not even known that Permstrump had edited the page before. Fringe is fringe, right? :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
FWIW I think Altenmann was right about what happened with the talkpage. Nishidani, does it make sense that maybe you forgot you were viewing an older version and accidentally edited from there? Otherwise I can't figure out how the page reverted without markup in the edit history. I will comment more on the talkpage more about some of the odd edit summaries on the main article though. K.e.coffman, I was confused about which talkpage I was on when I saw your username again. :-P PermStrump(talk) 23:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
K.e.coffman, do you think anything you wrote is missing from the current version? I didn't think so, but now I'm second guessing myself. PermStrump(talk) 23:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I think Altenmann fixed it. At least what was added today; I've not followed the older stuff as I only come across the article today. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Armenian nose[edit]

The article you linked at Talk:Jewish nose was pretty cute. "So important are noses to Armenians that a Nose Monument has even been erected in the centre of Yerevan. 'Let’s meet by the Nose Monument and take a stroll,' you might say.... Even among Armenians themselves, a genuine Armenian nose isn’t something you encounter very often." So... Armenian's don't have Armenian noses and Jews don't have Jewish noses?! Mind=blown! (I meant that in a tongue-in-cheek kinda way, in case that wasn't clear.) This joke went over my head though: "To make a very bad pun you just might be kith(rough pronunciation of k'it', one of several words for that organ) to the Armenians." What organ are we talking about? The nose? Or one you didn't want to say in English? PermStrump(talk) 23:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Just want to lighten things up there. Kit' is one of the Armenian words for 'nose' and it has a light aspiration on the final 't' which means one could also transliterate it as 'kith', though English 'th' is different. Kith in English as in 'kith and kin'. We often forget that the Jewish gift for humour is one of the great treasures of our culture, and were editors a little less intense, one could make that page a little more relaxed. Debresser is (rightly) proud of his 'Jewish' nose, and I just quipped that in Armenian that would suggest he had an Armenian nose. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Question about the Mandate's legal status[edit]

First of all thank you for your concern with personal details, but there's another thing I asked there see here's the original questions. This is not related to Wikipedia, just a question to someone who might know. I belive you know more than me about things like that, do you have any idea what is the legal status of the Mandate (the text)? And if you happen to have a source, preferably a non John Whitbeck source becuase John Whitbeck is someone who define me (zionist) as a suprimacist colonialist so using him as a source will make me sound weird., becuase I try to explain to a fellow that we do not need to stay in the West Bank because of international law. Thanks--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

About the other thing, email your mentor, since we've noted and agreed on some prospects regarding you and he'll explain, being superfine on the uptake, my edit removal.
When you write:

I try to explain to a fellow that we do not need to stay in the West Bank because of international law

The sentence is ambiguous implying:
(a) we don't have to stay in the West Bank because international law is an obstacle to our permanent presence there, or obliges us, as occupiers, to reach a settlement to disengage from there.
(b)We need to stay in the West Bank, not because of what International Law requires (that, being an occupying army there we have obligations to the Palestinians there etc.) but for some other reason.
I'm not quite sure what kind of material you are asking for: the legal status of the Mandate. It is a legal document, and therefore has no 'status'. Zionists aren't by definition supremacist colonialists. A substantial number of distinguished Zionists thought the movement ended in 1948, and that the events of 1967 threaten(ed) to destroy the legitimacy obtained in 1947. If by Zionist one means someone who defends the legality of the state of Israel (i.e. the obvious) then anyone from myself to Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky is a Zionist. If by Zionist you mean someone who militates for the incorporation of the land beyond the Green Line into Israel, well, that is colonial supremicism. The state of International Law regarding Israel's position vis-a-vis the Palestinian Territories is most authoritatively set forth, by a mostly unanimous vote, in the 8 advisory opinions in pdf linked on this page.
To be brief, the following sections state the legal essence:
  • 78 The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.
If you require something else, try to reframe the request.Nishidani (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Well that's not really what I am searching and indeed I explained my self really bad. What I meant was, what is the significance of the Mandate paper today? Does pats of it still imply today? The man says that Hebron is a Jewish land according to the Mandate (the instrument) and that no legal instrument since then can revoke it. As we both know this is not true, (I offered res. 181, 242 and 3236 as examples but he didn't accept them) I need an explaination about wether today the Mandate paper is still relevent today, is it still holds any legal value, to the point of justifying something like Israeli control of the borders of Mandatory Palestine?. If I"ll tell him that the international community or the UN regard it as occupied he won't accept, so I need something to refute his claim that "Hebron is rightfully Jewish sovereign territory according to the Mandate paper whose legal significance still exists". My purpose is mainly to make people understand that things such as Natali Bennett's plan (which you might find ridiculously funny) make no sense. And thank you for your time.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I know the works of the two resident Kiryat Arba 'experts' on the so-called broader historical legal suppositions for their position. The problem is, this is all amateurish, if somewhat erudite, speculation. You can find the legal instrument underlying the Mandate conferred on great Britain here, and see that there is no mention of Hebron. The obvious source is the aptly named Howard Grief's The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel Under International Law: A Treatise on Jewish Sovereignty Over the Land of Israel, Mazo (Matzo?)Publishers, 2008. It's an historical curiosity that a British soldier by the name of Harry Potter was killed in Hebron during the Mandate (from memory 1938/9) and magical thinking prevails there. If you wish to persist, (which I think pointless) ask him for the precise wording and source of his contention.Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
He already gave the quote after I asked him: "Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..." For now I told him that the Mandate paper said that the creation of a Jewish National Home will not hurt the rights of the people and according to the UN people have the right for self determination and therefore because the UN recognized the Palestinians as a nation in 1974, according to the Mandate paper, the Palestinians have national rights and Israel which is the Jewish National Homeland can't revoke them. But does the Mandate paper legitimate today? This really matters to me becuase if someone present me with an argument I don't have an answer to, I must find it, to have an answer and to expand the knowlege on the subject. I"ll read the source you sent tommorow and again I really appriciate your help.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
If that's his argument, forget about it.
'of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people' does not mean 'the establishment of Palestine as the national home for the Jewish people'. That in was the subject of much contention in the drafting of later legislation, and means 'inside' not 'all of'.
In any case hebron is not mentioned, but thought to be there by entailment. Suffice it to remind the chap that the Israeli carve-up of the occupied West Bank is based on two (spurious) principles (a) land seized on 'security grounds' for the IDF, which is then used for settlements, in violation of the Geneva Conventions about the transfer of populations and (b) Israel law accepts the Ottoman law of title of 1858, so that, no generic claim to the land of 170,000 people in Hebron could be recognized by the supreme legal authority of Israel, esp. if the owners can present Ottoman legal title. No! I'm being optimistic because, functionally, the law is a nightmare. Actually, the inhabitants of Susya have written legal Ottoman title to that land dated 1882, which should mean that by the use of the very legal system regarding land title for the occupied territories Israel took over from the Ottomans via the British and then the Jordanians, those folks's claim to their land is unchallengeable. In fact, the foremost legal expert for Israel Ruth Kark recognized that their claim is legally impeccable. Result, yesterday their homes were bulldozed, because one judge in a Jerusalem court, who happens to come from a West Bank Israeli settlement, swung the verdict. In international law, there is case for Israel's title to the West Bank or Gaza, since the November 29 1947 deliberation by the UN which created Israel divided it into two future states, one for the Jews (31% of the population being awarded 56% of the land, 96% of which lay in Arab title, or tenant use, and one for the Palestians (awarded as the 66% of the residents, 44% of the land). The only way, technically, Israel can receive international recognition for land beyond the Green Line is for the Palestinian Authority to cede it in a treaty.Nishidani (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The problem is the person is one of those who don't recognize the Israeli control as occupation and furthermore he claims that since Palestine is yet to become a fully recognzied state (Which I can't argue with him because I agree) the Palestinians are not the legal sovereigns of the territory and therefore the Jews, represented by Israel are the only legal sovereigns with the justification of the Mandate paper. The question is not about private land ownership, but on national sovereignty, as I demand Israeli withdrawal from Hebron as a compromise for peace while he says that we can't leave Hebron and that according to international law Israel has the right to stay in the West Bank and Hebron. In his minds there is no occupation according to international law and there is no legal Palestinian national entity (the PA is effectivley an autonomy) with legal claims to the West Bank and the Mandate paper is the only excuse that the Jews are allowed to practice soveriegnty in Hebron. So, pretending that the Madate paper say the Jews can pratice soveriegnty over Hebron, does it still qualify today? Right-wing Israelis are much more hardline than me when defending Israel.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
There's no problem, because your friend is just expressing a personal opinion, to which he or she is perfectly entitled. The problem of personal opinions is whether they are connected to reality or not, i.e. to what extent are they informed by facts, and 'authoritative' interpretations (I use that word not to indicate 'authority' but the result of a dedicated pursuit of the state of the art by competent specialists who take on board all views and evaluate them with analytical precision and respect for rational principles of judgement). Your interlocutor is not interested in having their views changed by the facts or wider reading, and hence is an ideologist, whose mindset defies any inflection from the world of facts. Perhaps your best bet is simply to cite an impeccable source on this: Justice Thomas Buergenthal. He's (a)Jewish (b) a Holocaust survivor (c) justly concerned with Israel's security issues as they are affected by the Palestinian Territories (d) one of the great authorities on international law (e) he was one of the judges in the International Court of Justice case regarding the building of Israel's Separation Barrier (f) He wrote a dissenting opinion but (g) underwrote the general principles of that verdict (h) namely, as you can see in his dissenting opinion, that structure is built on 'Occupied Palestinian Territory'.

2. 1 share the Court's conclusion that international humanitarian law,including the Fourth Geneva Convention, and international human rights law are applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory and must there be faithfully complied with by Israel. 1 accept that the wall is causing deplorable suffering to many Palestinians living in that territory. In this connection, 1 agree that the means used to defend against terrorism must conform to al1 applicable rules of international law and that a State which is the victim of terrorism may not defend itself against this scourge by resorting to measures international law prohibits.'etc.

Those credentials are impeccable: Buergenthal knows what he is talking about, your acquaintance is ignorant.Nishidani (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I"ve now understood his claims. As you have expected, he is referring to Howard Grief's thesis, but we came into a conclusion that we can't reach a conclusion due to the ideological differences between the two of us, mainly because I want Israel to withdraw from (94-96% of) the West Bank and the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem regardless any legal claims. Therefore even if Grief is right and Quigley (who critisize him) is wrong, I still don't see a future of Israeli control in the West Bank, after all half of my thinking is based on Nihilism and Anarchism. This Thomas Buergenthal article on the other hand is an interesting piece I kept, as well as most of the rest of the sources above.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
When I was just a little older than you, some centuries ago, I was taught to think psychoanalytically in personal terms, and sociologically in broader contexts. The former is culturally a piece of deadwood in most quarters, so forget that, but thinking sociologically means that one looks, in a general argument, for the interests, and contextual contraints operant in anything. If you're close to a top quality library (given upcoming events!) you might consider using a day this summer to read, for example, an excellent fluent exponent of this, Stanislav Andreski's Military organization and society (later works teach the method over a wider scope of subjects). Such scholars don't deal in right or wrong, they deal in the real forces at play in terms of options for a given social structure within a definite historical moment or context. let me illustrate, people can waffle on Israel's choices over the last decades in moral reproval, but they have been dictated by mechanical factors related to aliyah and demography, and nothing else. (a) Mizrachi immigration had the unintended effect of undermining, within a generation, the Ashkenazi Labour ascendancy, and you got Likud; (b) post 1989 Soviet immigration created a Russian enclave, reflected in the interests of a new party Yisrael Beiteinu, which bridged with Likud's Irgun radical tradition inherited from Ze'ev Jabotinsky; (c)33% of citizens, totally haredi, 20% dati leumi, and 12% more halakha-observant, forming a religious constituency whose birth rates a far higher than that among secular families. Put those elements together, and the political options for rational compromise are politically impossible, and virtually closed off. Most of our sources are 'mood-influencers' and don't care for the subterranean realities beneath the rhetoric. But at the same time, non-withdrawal consists of a conserving a malignancy at the heart of Israeli democracy because the state trapped in these cross-vector interests will be forced to maintain both colonial-military control and settlement increments whose outcome will be one part functional/part dysfunctional mega-state for some further decades. Individuals can do little within this inextricable mess, except strive to maintain their decency in the everyday real world, which is what most folks tend to do.
So while you and I agree on this issue (disengagement from the WB), but it is a moral evaluation, based on practical considerations of a democratic kind, with a very large practical cost for Israel, in that Israel gains nothing, and would lose a lot in order to regain its soul or sanity as a normal nation, but most importantly no government in the present environment has the (suicidal) guts to take that decision,* for psephological reasons. It would complicate Israel's internal stability at the negligible value of making Israel, at last, a full fledged international actor. The one argument for a pull-out as you put it, is that it avoids what is looking like the sociological fate of non-withdrawal, i.e. the internal dissolution of Israel's democratic prospects, (p.s. if you are talking of Quigley's position on the Sèvres Treaty, then prob. neither he, nor certainly Grief is correct). Regards Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • the guts. There are exceptions, Lyndon B. Johnson's provisions for his Great Society were held up by the limpid calculation that, were he to enact civil rights enforcement, he would lose the democratic base in the South and condemn his party's future electoral results. Despite disliking him at the time, I've learnt to admire someone who, when he had to decide, said, more or less, 'we have an obligation to history, and our founding principles, whatever the damage this will do to our party's future prospects', and implemented it. The result was a Republican ascendency consistently reconfirmed, if not presidentially, then in the 2 houses of the Senate and Congress, that had deadlocked real reform. Nishidani (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Well Israel is doomed, we know that, but it seems that everywhere is "doomed", Europe with migrants, or revived fascist movements, USA with bad presidents, or just SJW and pretty much the West, with it's low birth-rate.. but if you look at Syria, they are already "doomed" and yet they might get out of their turmoil.. There is my father's assumption that one day either us or the Palestinians will be genocided (or both) so maybe I"ll just use my French citizenship to live the rest of my life in Polynesia or something... But until then, I can tell you that the comforting fact, that Israel's main problem is simply a sharp rise in the price of living since 2007 and corruption. I am more scared of a full economic destruction rather than... angry Palestinian with rocks. Right now I dedicate my reading to Israeli things, I"ve read Yoav Gelber's book on the 1948 war and currently I am reading Altneuland that I got as a gift, but maybe after this one I"ll put some time to read a non-Israel related book, maybe even in English (by the way me and you? 80-90% mutually intelligible)--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I recite to myself a poem entitled Said Hanrahan, when I get depressed, which means, very rarely. I do it to mock myself. Israel's economic problems are more or less a structural problem in the world economy, nothing unique: we're all in the same boat, but I won't be round to rock the boat raft. If you feel more comfortable with French, when asking for info, or asking me personally for edit clarifications, don't hesitate to use that language. Keep sane and enjoy life whatever. Youth's a rare and ephemeral gift. I'll probably have to recite Said Hanrahan when Spain wipes out Croatia in the Uefa match that's just started. I always back long shots or underdogs. Regards.Nishidani (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Zionism forced exodus[edit]

Why did you revert my edit? The linked article is about the exodus and many of the reasons and exoduses were not forced. It is extreme POV to include that in the lead when the article doesn't assert that at all. Please self-revert. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The exodus from Egypt, from which we take this stupid, but established, expression, was not compelled, but elective. The Palestinian exodus was not elective, but compelled by the circumstances of war, at gunpoint, by spreading panic, or implementing in various fields a thinning or expulsion policy, attested minutely throughout the literature for each area. When Great Britain in the war evacuated hundreds of thousands from its major cities, it was a temporary measure, not an 'exodus'. No Palestinian chose to piss off - those that moved, moved to other temporary locations to avoid the lines of conflict. It was definitely neither biblical nor, in the common acceptance of the extended meaning, a departure from one's native land to settle in another. I would retain 'exodus' only if it were accompanied by some adjective indicating it was not willed.Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The term is wikilinked so that someone can view the full information. Having forced in there is a NNPOV. In addition, while you may bring sources, others can bring sources, as it is in the Wikiarticle, that many people left on their own, and many people were told to leave by the Arab leaders. All that translates into using just "exodus" and not forced exodus. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
You should not edit articles if you have zero knowledge of the relevant modern literature on the subject. That you are totally unfamiliar with the topic is shown by the extraordinary meme:'many people were told to leave by the Arab leaders'. This is a piece of deadwood from the hightide of post 1948 Zionism's hasbara whose purely propaganda function is recognized as the scholarly consensus. It was compellingly and comprehensively demolished by Erskine Childers and Walid Khalidi almost 60 years ago. There is radio broadcast evidence for Arab leaders pleading for people to stay in place, esp. after the use to which the Deir Yassin Massacre was put, with its broadcast boast that 248 Palestinians had been massacred. Every one who moved, after that date, had this story uppermost in their minds, convinced, rightly or wrongly, that staying would put them and their families at lethal risk. According to the ablest Zionist historian, Benny Morris, a further 23 massacres took place throughout that period by the Haganah. The Palestinian version counts 62-68, in part based on the fact that Palestinian casualties in villages are estimated at 13,000 - including people who had disappeared and could not be accounted for after the war. Palestinian families from that period conserve the keys to their homes, in the massive housing stock left behind: they left, temporarily, as battle lines shifted. One does not do that in an exodus to settle in another country. It's pointless giving history lessons, esp. when Ireland is about to thrash Italy in the Uefa cup.Nishidani (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
You seriously need to stop your condescending attitude. I have put up with it for far too long. You have reverted to a NNPOV and UNDUE for the lead. You can see the Causes of the 1948 Exodus here: Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus#.22Arab_leaders.27_endorsement_of_flight.22_explanation "Fifth: the Arab governments' invitation to the people of Palestine to flee from it and seek refuge in adjacent Arab countries, " , "The withdrawals were carried out pursuant to an order emanating from Amman. The withdrawal from Nazareth was ordered by Amman; the withdrawal from Safad was ordered by Amman; the withdrawal orders from Lydda and Rale are well known to you",""The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, " Sir Joseph (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Again, you are only showing your incompetence, the citation being from a period memoir of one Syrian politician, which has found no external corroboration.
More importantly, wiki pages (which typically index primary sources from a period, and not the more comprehensive analyses of later secondary source historians= are not reliable. 99% of wiki articles on history are primitive or mediocre.
Third, you didn't read down the same page. Had you done so, at this section, a modern Israeli historian whose knowledge of archives is magisterial, is cited as writing:-

Morris estimates that Arab orders accounts for at most 5% of the total exodus:

Arab officers ordered the complete evacuation of specific villages in certain areas, lest their inhabitants "treacherously" acquiesce in Israeli rule or hamper Arab military deployments.... There can be no exaggerating the importance of these early Arab-initiated evacuations in the demoralization, and eventual exodus, of the remaining rural and urban populations.[60]

Based on his studies of seventy-three Israeli and foreign archives or other sources, Morris made a judgement as to the main causes for the Arab exodus from each of the 392 settlements that were depopulated during the 1948-1950 conflict (pages xiv to xviii). His tabulation lists "Arab orders" as being a significant "exodus factor" in only 6 of these settlements.

All the rest of that page is a huge effort to cite whatever slight evidence can be dredged up from the faulty or malinformed memoirs of Arab politicians in the 1950s and build it up into a wiki case in support of the meme, a gross WP:Undue bloat of trivia, that has been scrutinized by scholars and dismissed as basically irrelevant to the historical facts of that period. And not that Morris's analysis does not speak of some programmatic mass 'exodus' under Arab advice, but military orders in a handful of cases to evacuate a battle zone, which is normative in all conflicts, and does not constitute a policy of national flight across the board. But, back to the match. Take a rest from editing, and read some modern books on the subject.Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Your name[edit]

Yes, I'm talking to you again. On your talk page. Somehow despite your incessant belittling of my intelligence and character I found it in my heart to forgive. I just thought you would think this is amusing. I'm 95% sure you're a man, but whenever I'm talking about you with a third person pronoun I think "she". It's your username. It sounds like a girl's name. I wonder if that's like a Bouba/kiki effect thing. Just warning you because I will probably slip up one day.--Monochrome_Monitor 18:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

My father had a rule, endorsed by my mother: 'Never let the sun go down without burying your disagreements with a handshake'. I take Simon at his word for your high intelligence. Perhaps that is why I have been severe. I don't like to see gifts wasted. You have, I am given to understand, a scientific background (mine was to be a medical doctor, before adolescence distracted me). I don't think you quite grasp that the humanities and esp. historiography, require, at their finest, a very different use of intelligence because they deal with probabilities, cruxes, likelihoods, and relative assessments of tricky evidence. If I can impart one useful lesson, it's this. I may be a hard taskmaster, but, even when frustrated by the fatigue caused by what I take to be carelessness, I don't hold grudges, and find resentment odious, esp. if detected in myself. Don't worry about gender. I'm pretty sure I'm male, because my wife is not a lesbian. And don't overply the worrybeads about Jews. The Jews, god bless, will always survive and thrive, anywhere, even in Israel:)Nishidani (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Must rush. The Croazia-Portugal play off is about to start.Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Awww. :) Enjoy your soccer. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

[2] Here's a source not tainted by Jewish bias. I don't appreciate being called mccarthyite.--Monochrome_Monitor 03:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian isnt covered under Wikipedia's BLP policy. Your talk page however is. nableezy - 04:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Jewish bias? There is no such thing as 'Jewish' bias. If you can't understand that, i.e., that it is one of the deepest pathologies of slipshod thinking to attribute to all members of a set a trait attributed to one member (or subgroup) of the set (ethnically, Jews, Irish, Turks, Arabs, etc.etc.etc.), then it's pointless arguing. Indeed if you make the same conceptual error that the classic anti-Semite makes, then there is no way out of the trap. Whatever Gilad's views, what little I know of them appears to reflect the same collectivist labeling one finds every day in mainstream politicians concerning 'Arabs'. If Gilad, a powerless man, is an anti-Semite, then, by the same token, psychoanalytically, a large number of the world's political elite, a significant party of the Likud constituency and leadership, would be 'anti-semitic' by logical entailment. For in either case a flawed generalizing inference is made collectively against a 'race' or people because of hatred for a particular incident or trend associated with one or some of them. Yesterday, a Palestinian gunman killed a settler, a rabbi, in a drive-by shooting, that also critically wounded his wife and injured their 2 children. The immediate response by the Israeli government was to lock down the lives of an estimated 700,000 Palestinians in the Hebron Governorate, and lay out plans for demolishing a large number of Palestinian family homes in the occupied territories, where Israel, the military authority, gives one or two permits a year for a population of hundreds of thousands. I.e. one person of Palestinian ethnicity committed a crime against Jews, therefore all people of Palestinian ethnicity in that whole region will be punished. This is guilt by association, which is what, classically, anti-Semites do.
And I didn't call you a McCarthyite. Drop it. Nishidani (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Zionism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
We have a conversation on the Zionism talk page about seeking consensus on whether the appropriate terminology ought to be re-establish or establish. Regards.

From somebody who actually has violated the 1RR at that page, this is a curious notice to be sending. nableezy - 03:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I've struck that out. It is the first time in 10 years that I've seen someone post an edit-warring notice on the page of an editor who made just one edit.Nishidani (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Serious stuff[edit]

You really should write this down. It is important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omysfysfybmm (talkcontribs) 09:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why you write ‘a nation of monkeys’ on the discussion page but not on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omysfysfybmm (talkcontribs) 14:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Because I don't want to misuse Wikipedia as a propaganda forum for a cause, unlike editors who dig for shit and throw it into articles, or specialize in making a special page for every incident of terror the press reports. Nishidani (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
The terms some Israeli political, religious and military leaders have used in public to describe Palestinians, e.g. ‘lice’; ‘moles; ‘animals’; ‘two footed beasts’; 'cockroaches'; 'vermin;' ‘beasts and asses’; ‘ravening beasts’; ‘leeches’; ‘ants’; ‘snakes’; ‘subhumans’; ‘crocodiles'; ‘mosquitoes’ to be exterminated; people who ‘live like dogs’; ‘grasshoppers’ to be crushed underfoot; ‘a nation of monkeys’; etc etc, are almost exactly the same terms the Nazis have used in public to describe Jewish people. And the same terms the white Bananamericans have used in public to describe the Native Americans in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. And similarly most of these terms have been used by almost every colonialist power to characterize their victims throughout the last 10,000 years of human history. Ijon Tichy (talk) 06:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I've heard that language everywhere, even from dear friends. A very good Japanese mate once thought he was giving me an avuncular tip for my own good when he saw me talking to a well-dressed chap in a bar - I basically learnt Japanese by getting drunk in them everynight while chatting - by mentioning the incident later and flashing 4 fingers: yottsu /4) = walk on all fours, an animal, a 'euphemism' for the word 'eta' written with characters that signify 'much filth', meaning of pariah extraction. One of my first impressions of England was of a gentle Pakistani ticket collector extending his hand under the elbow of a short Saville Row dressed bureaucrat in bowler hat stepping onto a bus: we were just outside Whitehall. The busman intended assisting this old bureaucrat to get on the double decker. Instantaneously, I saw a magical act of metamorphosis, as the bureaucrat, trembling with rage, spurted out, almost spitting with horror- 'Fuck off, you black bastard!' etc. I saw the same metamorphosis when a friend I was discussing the niceties of Japanese history with reacted to my allusion to a mutual acquaintance, a man of extraordinary distinction and profound humanity -by suddenly twisting himself into Fagin and adopting a Jewish-cockney accent, more or less saying:'Hey, the man you admire is a Jew'. It shocks me to this day in recalling it. More basically, Auden once quipped that if men knew what women said of the male species behind their backs, the human race would cease to exist. You're right that this is typical of colonial attitudes, but it goes much deeper, and, I'm afraid, these days, with the onset of political correctness, that the attitudes survive but under cover. The worst racists are, as often as not, people who are impeccably polite in their verbal behavior, and murderous when it comes to making 'hard' decisions that will affect disastrously the damned of the earth. If there is a difference among democracies, it is that in the Israeli instances, such remarks, a commonplace in the highest quarters do not lead to resignations or much scandal - they blow over in a day or two and are rarely reported abroad. The policy of 'containment of Communism' in newspeak regarding South America was actually, in private, spoken of as the 'elimination of a virus'. In Chile, both Nixon and Kissinger's interventions to keep it in check led to the murder of 3,000 innocent people,- on suspicion of being 'infected': i.e. the equivalent of the Twin Towers fatalities, as Chomsky has noted. The former is forgotten, the latter sacralized, by the same population.Nishidani (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ali Abu Awwad[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Ali Abu Awwad has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. RolandR (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I never write articles without extensive sourcing. Some POV pushing crank wiped them all off the page when I had delisted it from my watchlist. Drop one's attention for a minute, and years of work can go down the memory hole.Nishidani (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, this notice was placed automatically by Twinkle, and I didn't check to see on whose page. Had I realised that you had created the article, I would have contacted you directly. I have left an explanation on the article's talk page about how this misunderstanding arose. RolandR (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
No apologies needed. Answered there. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Can we remove the "alledgedly"[edit]

I know Ma'an likes to say "alledgedly" and it makes sense becuase Ma'an is not an Israeli source and it doesn't have the instinct of believing every IDF report, but if there is a video proof, the "alledgedly" is irelevent. Here is the video.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC) I am talking about this of course.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. I'll remove it immediately. By the way, you don't need my permission for the obvious.(My reading of that is that it was what will emerge in future years, a imitative suicide pattern (or, I see now Copycat suicide). I first noticed this while reading as a boy The Sorrows of Young Werther. Its publication led to a wave of suicides, as did Misao Fujimura's in Japan at Kegon Falls back I think in 1903. Look at the video closely. I've never been able to understand why, in the U.S. and Israel no effort is made to shoot such people in the legs or arms or shoulder, with one shot. Lack of training, I suppose. It's quite easy at that distance to disarm or incapacitate a woman waving a knife at you, you know (I'm biased: I had an aikido teacher who on request showed how one can clap one's hands on a sword without being scarred. Definitely not advisable. In practice, he told us that when threatened, even if one is an accomplished fighter, the best move, if possible, is to walk or run away). Still, this is a personal reflection and has nothing to do with the correct interpretation of available sources. I'll do it immediately. Nishidani (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I understand it, but after so many of those happened in the last 8 months, imagine yourself talking about tommorow's game and suddenly a woman apear with a knife 1 meter from you and you also apear to be stuck between the woman and the pillers on the sidewalk... People panic. This whole thing happened in 10 seconds, I wouldn't judge a person for such incident. In other incidents you can see a guard shooting the guy five times and he continues to move and try to attack people.. There are incidents like Hadeel al-Hashlamoun but I would not rush to blame the soldiers for mistekenly helping a person commit suicide, well except for the dumb Azaria guy or the or the "girl with the scissors".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely no intention of judging the soldiers. In that environment, they applied an army regulation, and that regulation is the problem, since a couple of dozen so killed have constituted no danger and could, with discretion, have been treated otherwise (as in least three cases I can recall, Israeli checkpoint soldiers have done, not exercising their legal option). But for wiki purposes this is neither here nor there. Regards.Nishidani (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
You never shoot for the legs. When you shoot someone, you shoot "to stop the threat." In addition, when you shoot someone your aim is not good at all (due to stress/adrenaline), as evident by cops shooting 40 times, so they are trained to aim for the largest mass. Finally, even if you shoot the legs and hit the legs, that will just anger the person and increase adrenaline and make that person super strong and they can cause harm and even kill the cop/soldier. It's a sad fact, but if you go up against a trained shooter, they will shoot to kill in most cases as the most prudent course of action. A person "doped" up on adrenaline is extremely unstoppable, similar to someone on heroin who takes 4 cops to subdue. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Family members in the army told me the instructions are to shout ("wakaf!"), shout and threat ("wakaf wa la ana batuhak!"), load, shoot at legs, and those are only when the man is far away, let's say 10 meters, but if the man (or woman in this case) is 1 meter from you, you don't have time for this, the procedure is to shoot to kill only when there is a clear threat to your life, and when a woman armed with a knife is 1 meter from you, that's justifiable, because you don't have the time to think "is she going to attack? is here knife really dangerous? is she strong enough?", when you are under a life threat, you are allowed to shoot to kill, and this is the reason guiding many soldiers, who either misinterpret the orders or just try to save themselves from jail.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Sir Joe. First of all, countries should not put their citizens or soldiers in situations of danger unless there is a national threat. national threats should not last 50 years, by refusing to just go home and leave the enemy in whatever peace he deserves, or war/civil inrternecine strife he choses within his own borders. In any case, they don't do that in Europe, they are trained to shoot them in non-vital parts of the body(here, or here, or even in the US covering stationary threats with a knife-wielder); a year into the Al Aqsa intifada 21% of the 4,448 Palestinians hospitalized after clashes with Israeli troops were shot in the legs;(b) such incidents in thoroughly legally civilized countries lie in the independent hands of a judiciary, not in military courts, and (c) Israel does this predominantly in an occupied territory to which it has no recognized legal right (d)it is ethnically-determined judgement because police or soldier-response to threats are, like the US with blacks, deal one way if the source of the perceived threat is an Arab or a Jew, the latter:are regularly overpowered by police, even while brandishing a knife; (e)Jewish terrorists are cornered in their homes, and arrested, and the homes left intact, whereas Palestinian terrorists are almost invariably shot dead in their homes, and the homes demolished; (f) girls aged 13 to 18 like many in these incidents, don't require 4 cops to subdue them; (g)every week, at demonstrations, Palestinians are shot by a combination of live and rubber-coated bullets from a distance of 49-70 metres, beyond any threat; (h) It is standard practice, organized by a commandant, spotter, and marksman (though often, as in the Beitunia killings, or Elor Azaria shooting a 'neutralized' aggressor dead with a shot to the head (didn't know that article existed), to name one of a few score cases I know of) in demonstrations to shoot one or two in the crowd, identified as a ringleader, from a distance of safety; (h) in numerous cases, up to 10-15 bullets are shot, continuing when the person is down, as in the case mentioned by Bolter, Hadeel al-Hashlamoun, who posed no threat except to a M15-touting coward. Her case disproves your theory. She was first shot 3 times in the leg by a soldier separated from her by a 1.2 metal barrier, and then while felled had a further 7 bullets pumped into her, or like the long drawn out case of Yusef a-Shawamreh, a 14 year old kid ambushed (it's on video) for picking vegetables on a patch of their family land fenced off by the Separation Barrier, or the brother trying to protect his sister in this case. There are dozens of such incidents. In the U.S. they get huge coverage, and often lead to independent inquiries. In Israel . I'd appreciate it if we close this. Some young editors may find themselves in military service shortly, and it is inappropriate to put them in jeopardy by arguing the toss about things, perhaps even causing confusion, to their danger, for complex events that can only be understood in context.Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
When someone is close enough to you, you don't shoot at the legs. Had the soldiers shot the women in the legs she still had plenty of space and then the buildup of adrenaline to then continue stabbing. The first rule of shooting is to neutralize the threat, not shoot the legs so that the UN will be happy. If you don't want to get shot and possibly killed, don't try to stab or attack police, or soldiers. Your examples are not self-defense examples. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
You can. That woman stopped three times, holding the knife in her hand, waiting, taking a step, waiting, taking a step as 2 grown men pointed guns at her. And that is what the soldier did with with Hadeel al-Hashlamoun: no matter how much adrenaline is pumped into you by three bullets to the legs, you can't spring from a fallen position over a metal barrier 1.2 metres high and attack the soldier two or more metres away with a knife. Drop it.Nishidani (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I guess you didn't see the same video I did. I saw a video where soldiers kept backing up and warning a lady not to continue, and to put down her knife. She decided not to.They made the right call. There's only so much you can do before someone wants to kill you, but I guess since the soldiers were Israeli, they should have let themselves be stabbed so that the world could breath better that a poor Stabberstinian was able to stab someone. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Wrong guess. You obviously fast-read the above, didn't mull each piece on its merits, and confused my remark about this soldier shooting a fallen woman from a position of total security with the video of today's case. You're welcome on this page, but only if you pay close attention to what is being said.Nishidani (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I am not talking about all those cases, only cases where someone shoots in self-defense, in other words close quarters. My point is that in general, in close quarters, you don't shoot the legs, you shoot to neutralize and that means shooting the largest mass. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Please read what you stated earlier, whose confusion I clarified. I read the blog you got that from about shooting at the central mass. In Europe, even terrorists are shot in the limbs, as I instanced. The world is various, rules change from area to area. I have variety, and you repeat a meme. That's it folks.Nishidani (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Just as an endnote. The new rules say you can shoot with live ammunition any Palestinian who slings stones, even in non-lethal circumstances, where there is no threat and no danger to the IDF soldier.Nishidani (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The "no threat..." is not part of the guidelines, that is "SYNTH" from Adalah. Slingshots and fireworks are lethal, and it specifically didn't mention throwing stones not with a slingshot. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
You know what 'fireworks' means in English. I do, I threw and dodged a lot when I was a kid, but not, of course, against an army of occupation, but other gangs, or in infragang warfare. According to the new police regulations, "an officer is permitted to open fire (with live ammunition) directly on an individual who clearly appears to be throwing or is about to throw a firebomb, or who is shooting or is about to shoot fireworks, in order to prevent endangerment." It is further specified that, "stone throwing using a slingshot" is also an example of the sort of situation, which would justify the fatal use of live ammunition.Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Inform yourself about the distance rules in clashes. They are calibrated in order to place one beyond a stone's throw, while the other in one's sights is well within range.Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
We got ourselves a gangster here...I was never in a "gang" but in highschool we used to drop lit fireworks out the third story window down to where the smokers hung out...hormones I guess. Sepsis II (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I was in one before hormones raised their smugly head called the 'Blood Brothers'. I was initiated by being threatened with pun ches unless I screwed up the courage to punch a boyscout, my age, just after he'd taken some oath. They thought it funny to watch kids becoming virtuous, and then walloping them. We were both 8. I punched him in the face, and he burst out crying, more stunned than hurt. It was the first and last time for me. I ran messages, or stole money, or helped break into factories at nighttime, etc.Nishidani (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Nish, you're wasting your time. If the person you're talking to is a reasonable adult then fine I won't say anything when you have these discussions with them. I didn't even read past a certain word up above before I went to edit the section and skip down to the bottom, so maybe there was some epiphany there that I missed but I doubt it. I humbly ask that you not engage in discussions unrelated to Wikipedia articles when you are well aware that the person you are talking to will not be convinced by any type of reason and is, even if not intentionally, for all intents and purposes trolling you. It's pointless responding to that stuff, and Im pretty sure you know it's pointless. nableezy - 20:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

do you need to personalize everything? Sir Joseph (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I dont think you quite understand what that means. But no, I dont. nableezy - 05:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
You're quite right, but editing Wikipedia, and life generally (aside from watching things like fireflies outside my window at the moment) is pointless. It's somewhat less pointless, if you try, regularly through the day, to give the chaos of cluttered information one is exposed to a thorough sweeping, allowing no bulldust to pile up, as one rearranges the mental furniture throughout the day. This morning my wife and I went early to the market because the local 'madwoman' (not really, but manic) goes later, and buttonholes her for an hour. My wife can never ignore someone in distress, and ends up hyperstressed. So I'm gradually developing a semi-professional presence there, because every one scrambles, and the manager thinks she hurts trade. But she turned up. So I intercepted her, and I distracted her to rant at me, complaining of marriage and its woes. I had mysay, making little headway, but then quipped 'My dear, you know the old proverb:'Marriage:first year heart to heart, second year, arse to arse, and third year, up yours!'. Changed everything,she laughed and forgot her misery, for the mo', and didn't harangue my wife. A local business man, in relief, offered me a cup of coffee (I'd seen him coming, and beat him to the cashier) in thanks. Working here's a bit like that: it is good mental housekeeping; you may be speaking to the wind, but the wind travels passed stopped ears, and a whisper of what you state may caress a casual bystander's thoughts, and not everything one does will suffer a revert.
I guess you've finished jumu'ah, but I won't ruin the video replay, except to say Wales did itself proud against Portugal, Bale in particular. Thanks, and 'nite, Nab.Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Im just saying there are things worth the effort and things that are not. Reasoning with "true believers", of whatever persuasion, generally falls in the latter bucket. nableezy - 05:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, dead right. I've dropped Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture‎ from my concern list, and the article. 'True believers' are the majority of mankind, with varying degrees of delusion from your average 'go with the headlines'/group gossip type to the John Waynish gun-for-talks' drumbeaters. I reflected yesterday that the £10,000,000 spent over 7 years on the Chilcct Report concluded over 12 volumes, twice the size of Proust's masterpiece, saying exactly what any reader who knew the topic, or read Alexander Cockburn or Robert Fisk, etc.etc. knew down to the eve of war, that the beady-guy and the squiggly-eyed chap were engaged in enacting a delusional fantasy that, as predicted by 6 academics in their 30 minutes briefing to Bliar in November 2002, would take 2-3 decades before the self-evident con sequences of an unprovoked invasion would work its way out of the desolation. 7 years and over 2 million words to confirm what could have been said in a paragraph or two 13 years ago. Compare the King-Crane Commission which took just 2 months to write before the implementation of the British Mandate. It saw the obvious consequences and wrote them down with detachment. Go ahead, and Zionism will dispossess the vast majority of Palestinians of their homeland, and this would only be done by the presence of a large standing army of occupation abetting the project by the exercise of force. Obvious, and we have thousands of books, of delusional historiography pretending this wasn't inevitable, humming and haaing about misunderstandings, or Arab anti-Semitic terrorism, duly cited here. Like Wikipedia editing in these areas.Nishidani (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Nableezy, I agree with your astute analysis of Sir Joseph's behavior.

Nish, I agree with your philosophy of life, that life generally is pointless, and that there are some things that make life somewhat less pointless. I love the following quote from physicist Steven Weinberg:

"The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things which lifts human life a little above the level of farce and gives it some of the grace of tragedy. ... It is almost irresistible for humans to believe that we have some special relation to the universe, that human life is not just a more-or-less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents reaching back to the first three minutes, but that we were somehow built in from the beginning. ... It is very hard to realize that this is all just a tiny part of an overwhelmingly hostile universe. It is even harder to realize that this present universe has evolved from an unspeakably unfamiliar early condition, and faces a future extinction of endless cold or intolerable heat. The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless. ... If there is no point in the universe that we discover by the methods of science, there is a point that we can give the universe by the way we live, by loving each other, by discovering things about nature, by creating works of art. And that—in a way, although we are not the stars in a cosmic drama, if the only drama we're starring in is one that we are making up as we go along, it is not entirely ignoble that faced with this unloving, impersonal universe we make a little island of warmth and love and science and art for ourselves. That's not an entirely despicable role for us to play."

Love, Ijon Tichy (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote. A wonderful mind. I've only read his classic First Three Minutes. If you'll permit me a late night quip, though, the only black hole he can’t apparently fathom is the P of the I/P conflict, when he warned a colleague against romanticizing the 'primitive' Palestinians. But we all have lapses, and this is swept away by the tsunami of his tidal reflections. G'nite, pal. Nishidani (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
The last time I've read the entire WP article on Weinberg was in 2012, and in the 4 years since then I've completely forgotten that he has said some things that range from utterly stupid to almost racist or perhaps even outright racist. Sorry about that. If I would have remembered that he said those crappy things, I probably would not have posted his quote above on your talk page.
Can you recommend any other people who have expressed a philosophy of life that's somewhat similar to the quote from Weinberg above? I don't want to continue anymore to associate my (somewhat frequent) thoughts about the meaning of life with Weinberg, now that I'm aware of the shitty things he said about Palestinians and about people who have expressed sympathy or solidarity with the Palestinians. Best, Ijon Tichy (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I don’t think we should measure anyone by their positions on the ‘Palestine’ question. We all have our blindspots. Any wise man will say something of profound stupidity at one point in his life, just as any stupid person will come out with something of dazzling profundity somewhere along his trial/trail of tears. In both cases, despite themselves. In fact when you mentioned him, I went rambling at midnight through the stacks to take up his book and reread marked passages to end the day in wise company, but couldn’t find my copy.
Weinberg’s statement takes off from Pascal’s Le silence éternel de ces espaces infinis m'effraie (The eternal silence of these infinite spaces frightens me). There’s something of that behind Newton’s late reflection:

I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.

What has happened is that the sheer paralysing weight infinity pressing down upon one’s cognitive solitude is somewhat domesticated by a compensating sense of slow achievement in making some sense of the vast unknown in which we are embedded. Likening that striving to the play of a boy on a beach means that Newton had, unlike Pascal, found joy, an aesthetic pleasure, in playing at the juncture where the sensible world of experience faces off against eternity. But Pascal’s unease remains, in the thought that these pebbles and pretty shells of thought are nothing, in retrospect, to the ‘vast unexplored ocean’ beyond. The intangible, menacing void of space however is softened into a palpable reality by the analogy with an ocean that is instinct with ‘truth’.
One turns to poets as always to see through to the deeper side. Blake, whose eyes saw angels dancing in London’s streets, and had senses so acute he was reputed to hear the the shift of carriage wheels of a coach coming to a country tavern, where he sat with friends miles away, took Newton’s reflection and reinterpreted it in his monotype by submerging him under that sea, measuring away with his calipers, and reconciled the contrast between ‘sand’ (the sensual world our senses delight in) and infinity by making the former compact of eternity’s divinity, as pantheistic mystics always do:
Mock on, mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau;
Mock on, mock on; 'tis all in vain!
You throw the sand against the wind,
And the wind blows it back again.
And every sand becomes a gem
Reflected in the beams divine;
Blown back they blind the mocking eye,
But still in Israel's paths they shine.
The Atoms of Democritus
And Newton's Particles of Light
Are sands upon the Red Sea shore,
Where Israel's tents do shine so bright.
Leopardi, some years later, overwrought with a physical malformation, illnesses, a monstrous mother, and a frustrated love life, still managed to sift out joy from both Pascal and Newton’s anxiety, when he wrote L'infinito:
I’ve always loved this solitary hill,
I’ve always loved this hedge that hides from me
So much of what my earthly eyes can see.
For as I sit and gaze, all calm and still,
I conjure up my thoughts; my mind I fill
With distances that stretch out boundlessly
And silences that somehow cannot be
Heard by my heart, which feels a sudden chill.
It seems these rustling leaves, this silence vast
Blend into one. Eternity draws nigh.
The present sounds and seasons, those long past
Become one sea of endless lives and deaths.
My thought is drowned, and yet it does not die:
It plunges into sweet, refreshing depths.
(il naufragar m'è dolce in questo mare.)
That’s not quite it, the poem , of unbelievable potency, is untranslatable, but it picks up Newton's unfathomable ocean and dives rapturously into it and captures how we can stare back at the meaninglessness of infinite space, while sitting in a small hedged world, and the fond hill beyond, and find that little things like the rustling of leafage sound an harmonious counterpoint to the awesomely chill silence of eternity, so that, in the end, the human subject (after all, consciousness is just nature happening to go beyond its entropic dynamics of creative destruction by accidentally creating a singularity capable of self-awareness. Nature paradoxically 'tripped' (LSD) out of its genial brutality or brutishness, by enabling a part of it to make a quantum leap beyond its natural thrust, endowed with a Medusan gaze that can pierce reflectively into the heart of its thinginess, and find, despite the frigid truth of eternity, joy in the sheer fortuitous, dysfunctional act of sublunary perception itself). Leopardi got it just right: Gerard Manley Hopkins stepped back into what the Thane of Cawdor in Macbeth called ‘supernatural solicitings’, but captures the same thing, even if in provincial theological trappings, in that magnificent poem that runs:
The world is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man's smudge and shares man's smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.
And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs —
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.
No one should ever read that without recalling how stumbling upon it in a library radically transformed the life of Stanley Kunitz in 1926 (a wonderful year for poets, over a dozen American masters of the genre were born that year).
This is offhand, and doesn’t quite measure up to your request. I must do some work, but will search my memory b(l)anks (like all modern banks, on the verge of bankruptcy these days, being slower) to forage out something more precise. Affectionately. Nishidani (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

That Page[edit]

I sincerely apologize for dragging you into this, so immediately too, but;

Recent edit by TH1980, here[3] and updated here [4].

I have a couple of questions about it,
1. What does he mean by "advanced", what's advanced about it? compared to previous workings.
2. Originally, "may even have been made by a Korean immigrant..." later changed to "Probably made by either a Japanese artist or a Korean artist". The issue is, what does the source say? (I don't have it, I think maybe you do)
3. Not actually related to the edits; the wording, it seems, very suggestive without being explicit. Both of the above comments apply, also "true art" does as well. There's a marked difference when discussing China though, "However, Tamamushi Shrine is also painted in a manner similar to Chinese paintings of the sixth century." It's far more matter of fact, lacks the flair of words used when discussing Korea.
My questions are 1)Is the edit correct?, you discussed the sourcing for the writing, I can't seem to find it and 2)Is this a general pattern throughout the article, the writing for Korea vs China? Mr rnddude (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
This is not about whether he finally got an edit right. It is about how much work and waste of time it takes for any editor to force that ideologically fixated nationalist blockhead, who, with his tagteaming mate, controls by persistent rewrites and reverts of everything the content there, to admit that he cheats round the clock in his use of sources, while maintaining a magnificent composure per WP:AGF even when hauled over the coals for his deceptiveness.
TH1982 wrote over a year ago

The first Japanese lacquerwork was produced by or influenced by Korean and Chinese craftsmen in Japan. Most notably is Tamamushi Shrine, a miniature shrine in Horyū-ji Temple, which was created in Korean style, possibly by a Korean immigrant to Japan. Tamamushi shrine, described by Beatrix von Ragué as "the oldest example of the true art of lacquerwork to have survived in Japan", is decorated with a uniquely Korean inlay composed of the wings of tamamushi beetles.

2 days ago he re-edited the page to adjust this section, accepting just one part of my argument, that this 'Korean' shrine shows a Sui Dynasty i.e. Chinese style, as many sources noted. here. Under further protest asking him to justify the phrasing uniquely Korean inlay from the source at his elbow (which I didn't have) he then changed it to this
I could see there that he was tacitly admitting that he had fudged his source. So I looked up the German original to which I have access, and it said

'Wahrscheinlich ist es richtig, den Tamamushi-Schrein in den Stralungsbereich koreanischer Kunst in Japan zu rücken, sei es, daß er von Koreanern selbst dort hergesellt wurde, sei es, daß Japaner ihn in Anlehnung an koreanische Arbeiten schufen.' Beatrix von Ragué, Geschichte der japanischen Lackkunst, Walter de Gruyter, 1967 p.5

This states unambiguously that the work may be either of immigrant Korean or local Japanese manufacture. I detected therefore that while under pressure he was adjusting his text, he still wouldn't budge on the assertion it was 'possibly' the work of a Korean.
I forced him to transcribe the book he had access to which said the same thing:

It is probably correct to place the Tamamushi shrine within the overall context of Korean art in Japan, whether it was made by Koreans in Japan or whether Japanese craftsmen created it, referring back to Korean models

I.e. he wrote possibly by a Korean immigrant to Japan while before his eyes the source said the shrine was possibly the handiwork either of a Korean or a Japanese craftsman in Japan. That is deliberate source falsification. I showed this with pedantically minute, step by step, wiki-for-kindergarten-preschoolers' steps. For, is it 48 hours?, he refused to make this correction, but finally, when I told the page that since the idiots dictating its content won't kindly fuck off, I'll fuck off, he yielded and at last corrected it here.
He falsified over a year ago the source text in more than 3 key points, and even after I called his bluff, took 2 days to correct each point.
You want to waste your time arguing comma by comma with a POV-pushing cunctator who does this with every item on that page (90% of which) has not been subject to third party verification. Go ahead, but you're wasting your time. Lots of luck.Nishidani (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
As I said above, I am no longer interested in that page, because two years dealing with polite passive aggressiveness tells me I'm wasting my time, so I'd appreciate the courtesy of you just not consulting me any more on it.Nishidani (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for the response and sorry to bother you. Cya around, Mr rnddude (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Benjamin Murmelstein[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Benjamin Murmelstein, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Benjamin Murmelstein saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! (Sorry about the "welcome to Wikipedia" stuff; this is the template the copyvio template says I'm supposed to use...) TransporterMan (TALK) 02:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Well T M, this is very odd. Some IP plunked a copyright violation accusation into the text here, which since I'd delisted the page after editing it, I missed. I guess your template is an automatic substitute for his assertion. I'll leave this to User:Avraham or anyone else, but the accusation was false. I used 7, mainly book, sources to provide details on this. I use Lilla in paraphrase several times, but only one very short quote. I think fair usage allows one to paraphrase a book or article, and am under the impression that copyright involves extensive direct use of a source. Under the principle I assume is used here, (a) because one source is challenged, all the other sources in the passage are rendered invisible until that one issue is sorted out (b) you can't paraphrase any article from the New York Review of Books several times, for dates, place names, ands biographical data, without getting their permission. But you can cite the Holocaust Encyclopedia entry on Elie Wiesel 8 times, the Jewish Virtual Library entry 7 times, and the Huffington Post obit 6 times, without having similar issues raised. Or a closer analogy for a controversial figure in the same tragic circumstances, Rudolf Kastner uses Anna Porter's biography 15 times. Has an article, discreetly used and duly acknowledged, some special status on the New York Review of Books, which excludes fair use? Or is this simply that an anonymous IP plunked a deceptive claim about copyright abuse which after a lapse of time was converted into a template that blocked the content? Nishidani (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
@TransporterMan: I read the text line by line against the source and see very little direct copying. To me it looks like standard paraphrase and given that it is properly cited I don't see how it is a copyvio. Perhaps you can explain more. Zerotalk 14:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

There's an AfD that concern a topic related to you[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hallel Yaffa Ariel--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to clear out a small thing[edit]

I wouldn't mind unless you'd state it the second time but I am actually not quite bilingual between Hebrew and French, my English is better than my French, especially in writing. If you assumed it's because I wrote I am a French citizen, I wasn't really born in France but to a French mother.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I topped my class in French, and was reading the classics by 15 in the original - not a sign of intelligence at all, just a passion for the language which seemed to say things more insightfully that English. I finally went to France, got off a train in Paris and asked for some information and the porter listened, turned round to his mate and said, ignoring me:'Fuck, another one of them Pommie arseholes thinking he can speak French!', the smashing of my illusions was so embarrassing that I never spoke it again for 10 years, even when I had what the Japanese can a 'sleeping dictionary', and she, a Parisian, like most young French people those days at least, couldn't spell for nuts. Meaning, if you learnt your French from a native speaker from childhood, even if just everyday colloquial French and not the high falutin grammar of Racine, to bridge the gap and reach total native fluency usually takes just a few months of immersion in France or its outremer societies. In that sense you are fluent, and bilingual. Aa to grammar, Harmer's 'The French Language Today' (1954) has a large section on the grammatical errors in Flaubert, Gide, Proust etc. In short, to use a showbiz idiom:'Avec le matériel que vous avez, il n'y a vraiment pas besoin d'aller au charbon'. Regards Nishidani (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

A title[edit]

I thought you would soon take advantage of my sanction to make sweeping edits to the Khazar hypothesis page, but happily you've actually added content instead of deleting mine. I'd love it if you could transfer most of the content from the Khazars page to the hypothesis page- particularly about the history of the hypothesis. It belongs there! One tip, try not to go overboard with the prose which can be borderline turgid. For example, insouciant. Most readers will not know what that word means. Oh, and it was my birthday! Hooray for me!--Monochrome_Monitor 04:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Then a hundred happy returns for you!
You noted then that I stay off a page after, as a result of my actions, someone ends up getting sanctioned. That's a principle. Even if I believe I am in the right, there's a sense of guilt, to be paid by a symbolic form of self-punishment, like not ducking in to profit from the situation.
No, articles aren't written by transferring blobs from one good article to a mediocre one. They are written from the bottom up, fresh. I transferred the basic points on Khazars re its history, and am just expanding them on the hypothesis page. The Khazar mainpage is very stable by editorial consensus, and way past GA level. It was ridden of the POV-mongering that made it impossible to edit, and returning to try and strengthen a POV slant is deleterious.
Anything I delete will be registered on the talk page, for reference later. In our squabble, you edited so hectically, without talk page notes, that no one could have the slightest idea of what you'd done over the long term.
That said, I must have breakfast. Enjoy your summer, go to the beach, dance a bit etc: the real world is not a computer screen or scream, but the books that this technology replaced, or otherwise, a walk in a Norwegian wood, fireflies flitting like dongs with a luminous nose over the nightscape, or stretching oneself rigore mortis to catch and be swept up by a comber breaking towards glistening sands etc. Regards Nishidani (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hah. I see what you did there. I'm not asking you to change anything on "khazars" slant-wise. I'm saying that it should not go into the subject in so much detail. And Jonney agreed, "Just trim the text and drive readers to other article." Please stop invoking an imaginary consensus. There is no consensus that the page should go into so much detail about the khazar hypothesis. In fact in our discussion about it you were outnumbered 3:1. --Monochrome_Monitor 12:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The version of Khazars you see is one done under the constant watchful eyes and independent corrective judgements of Users Jeppiz, Andrew Lancaster, Laszlo Panaflex and a few others. The article goes into great detail in all sections, and in the section you object to, the detail is proportional to the detail in others. And proportional to the lead. I don't think anything there should be altered except with a proposal made to the talk page, with input from those editors, who can and do disagree with me on specific issues, but guarantee a neutral perspective.Nishidani (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


I did not violate anything. I have edited no article related to the I/P conflict. And Bolter asked me to comment on that discussion. At this point I cannot help but think you have it out for me.--Monochrome_Monitor 01:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

No one has it in for you Georgia. But commenting in a I/P related AfD and commenting on Khazars are mild slips. Please control temptation to get involved in these areas for the specified time as agreed. I would like to see you editing in other areas. You seem to come to a grinding halt during these incidents, in terms of your editing activity. Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Look, I'm rarely harsh in the real world. I get on with everybody, even with difficult people like myself. You are hugely out of your depth, and are making a psychomachia with me on a topic you have only a grazing acquaintance with. You do this, apparently, because you take your encounters with me in editing as an opportunity to assert your right to an identity. For a year now, every time I read your challenges, I keep mumbling to myself:
'Oh God, here we go. She's trying to drag me into a wiki stage fight along the lines of Hegel's dialectic of Herr und Knecht in the Phenomenology. She takes me for a Herr, and wants to do battle to extract some Anerkenntnis from me.' That is the fundamental basis for Transference theory.
You won't understand the allusion, even if you google it, because it takes a very long time to absorb that subtle theory, but that's how I read all this crap, of being forced into a feudal mode of conflict by a 19 year old, and compelled to adopt a role as combatant in order to be exhausted into saying: 'Gee whiz. You're bright. You have taught me a thing or two. Well done!' Your language everywhere betrays this competitive urge to demand 'recognition' as an expert on whatever you edit or write about. E.g.
'I wish you could accept that I'm not inferior to you.'
'That's disrespectful.'
'You're clearly the misinformed one.'
'Here my hostility is directed towards onceinawhile, not you.'
You keep making mistakes, backtracking when corrected, waving huge absurd generalizations that are easily disposed of, coming back, 'clarifying', then counter-attacking by misapprehending what I suggested, and building a humongous thread of further assertions, which are full of sheer dumb-ignorant statements, and if corrected, you leap at some statement in the correction you can challenge, and then controvert it, usually with a string of equally dubious know-all generalizations that require amendment or correction, simply, it strikes me, to achieve this weird desire for a self-confirmed sense of 'parity', if not convince yourself that you've given the old guy his come-uppance. It's a pathetic soap-opera you're writing and I refuse to play a part in it. I've been hammering away at one central point for over a year. Scholarship teaches one to be wary of certainties. You persist in saying you know where the truth lies. I correct errors: you assert that you have mastered these topics in a few weeks and have decided who's right, and who's wrong. I'm deeply embarrassed every time you keep repeating the pattern. I've read about the Hittites for a half a century, sometimes in extreme detail, and you came at me with a 'lesson' that suggests I haven't understood what any browser of one article in a newspaper touching on them might grub up. That is a fantastic faux pas, or it means:'Nishidani, you're bluffing and I'm calling you with all of the depth of my couple of hours of desultory study in hand'(That would belong to a farcical scenario, of two conmen playing poker each with busted 'hands') The last one?
the Amorites were not a canaanite people (note: pontifical obiter dictum style. Conclusion: she doesn't know the literature)
'There is at this time no practical distinction to be made between indigenous Canaanites and migrating Amorites, since "Canaanite" culture is, in fact, only originating and beginning to take on its distinctive character with the gradual and successive Amorite migrations. That is, Amorite culture becomes Canaanite culture since there does not seem to have been a distinct indigenous West Semitic culture in Canaan before its infusion by Amorites. Indeed, the precursors of the Amorites in Canaan do not seem to have been Semitic, let alone West Semitic.' Phyllis Saretta,Asiatics in Middle Kingdom Egypt: Perceptions and Reality, Bloomsbury 2016 p.12. Cf. Genesis, 15:19-21; Joshua 7:7)
I studied the topic area here very intensely at your age, under academic supervision. I would be won over to a thesis, brandish it in a conversation only to find, or be told, that I'd missed another article which blew that one out of the water. My mentors would gradually inculcate into me a point to be found in a classic work of that time from Denys Page in his History and the Homeric Iliad,(1959 p.106)

Here is a boxing-ring in which none but the fully trained philologist is likely to remain standing for more than a round or two. The layman may occupy a ringside seat; but unfortunately there is no knockout, and it is doubtful whether the onlooker is competent to decide who has won.(I have devoted much time and trouble to this matter, and give here a summary judgement on the apparent facts)

You won't take that on board. You give the impression of suffering from an unsufferable juvenile arrogance, of wanting to box like a flapper with a retired pugilist who admits only that in his time, he never got beyond a bantam level, but has followed the heavyweight fights at ringside for half a century, and finds skittish imitations of Mohammad Ali by neophytes laughable. This is Sunday, I've better things to do.Nishidani (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This a throwback I kept on record while things were cooling down. Don't get too mad about this as it was written weeks ago, I just wanted it on the record because I don't want you to think I conceded my point.
I'm actually very familiar with psychoanalytic theory, both from my own amateur research and a Psychology class I took a few months ago. I never said Amorites are not Canaanites because they have different cultures. I didn't include them because of their origins (the syrian desert), history (predating "canaanites" proper by a millennia), and language. ("Canaanite" is a linguistic grouping of which amorite is not a part by all conservative definitions. We don't have enough knowledge of their language to judge whether they spoke an archaic dialect of northwest semitic rather than a direct proto-language of Aramaic or Canaanite. A similar problem is posed with Ugaritic, also occasionally speculated to be Canaanite.) Regardless even if you consider them Canaanites and their culture Canaanite (as the Bible does), this does not contradict my point that Canaanite culture was generally homogenous in the MBA. [5] It's funny because you say that I make false statements and then backtrack to "clarify" - when that's exactly what you do. You find one thing I've written, say "you're wrong", when I prove it you say something like "the entire time I was saying that generalizations are bad". Forgive me for my "zero inability" - why couldn't you have said that initially? "Ethnicity is a sociocultural construct which archaeologists cannot reconstruct based on pots alone - the process of ethnogenesois occurs over a period of time and its catalysts cannot be relegated to a specific event?" That would have been very reasonable. But instead you said that I have no idea what I'm talking about. That's another thing- instead of defending your own words you belittle mine. You say "what about the Hittites?" I say that "the Hittites of the Bronze Age are different from the Neo-Hittites of the Iron Age", you say "everyone knows that, stop lecturing me, I studied Hittite philology before you were born". Hittite philology obviously didn't help you to remember that the Hittites of the Bible did not speak Hittite. There are clashes of opinion in everything and yet even your sources arrive at a conclusion - which incidentally never contradicts my initial testimony. I gave my opinion and supported it with facts and scholars interpretation of facts. You think they are "generalizations of tidbits" but they are not- and that gets to the heart of contention between us - you degrade my knowledge to the back of a cereal box while acquiring yours through decades of solemn introspection and study. Well your studies of Ancient Canaan did not leave you prepared to date her polities to the proper millenia. If I am a neophyte, what does that make you? (that last part was a rhetorical device, but it seems mean now, and I hope you aren't upset by it.) --Monochrome_Monitor 12:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

To repeat, I have seen no trace in a year and a half that you have anything but a smattering of the subjects you edit. I see everywhere a desire to venture into editing that will invite challenges, and conflict. You have an immense presumption to know far more than the scholars who write on these topics, who at least have the modesty to admit that the past consists of theoretical constructs, not a flourishing of certitudes. You have no familiarity with psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis consists of, before it regards others, a rigorous monitoring of one's proper frailties, of one's contaminated subjectivity, as one thinks, reads, writes or speaks. What bores me stiff is the endless prospect of a quite simple example of a Wiederholungszwang,, where the edit conflicts are mere pretexts. Everything above is a disordered mess, some of it hilarious ('Hittite philology obviously didn't help you to remember that the Hittites of the Bible did not speak Hittite'). I say this without enmity, or being upset, or 'mad' at you. Good luck. Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly my point. If I am so ignorant about this subject, and you are wrong about Canaanite culture in the MBA (you clearly are), you are guilty of the same. I articulated myself quite clearly. You cited your knowledge of hittite philology as evidence of your familiarity with the Hittites, I said the Hittites in the Bible, the ones in Canaan, didn't speak Hittite. Do you contest that? Saying "I took Hittite philology" in this context is rather like an Egyptologist claiming intimate knowledge of modern Egyptian culture because they can read hieroglyphics. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

you are wrong about Canaanite culture in the MBA (you clearly are)

We haven't discussed 'Canaanite culture in the MBA' a huge topic. You made some silly specific generalizations, and I challenged them.

I said the Hittites in the Bible, the ones in Canaan, didn't speak Hittite.

That made me laugh, and I said so. It's a dopey remark for several reasons. Construe again and try to see what assumptions, there are several, are embedded in it. I don't believe that you cannot see, if you actually learn to break down a sentence into its propositional forms, why it is stupid. I see that you now add the ones in Canaan, vastly changing the implications. But it is still an empty sentences. A hint, 'the Hittites in the Iliad, the ones in Troy, didn't speak Hittite'. A second hint, the ascribed Hittites in the Bible are located in that narrative in time frames that encompass more than a millennium. Well, I've almost done your homework for you.Nishidani (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

This entire conversation started when you contested my statement that Canaanites were not culturally diversified in the Middle Bronze Age and their ethnogenesis came about during/after the Bronze Age Collapse. That's not a silly generalization, it's a fact, which I have proven. You were wrong and are wrong. Your comparison to the Iliad is also farcical. The Iliad is a book written by a man who was compiling and reworking oral history of pre-collapse Greece. Much like the Bible's account of Judges, it's a "golden age" romanticized by early Iron Age authors.In contrast the Bible was a contemporary witness to the Syro-Hittites, also called in the Hebrew Bible (Hamathites) for their capital Hamath, after the Aramean neo-hittite kingdom in Hama, Syria. In our entire conversation you haven't given me an inkling of a clue that you, who refers to the cultures of mythical peoples as proof of your argument, have any idea what you're talking about.You are wrong, you know you are wrong, further disputation is simply a way of defending your ego. Any trivial points you could make in response to this will not change the fact that you were wrong,and you will never admit to being wrong, so further discussion isn't worth my time.--Monochrome_Monitor 13:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

'The Iliad is a book written by a man who was compiling and reworking oral history of pre-collapse Greece.'
Keep it up. I do need the respite of comedy from the rather intricate translation I'm editing at the moment. If I'd written that in my preliminary MA thesis on the Odyssey, I'd have been kicked in the arse. The same goes for the rest. When you are hired to tutor post-graduates on the history of the ancient Near Middle East, let me know.Nishidani (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Again you take one thing I say into question, leaving behind the fundamental fact that you were wrong. I was thinking of the Trojan Epic Cycle, which would have been a better comparison. The comparison to the Illiad is actually more ridiculous, you should be flattered that I assumed from you a more rational argument. I wish I found your intransigence as humorous as you find my impertinence. You were wrong about Canaanites in the Middle Bronze Age. Now leave me alone.--Monochrome_Monitor 01:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

You are (or appear to be?) wrong, for once...[edit]

Hello, Nishidani. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


My humble advice is to ignore him and not spend any time on that talk page. Complete and total waste of time. Only reason I posted there was so if he reverted again there would have been a notice of him being aware of the rule and to demonstrate how he would selectively enforce it. nableezy - 16:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

You're right of course. Dialogue with the deaf. Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
of course, all is not lost. There are tougher forms of communication like that heroic Isa Amro trying to talk to David Wilder :) Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


I believe you just violated WP:1RR at Israelites. WarKosign 20:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks WarKosign. I always appreciate a tip-off on possible issues like this. Correct me if I err but I don't think 1R applies to an historical article dealing with events ca.900 BCE, as it does inflexibly, happily for us, in the I/P area. At that time neither Jews nor Palestinians existed. We only have Israelites. If I'm wrong of course, please drop me another note, and I will of course revert.Nishidani (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Article's talk page says that it is of interest to both wikiproject Israel and Palestine, and so it seems to me that it does fall under WP:ARBPIA. Specific subject that is being discussed is also very relevant - it affects the claim modern Jews have on Israel (Palestine) as their ancestral homeland. WarKosign 21:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
There is absolutely no way an issue like the relationship of Israelites to Samaritans in 900 BCE can be connected to the I/P conflict. Palestine is the historic name for the area from prehistoric times, and is not to be confused with the politics of 'Palestine' as the 'State of Palestine'. As to the claims of Israel, Jeezus. If we have to apply 1R to every article dealing with Israel from the 1207 BCE when the term is inscribed on the Merneptah stele, because whatever you edit in will be read as influencing the hot air balloons of Jewish legitimacy claims, we are entering into the sphere of pure insanity. I'll ask User:Doug Weller for clarification. He know the topic area well, and has the neutrality to make a call regardless of POV interests. Okay? Whatever he says is more or less Tanakh as regards policy. If you have another admin in mind, by all means drop them a note. The more input the better, because this has vast ramifications. (Aside from the fact that, and I can produce it, the Samaritan-Israelite link is vastly documented, and Debresser's edit is just running in the face of numerous technical studies of its historiography.) Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion ARBPIA applies: "The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted". Feel free to disagree. I consider 1RR an effective tool for stopping edit wars and wouldn't mind seeing it applied to the whole wikipedia. I notified Debresser as well about what I think was their violation of 1RR. I'm not going to report either of you, just wanted to reminder you both that edit warring is not the way to go, no matter how wrong and/or biased you consider each other. WarKosign 21:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, the Arab-Israeli conflict is a century old. To take broadly construed as twisting that century into 3 millennia is a long-stretch in policy hermeneutics. Rest assured that I revert when, rarely now, it is ascertained that I broke the rule inadvertently. I've called on an admin to review this. Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I was afraid this would eventually happen. We now have a severe danger of millennia-creep in what was a sensible and sound policy within the bounds of the very recent events that is I/P. Where will it end? I think we should urgently clarify a cut-off point, distinguishing the ancient and diverse mass of articles on WP which could be seriously retarded in their development, from these modern events. It would be hugely counter-productive if fully applied, and if anything will attract a bogus "legitimisation - delegitimisation" aspect to many articles and will dangerously politicize them. Completely anarchronistic thinking here. Maybe a 1RR rule on the whole project will one day come, but this is not the best area to start imo. Irondome (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Simon. Well, perhaps it is to the good that WarKoSign brought it up, just so this, which I'd never imagined, is clarified, one way or another. I don't know how much my word is trusted round here, but I must say this: a magnificently successful modern state does not need to show the incessant rumblings of anxiety of legitimation I occasionally see here, spilling over into Biblical hermeneutics, ancient Near Eastern history, genetics etc.etc. The world around Israel is in ruins, when not a petrol-driven monoculture of Potemkin village flashiness, because it has been dominated by utterly incompetent pseudo-modernizers. I know the environment in geostrategic terms tends towards apocalyptic worries, but I once heard Ernest Gellner saying that the problem with very successful modernizers is that they fail to just ease up a little to enjoy the fruits of their success. Anxiety is counter-productive in that it only ends up in irrational micromanagement that loses sight of the big picture. I've never believed the legitimacy of Israel, or any other nation, rests on certificates of lineal racial descent, or the Biblical stories, which mostly aren't true, but constitute a mythopoetics as contemporary with hermeneutics of the human condition as you find in Greek tragedy. Oedipus is still with us, though a Greek myth (that turns up in the Amazon and Africa!), as is Isaac under Abraham's knife, which is equally true, though it never happened probably. Israel in law exists,- irrespective of whatever stories were told to justify the implementation of the Balfour declaration: its legitimacy no longer rests on those stories, and cannot be challenged except by someone who wishes to make a public statement of their antisemitism. Don't believe that? Look at any cutting edge research, archaeological, historical etc., in Israel, and most of the narrative is way out of whack with the common story. Nothing unusual, this happens everywhere, from Japan, to China, to the United States, and only the political elites keep harping on the 'City upon a hill, or the autochononousness of Yamato emperors (the Imperial house won't allow excavations from fear of finding a Korean peninsular connection), etc,etc.etc. Ease up, chaps.Nishidani (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


Hey, this is a reminder to keep a cool head during content disputes, especially in as heated an area as you're editing in. The last paragraph here is unhelpful on several levels. Edit dispassionately; if you're getting too frustrated, relax and take a break. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

You're quite right. The pity of these things is that if I document quite minutely stalling through automatic reverting on a series of pretexts, which lasted two days, wasted several hours of my time on just one edit, and, at the end of 50 hours, in which the editor had ample time to actually look and examine the one line cited to actually construe it correctly, he finally admitted that his objection was wrong, and that the reigning Samaritan authority on the topic, reliably published by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, is more reliable than any wiki editor for Samaritan history, this falls by the wayside as an index of a behavioural problem. Multiply that kind of obstructionism over numerous edit disagreements for several years, and one gets an inkling of how much effort is required, extending through massive talk page remonstrations, to A/1, to achieve what simple common sense and standard wiki protocols on collegial editing would achieve in 5 minutes. To say 'fucking'/ or exclaim 'what the fuck', at the end of yet one more proof of WP:IDONTLIKEIT cunctator removalist obstructionism, is obviously not bon ton. To engage in the other order of obtuse refusal to actual parse a simple sentence over 2 days is, if done politely, something that falls under our radar. By the way, I'm fairly patient, rarely unnerved, and use such expressions while feeling quite serene. If you knock on a door several times, and no one present answers, you don't keep politely knocking: you give the door a healthy thump. Still, your advice is well-taken.Nishidani (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#SECTIONTITLE and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Debresser (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

In our exchanges over this, I've cited several scholarly works on the Israelites and Samaritans, which appear to make you uncomfortable. Rather than nag the arb bone, why not just go to the library and read them? I'm sure studying the textual differences and histories of transmission of the Samarian Israelitic Pentateuch and the Masoretic text of the same will prove far more rewarding for you than wasting time on squabbling.Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

City of David[edit]

Dear Nishidani! In your edit to City of David you converted 'identified' to 'claimed'. Please read WP:CLAIM my friend, implying whether or not that is true is not desired where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

An English lesson. 'to identify' in these contexts means to establish a fact. Mazar did not establish a fact but asserted a hypothetical identity between a part of a site and a Biblical location. This means she made a 'claim' that the two were identical. It is, as experts in the field argue, a 'claim' embedded in, to them, faulty analogies.

the highly critical assessment put forth by Tel Aviv archeologists against the work of Prof. Eilat Mazar, who excavated at the site between 2005 and 2008. Mazar concluded that aStructure and Large Stone Structure which they found was some sort of royal palace, very possibly King David’s, and this claim is promoted by the City of David. Not long after, several Tel Aviv archeologists, including Prof. Israel Finkelstein, lambasted Mazar in a rejoinder to her published findings for her reliance on the Bible in making her assessment of the palace. “The Biblical text dominates this field operation, not archaeology,” the article accuses. “Had it not been for Mazar’s literal reading of the Biblical text, she never would have dated the remains to the 10th century BCE with such confidence.” The authors of the article suggested that Mazar took very broad creative license with her reconstruction of the palace, utilizing a type of Bible-centered archeological practice that had fallen out of popularity in the late 20th century, but had, as they deemed, “reemerged with all its attributes in the City of David.” Dafna Laskin, Shake-up at City of David,' Jerusalem Post 14 April 2013.Nishidani (talk) 10:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)



I.e.A politician is someone who recognizes a fact a century later than those who experienced it.Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Pithy. Better late than never.--Monochrome_Monitor 12:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
We are talking about, having the ability to exploit a strong friendship with Turkey and Azerbaijan, or insteed having the honour of officially recognizing the holocuast of a small hated state in the caucasus which is also Putin's little friend....--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of the fact that every student in Israel learn about the Armenian genocide, and that in our world facts who do not serve your interest are not facts.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
In this world of ours, meaning all of us, ascertaining the facts is the first move. As you say, interests govern the selection. But all facts, irrespective of who produces them, are liked bevelled jewels: they take on different appearances and meanings depending on the angles, and the light refracted on them. Nishidani (talk) 09:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 24 August[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)